Recently in news Category

John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter writes that one of the most serious American lawsuits against the Vatican has been dropped:

In a rare stroke of good news for Rome vis-à-vis the sexual abuse crisis, attorneys for three alleged victims in Kentucky have said they're dropping what many analysts regarded as the most serious civil lawsuit against the Holy See in American courts.
Louisville-based attorney William McMurry gave two reasons for abandoning the case of O'Bryan v. Holy See, one legal and the other practical.
As a legal matter, McMurry told media outlets in mid-August, the Vatican's sovereign immunity under American law set the bar too high. More practically, McMurry said, he couldn't find additional victims willing to come forward who haven't already been part of a lawsuit against the church. Without more plaintiffs, it's unlikely that any settlement or verdict would have been sufficient to offset the costs of litigation, even if the lawsuit had prevailed.
The O'Bryan case was originally filed in 2004, and McMurry had hoped to turn it into a class-action suit on behalf of thousands of victims nationwide.

...

The Vatican's American attorney, Jeffrey Lena, welcomed the decision to abandon the Kentucky case.
"This development confirms that there has never been a Holy See policy requiring concealment of child sexual abuse," Lena said in an August 9 statement. "Bringing this case only distracted from the important goal of protecting children from harm."
Likewise, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi said Aug. 10, "It is good news that a case ... which has had strong negative effects on public opinion has ultimately been proven unfounded."
In comments to Vatican Radio, Lombardi added that he didn't mean to "minimize the horror and condemnation" of child sex abuse, or the compassion due to victims

Just as interesting as the story is the veritable Vatican slamfest in comments section.

How does Lombardi pronounce this case "unfounded?" Unfounded means without merit. This case had merit it was just stymied by the various legal impediments making it nearly impossible to litigate.
Lombardi doesn't understand that when he uses situations like this to claim innocence of the charges [rather than the good fortune of dodging a bullet due to a technicality] it only infuriates people and further erodes their confidence in the governing arm of the Church.
Makes you wonder how stupid they think we really are.

Whoa, man.

Really really stupid.That is how Church Officialdom sees us.
I think Ann Rice stated the feelings of many, many catholics when she made her public leaving of the Church last week. That they are still making like they do not get it when it comes to the disgust of the person in the pew regarding the COVER UP. Pederasts are sad , sick people but Church Administrators who leave children to the vultures to protect their velvet covered butts are reprehensible indeed. These people are not fit to lead.

Good heavens.

And it makes all of us realize what total unfeeling idiots they
are in the Vatican. Sorry for generalizing but they keep showing the world what backward Medieval people they really have become. Also their lawyer, Mr.Lena, says similar things...anything for money right Mr. Lena? Love to know the fantastic amount he is getting paid to litigate the Holy See out of their cover ups and lack of moral courage.
The heirachy needs to do the right thing and admit to what they did and step down from their positions. I think maybe the Holy Spirit is at work and She wants the church to open the windows like John XXIII suggested and have some serious house cleaning done.

And that's just the first three.

Lower down is a clearly less jaded, less bitter Catholic who observes that most of the abuses occurred in the 1960s and 70s, attributes them to the "Spirit of Vatican II," which he apparently considers an erroneous perversion of the letter of the Second Vatican Council itself, and says that the younger, more committed generation of the Church is now "rebuilding."

He is then promptly compared to Adolph Hitler. Sad when people who are actually interested in building up and restoring the Church as the Body of Christ are compared to genocidal dictators. But that is how the crisis has affected some people, including, apparently, some readers of the National Catholic Reporter.

To my fellow Catholics and others of faith reading this: Let's keep all those whose faith has been negatively affected by the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church and elsewhere in our prayers.

No, not me.

The New York Observer reports that New York Post reporter John Wilson is leaving the profession at 25 years old to join a Catholic seminary and begin formation for priestly ministry.

Wilson compared the journalistic profession with the ministry of the Catholic priesthood: "In very different ways and in front of very different audiences, you are trying to sniff out the truth and communicate it."

The headline of the above-linked article reads "Post Scribe Leaves Paper For Priesthood." A little known fact about seminary is that seminary does not necessarily mean that priest is undoubtedly in a man's future. It does not constitute a final decision to become a priest. People go to seminary all the time and choose to leave some time later, because they have discovered that the Catholic priesthood is not for them. That is of course what I did. It may be what this gentleman does. Time will tell.

A Wall Street Journal study published yesterday found that only three out of 52 metro areas in the United States have actually seen gains in both net earnings and personal incomes. "In all three, the biggest gains were among workers in the federal government and the military; private sector compensation fell," writes WSJ's Conor Dougherty. "The same picture was reflected nationally, as private employers froze and in many cases reduced workers' pay and hours."

