jump to navigation

Fr. Richard McBrien stirring it up February 24, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in foolishness, General Catholic.
comments closed

The guy Fr. Erik Richtsteig calls tricky Dick, Fr. Richard McBrien, is stirring up trouble again.   Fr. McBrien is violently opposed to the new Mass translations that are in the final stages of development.   To give the history briefly, in the early 1970’s an English vernacular translation of the Mass was released after a very short period of development.  This translation was, it is commonly viewed, developed too quickly and contains a number of errors.  There have been many complaints since its implementation that the English translation misses much of the substance of the original Latin and constitutes a substantial dumbing down of the content of the Mass.  There have been cries for its correction since the late 70’s.  The process formally got started in the late 80’s, and after 22 years of development, a new, much improved translation could be ready as early as Advent 2011. 

Fr. McBrien cites another priest, a Fr. Ryan, who feels that the new translation is being rushed into use.  Fr. McBrien shares these views.  So, the current translation which was rushed into service after a period of development spanning months, involved an appropriate amount of review and development in their minds, whereas this new translation under development for decades, is rushed.  That’s quite a train of logic. 

I don’t think it is unfair to say that Fr. McBrien is well known for his heterodox views.  In plain fact, he speaks heresy, frequently.  He feels that Eucharistic adoration is a superstitious, useless act.  He supports ordination of women and supports homosexual marriage.  And he fears the new Mass translation, because it is far more accurate, reverent, and orthodox.  The new translation doesn’t just change a word here or there, it conveys different ideas, ideas far more in line with the doctrine of the Church than the current translation.  The current translation emphasizes the horizontal element of the cross, the community of the faithful.  The new translation emphasizes more the vertical element of the cross, our relationship with God.  It also stresses our sinful nature to a greater degree, and our perpetual dependence on God’s grace for our survival and redemption. 

And so, Fr. McBrien is encouraging priests, and any bishops he can convince, to oppose the introduction of the new translation.  He’s encouraging priests to be disobedient to their bishops and to refuse to implement the change.  And, if you read his words, it’s pretty plain he’s hoping for a terribly negative reaction from the laity once the new translation is introduced.  Fr. McBrien would rather be proved right, and have his Church suffer, than be proved wrong.  Of course, I don’t think the new translation is going to be a problem at all, and I pray that adequate formation will take place to help ease its introduction (something that absolutely did not happen in the 70’s – it was presented to the laity one day as a fait accompli). 

Pray for Fr. McBrien and others like him.                      

Our diocesan newspaper, Texas Catholic February 24, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese.
comments closed

Our diocesan newspaper, Texas Catholic, has had some interesting coverage in recent weeks.  One bit of the coverage is just kind of baffling – this sudden lionizing of various age groups within the diocese.  It started a couple of weeks ago with a sort of  tribute to the ‘greatest generation,’ (which description I cannot agree with), and continues in the latest edition with articles highlighting the awesomeness of the notional ‘generation X,’ the ‘millenials,’ and whatever comes after.  Interestingly, while the article was supposed to be about all of these younger generation, it focused exclusively on those aged roughly 13-28 or so, which I guess would be the millenials.  I’m not sure the point of all this, but, whatever. 

Texas Catholic is an interesting critter.  I’m not sure if I like the bland style its assumed since Bishop Farrell was installed more than I liked it before when it was dominated by the progressive, dissent-oriented mindset of its prior editor, the angry and machinating Bronson Havard.   I’m glad I don’t have to put up with his rants anymore, but Texas Catholic under its present management doesn’t seem to have much purpose, other than to advertise regularly for Catholic schools.