And the Heritage Foundation noted yesterday:

Unlike the private sector, the federal government has actually been adding jobs, too. According to Heritage Foundation analyst Rea Hederman, since the start of this recession in December 2007, private sector employment has fallen by 6.8 percent while federal government employment has actually increased by 10 percent. Even after factoring in state and local government job losses, governments, on net, have added 64,000 jobs during this recession while the private sector has lost 7.8 million jobs.

Thomas Sowell August 4 astutely observed that the stimulus package really just consists of taking hundreds of billions from one sector of the economy and putting it somewhere else -- somewhere, he surmised, more politically advantageous for Obama than a free and unencumbered market would place it. So when Timothy Geithner claims the stimulus saved a million jobs, what we don't see is the trade-off.

Not all government jobs are bad are pointless, mind you. I have friends and family who do good work for local and state governments, as well as federal. But the work many of them do -- in education, for instance -- is intended to make people independent and independently successful. How many government programs serve to do just the opposite?

Taxes are not an intrinsic evil. But when the Congressional Budget Office reports that the national debt that was 36 percent of gross domestic product in 2007 will be 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, one begins to wonder if sensible public spending has started giving way to simple redistribution.

***
Meanwhile, even the Brits are now realizing that pensions are too high. Could this be where the United States is headed?

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs slammed some members of the Left yesterday in an interview with The Hill newspaper.

"I hear these people saying [Obama]'s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

One of the few times I can honestly say I agree with the Obama White House.

Just in case you missed it: Newsweek reports:

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002--when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines--a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

The upshot: no empirical evidence to show that sexual abuse happens more often in the Catholic priesthood than in other situations, in fact it's possible that it happens less often.

This is not a cause for celebration, obviously. But the problem, again, is not a uniquely Catholic one.

Every now and then modern current events provide good fodder for a modern day parable. Consider the following, from FoxNews:

A computer game retailer revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of online shoppers, thanks to a clause in the terms and conditions agreed to by online shoppers.

The retailer, British firm GameStation, added the "immortal soul clause" to the contract signed before making any online purchases earlier this month. It states that customers grant the company the right to claim their soul.

"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions."

GameStation's form also points out that "we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction."

The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag, but the retailer did so to make a very real point: No one reads the online terms and conditions of shopping, and companies are free to insert whatever language they want into the documents.

While all shoppers during the test were given a simple tick box option to opt out, very few did this, which would have also rewarded them with a £5 voucher, according to news:lite. Due to the number of people who ticked the box, GameStation claims believes as many as 88 percent of people do not read the terms and conditions of a Web site before they make a purchase.

What a great metaphor for life! How often do we stop to examine the "fine print" of our individual moral choices? To take a closer look at where they would lead if we "agreed to the terms," as it were?

In a modern culture of instant gratification, many of us would rather not take the added time and effort needed to examine our choices and think about what lies ahead. We only care about what immediately awaits us on the other side of the "agree" button. Games or applications or whatever. Most of the time, it may be perfectly fine, but always?

Likewise, it is possible to unknowingly release ownership of our souls to someone or something else, if we do not stop to read the fine print of our decisions -- if all we think about is the immediate good that awaits us on the other side of the "agree" button, be it material wealth or sex or notoriety or whatever.

Wisdom requires us to read the proverbial fine print. The act of actually reading the fine print is called "discernment." Modern popular culture is short on both wisdom and discernment. Yet these are the keys to a happy life. We may see some of our friends enjoying all kinds of things, and we may envy them. But we may not see a few years later when they finally read the fine print. When they say, "Oh, I didn't realize material wealth costs money." And think about the number of people you know who carry tremendous regrets that have something to do with sex. Now there's a wonderful gift from God that carries all kinds of fine print.

Again, these good things -- material wealth, sex, popularity -- are good things. But there's not a good thing in this world that doesn't have terms and conditions. That's as it should be. It's God's design.

So it may take a little bit longer, but it's worth it to read the fine print, to pray and discern, even -- and especially -- for the good things in life that we want very badly. Not that God will refuse it to us if we give it serious thought. But it's best to know into what we are getting, and for what we are asking.

And in case you were wondering:

The company noted that it would not be enforcing the ownership rights, and planned to e-mail customers nullifying any claim on their soul.

Usually the world is not so forgiving. But that's why it is nice to have a God who can forgive without needing to know your credit card number. (He does, but He won't use it against you, is my point.) But the key after that is to let Him give us the grace to always read before we "agree."

Villains beware.

Pope Benedict XVI preached a homily at Mass with the Pontifical Biblical Academy yesterday, in which he addressed, in off-the-cuff, non-scripted remarks, not just the ongoing sexual abuse scandals plaguing the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, but the errors of modern thought that made such crimes possible, and the fresh opportunity for the Church to open herself to God's transforming power.

So far there is not a complete transcript, just notes taken by Vatican Radio and others. But if the notes are any indication, it was a brilliant teaching moment from Benedict.

Because so much of this is so great, I'm going to quote it a bit at a time and intersperse my comments. If you, dear reader, wish not to be interrupted by my inferior thoughts, please skip over them. You won't offend me. He's the freakin' pope.

Vatican Radio reports:

Speaking without a prepared text, the Holy Father said that in modern times we have seen theorized an idea of man according to which human being would be, "free, autonomous, and nothing else."

This supposed freedom from everything, including freedom from the duty of obedience to God, "Is a lie," said Pope Benedict, a falsehood regarding the basic structure of human being - about the way women and men are made to be, "because," he continued, "human being does not exist on its own, nor does it exist for itself."

I'm not sure there's a man alive on the planet today who better understands the errors of modern thought than Pope Benedict. He understands that the error is based on something that appears on the surface to be a good, which is freedom. When he says that this particular idea of freedom is a "lie," he is not saying that there is no freedom. He is saying that what many in the modern world mean when they say the word "freedom" is not freedom at all. For God is the source of freedom.

In the modern mind, to be free means to be unencumbered by, often by means of separation. For example, being free from homework by being separated from school, or confinement by being separated from prison. Or morality by being separated from God. But to be separated from God is to be separated from the only source of freedom available to man. Therefore, "freedom" from God in the modern sense is actually the opposite of freedom.

He continues:

The Pope said it is a political and practical falsehood, as well, because cooperation and sharing of freedoms is a necessary part of social life - and if God does not exist - if He is not a point of reference really accessible to human being, then only prevailing opinion remains and it becomes the final arbiter of all things.

Citing the Nazi and Communist regimes of the 20th century as examples, Pope Benedict said such dictatorships can never accept the notion of a God who is above ideological power - and he also stressed that in the present, there are subtle forms of dictatorship like that of a radical conformism, which can lead to subtle and not-so subtle aggression toward the Church.

In the modern world quite often people think there are no facts that cannot be disputed -- only opinions that can be rhetorically cleverer than others, and thus more highly valued as "right." Particularly in the area of morality and politics it is the one who can be funnier or more charismatic who wins. That is not to say that such qualities are bad. They can be very good, but only if they are used to advance truth rather than falsehoods. Those who possess good humor and charisma may be right, or wrong. But in the modern world they are admired regardless as being worthy of our agreement. And on the flipside, those who come off as angry or humorless are dismissed as unworthy of our attention, regardless of whether what they're saying may be true.

The Holy Father also stressed that for Christians, true obedience to God depends on our truly knowing Him, and he warned against the danger of using "obedience to God" as a pretext for following our own desires.

If we don't know a person, we can't know what he wants. We may think that perhaps we know what he wants. But if the thing that we think he perhaps wants coincides with what we certainly know we want, how likely are we to make sure we understand him rightly?

That is the awkward position in which many Catholics finds themselves. We have a Church that professes concrete teachings on the principles of Jesus, many of which impose on us what at times appear to be profound inconveniences -- unreasonable prohibitions. Often, it is not simply that we do not know, but that we would rather not know.

But again, only by summoning up the courage to know the truth -- about ourselves and about God and what he wants -- can we be truly confident in God, and only then can we be truly free.

"We have," he said, "a certain fear of speaking about eternal life."

"We talk of things that are useful to the world," continued Pope Benedict, "we show that Christianity can help make the world a better place, but we do not dare say that the end of the world and the goal of Christianity is eternal life - and that the criteria of life in this world come from the goal - this we dare not say."

How true is this! We hear this a lot these days, and not necessarily always in a bad way. But it's very popular to talk about "What Christ's sacrifice means for me," and "How does this impact my life here and now," etc. But there's a certain self-centeredness there when we think of Christianity only in terms of this present world, and my present life. It's important to do that, of course. But have we perhaps lost sight of our ultimate and final end? The complete happiness that we cannot have in this life, no matter how much money we earn, how many friends we make, and how holy we are? Christianity -- Christ -- is much bigger than this world, and will remain long after this world is gone.

We must rather have the courage, the joy, the great hope that there is eternal life, that eternal life is real life and that from this real life comes the light that illuminates this world as well.

And here we have the flipside of that coin. Part of the problem is, I argue, a certain self-centeredness on the part of man. But the other side of it is simply fear. What, really, is going to happen to me after my heart stops beating? When I lose consciousness for the last time? It is simply the scariest question that human beings can ask themselves. And we are the only species on the planet that fears death on more than just an instinctual level, more than just when death seems uncomfortably near. We worry about it in the comfort of our own homes. Am I ultimately going anywhere besides in the ground?