Why am I commenting?   Well, another article in Texas Catholic this week covers a recent conference held at the University of Dallas on the subject of Catholic identity.  This is the same conference I referenced in two posts a couple of weeks ago.   From my previous posts, you can see that there were some pretty bold statements made at the conference (re: Catholic taliban), but you’d never know from the Texas Catholic piece.  You’d also not know that there has been a huge war going on for the soul of University of Dallas (UD) for the past 10+ years, ever since the former bishop decided he did not want a clearly and unapologetically Catholic university in his diocese, but wanted instead to make UD “more mainstream.”   Under the leadership of former UD president and highly divisive figure Msgr. Milam Joseph, a large section of the faculty walked, the alumni went into revolt, and we had statements being made by the university president such as “I don’t want this (UD) to be another Steubenville.”  Meaning, he did not want a university that remained faithful to the magisterium and taught orthodox Catholic doctrine, he wanted to be in the cool university club and get invited to all those swanky conferences in 5 star hotels (and if you think I exaggerate the reasoning, you don’t know university administrators).   So, in spite of the fact that the conference was on Catholic identity, that there has been an ongoing civil war at UD, and that the conference had all kinds of hot opinions being given, the article saw fit to mention none of it.  Does the conference signal a continuation of the ongoing battles at UD over its direction as a university?  We’ll never know, at least if we rely on Texas Catholic.

To some extent, I think the two versions of the newspaper reflect the outlooks of their publisher, the bishop.  Under Bishop Grahaman, Texas Catholic was unabashedly progressive, dissent-oriented and combative.  The ‘new’ Texas Catholic is as bland and uncontroversial as can be.  I do appreciate the additional coverage of Catholic schools and the push for more vocations, but even here, the paper is fairly milquetoast.  And that’s fine, if that’s what the bishop wants, but there should be a recognition in the chancery that there are many stories not being covered by Texas Catholic, or covered adequately, and that’s why sites like mine and www.metrocatholic.org are attracting alot of visitors.   Refusing to comment on controversial issues leaves the diocese without a voice – and not much room to complain about what is said on blogs.

2/3 of Canadians favor legalizing euthanasia February 24, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in foolishness, scandals, Society.
comments closed

And almost half of those favor allowing ‘post-birth’ abortion, also known as parental assisted suicide!  

There is a very strong correlation between those states that have the most pervasive, most difficult to avoid government run health care systems, and those states with the strongest support of euthanasia.  Heck, in Holland, doctors get to do ‘involuntary euthanasia’ (also known as first degree murder) without any consequence!

Why the correlation?  Old and/or sick people are expensive.  They are a “drain” on the health care system.  The people in those countries, who are both the funders of the system and the recipients of its care, have a huge incentive in seeing those ‘hard to treat’ people off.  That leaves more health care resources for the more healthy people, which they think will give them a longer life.  Unfortunately, that won’t work, for when the ‘healthy people’ who voted in this euthanasia system get sick, they’ll get seen off, too.  Eventually, doctors, facing massive shortfalls in resources in a publically funded system, will begin to involuntarily euthanize patients  ‘for the good of all.’  It’s this kind of moral nightmare that many people fear, and rightly so, in a publically funded system.

In any government controlled system – be it health care, defense, road-building, whatever, there is always a FINITE amount of supply, because the system is capped by cost – always.  In a private market, free enterprise system, the supply is essentially infinite, so long as there is someone willing to pay for the procedure.  The free-enterprise system may be less ‘fair’ in the sense that not everyone gets the same level of treatment, but on average, everyone gets a better level of treatment with a free-enterprise system than they do with a publically managed one.   That’s why major Canadian politicians come to the US for heart treatment – and aren’t ashamed at all when they do it.  The jackals.

Just a reminder: the Catholic Church infallibly declares that “euthanasia” is intrinsically evil and, thus, always wrong in 100% of all cases.  No one has the right to take their own life that God gave them, or to dictate to God on what terms they will accept that gift of life.  In euthanasia, people are unfortunately suffering a great deal, and that suffering may make them desperate and affect their judgement.  I am sorry for their suffering, but the path is not to seek an out, but to offer their sufferings up and, united with Christ’s suffering, to bring great spritual benefits to themselves and to others.  I know, easy to say, but, it is what God has taught through His Church.