As with virtually every question that weighs on the human heart, the answer is Jesus. We have in Him a demonstration that death is not the end, that we are heading for something greater. Don't just cling to that when you're afraid. Own it always. Believe and know that eternal life is waiting.

The Catholic News Service quotes him near the end of his remarks.

Recognizing the sins of priests who have sexually abused children, performing penance and asking for forgiveness, the Catholic Church trusts that God will purify and transform the church, Pope Benedict XVI said.

"I must say that we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word 'penance,' which seemed too harsh to us. Now, under the attacks of the world that speaks to us of our sins, we see that being able to do penance is a grace."

Like death, we fear penance. Penance is a kind of death because we put to death our perverse desires. And Benedict is pointing to the recent terrible offenses of abusive priests, but also takes this as an opportunity not just for those perpetrators, but for all the members of the Church to really examine ourselves. If we truly possess the truth of the Jesus Christ, if we receive Him fully, then we should be the least afraid of the change it would make in ourselves.

That's the amazing thing about what Pope Benedict is doing here. He's taking the recent egregious crimes of the priests as an opportunity for the whole Church to be an example to the world of the change that Christ can make if we open ourselves to Him. There are many calling for change in how the Church operates as an institution. Such suggestions are worth considering. But Benedict understands that even more urgently needed is the transformation of hearts -- those of the Church's shepherds and their followers.

* * *

When I think of people going off the cuff the way Benedict has, I often picture them launching into rants against this person or that person, angrily speaking and wishing ill. None of that here. He attacks no individual person or group of persons. He simply invites people to examine the prevailing ideas of the modern world. And he does it with love, motivated by the love of Christ and the fire of the Holy Spirit. As his five-year anniversary approaches, I am thankful for this pope.

* * *

Reuters reported on the pope's words here, and the New York Times here.

Hat tip to the First Things blog and Rocco Palmo's Whispers in the Loggia.

Pat Archbold at the National Catholic Register writes about about how the media is "very confused" about how to react to the appointment of Archbishop Jose Gomez to the Los Angeles Archdiocese. It's actually pretty funny.

The media is alternately ecstatic and apoplectic over Pope Benedict's choice for the city of Angels. Several news outlets, notably the LA Times, have already written several articles about what to expect from Archbishop Gomez and have even tried to send thinly-veiled warnings. But in most of the coverage, the media makes the same mistake that it always makes when it tries to cover religion like politics. They attempt to view all matters through the lens of politics and feel compelled to attempt to classify everything in terms of the modern political definitions of 'progressive' or 'conservative.'

Trying to do this with Archbishop Gomez has left their collective heads spinning.

Archbishop Gomez is a Mexican-born hispanic. Hooray!

Archbishop Gomez is a full member of Opus Dei. Gasp!?!

Archbishop Gomez is a staunch defender of immigrants. Hooray, he is a progressive!

Archbishop Gomez is a staunch defender of life. (He even denounced a Catholic university when it invited Hillary Clinton.) Horror, he is a conservative!

Archbishop Gomez has a history of dedication to the poor. Progressive!

Archbishop Gomez is vocally opposed to homosexual marriage. Conservative!

I could go on. They are perplexed. How can a Bishop be 'orthodox'--which in the mind of the media means 'conservative' and uncaring--and still dedicated to the poor and the defenseless?

A one word answer: Catholic. What the media consistently does not get is that 'orthodoxy' in a truly Catholic sense entails love for all the teachings of Jesus, as handed down through the Church including the command to love.

Archbishop Gomez loves the Church, the poor, the homosexual, the immigrant, and the unborn all at the same time. He is Catholic.

So when the media reports on the Church, they should take off the politically-colored glasses of red and blue and remember one thing. It's the love, stupid.

The Associated Press says the Catholic Church in America is moving faster on abuse cases now, but not everybody is happy about it.

The action against the priest was swift and public.

Within five days of receiving a decades-old child sex abuse allegation against the Rev. Melvin Thompson, Denver's Roman Catholic Archdiocese investigated, alerted law enforcement and announced his suspension to parishioners and the public.

The archdiocese says Thompson, 74, maintains his innocence. Some parishioners have complained the process was unfair and too fast. However Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput called prompt action "painful but necessary."

The episode highlights the challenges American Catholic Church leaders face as they follow through on a promise to be more transparent in dealing with priests accused of abuse, while respecting the rights of both victims and the accused.

Whaaat? Since when has the maintsream press been concerned about the rights of accused Catholic priests? I guess it's never too late to start seeing the other possible side of the story. Some in te archdiocese are actually a little alarmed that the process is happening so quickly. What if the guy didn't do it? And it's being made public that he's accused of sexual misconduct with minors?

"You're damned if you do and damned if you don't," said [Thomas] Plante, vice chairman of the National Review Board. "That's part of the challenge now. People have demands and want to know, but we do have laws and due process for a reason."