The Gunpowder Plot...

It's Guy Fawkes day, when heretics all over England celebrate one of the major events in the destruction of Catholic, humane, idyllic Britain and the beginning of the protestant nightmare that has brought that "garden, that demi-paradise" to the point of, well, Charles and Camilla, Tony Blair, the Spice Girls, Rowan Williams and company.

I wondered in a post on October 14, a couple of weeks ago how Catholics should mark the day, or respond to those who celebrate it (an abstract question here in the US, but more practical in the UK, where people still light bonfires, set off fireworks, and don Guy Fawkes masks every Nov 5). I actually had a response to that post a few days ago, from Robert, who sent me the following link:
http://www.godspy.com/reviews/November-5-Guy-Fawkes-Day-Go-Out-with-a-Bang-by-John-Zmirak.cfm

The image above is of the small engraving I purchased a few weeks ago, depicting the interrogation of Guy Fawkes before James I. Unless you're some Commonweal-reading, kumbaya-singing pacifist, you gotta admire Guy for trying the Gunpowder Plot, even though he ended up being duped.

Since this is such a banner day for the English "reformation," I suppose this is a good day to plug a great work of counter-propaganda by a nineteenth-century protestant, William Cobbett's History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland. (actually, I hear that Mr. Cobbett crossed the Tiber at some point after finishing this book). TAN, a publisher worthy of support, has the book on sale $16 right now. It's $21 on Amazon, and it's always better to purchase books from small publishers like TAN directly, because the margins are better for them, and consequently, they have more resources to keep valuable books like these in print.

Waugh on being RIGID

"It is better to be narrow-­minded than to have no mind, to hold limited and rigid principles than to have none at all. That is the danger which faces so many people today‚ to have no considered opinions on any subject, to put upwith what is wasteful and harmful with the excuse that there 'is good in everything' ‚ which in most cases means an inability to distinguish between good and bad."

--Evelyn Waugh

This was forwarded someone who received it from a friend as part of an interesting tongue-in-cheek article: it was an elaboration on the definition of "rigid" in A MODERN SEMINARIANS' DICTIONARY, Published in Fidelity, September 1987, pp. 23-25. If I didn't fear copyright infringement claims, I'd post the whole thing here, as it's sad and humorous at the same time.

[Added Nov 6: after rereading the email that was forwarded to me, I see its source: Domenico Bettinelli featured this on Bettnet on Friday.]

I wish I knew where they got the Waugh quote. WAIT A MINUTE, this is the internet age. Let me google it . . . oh, it was an essay on tolerance published in 1932. I can't tell where it was published.

Synod Expectations

Great post on unrealistic expectations for the synod by Hilary at The Devout Life today.

Although I looked forward to it months ago, by the time it rolled around, I couldn't muster enough interest to follow it closely--perhaps an inchoate feeling along the lines of what Hilary stated so clearly.

Really, what could be expected, when the American synod delegates were chosen from the "old guard" of Bernadin's boys, men like Skylstad (ugh, it hurts so much to think of the man who, although he's gambled and lost a century's worth of material patrimony in his own diocese, is somehow worthy of being the USCCB president) and Wuerl and Mahoney? No doubt the same sort of men were sending the same sort of delegates from around the globe.

Why Bishop Sheridan ?

When Cardinal Mahoney or his ilk make statements of religious indifferentism, or statements that play into the hands of the purveyors of syncreticism, I can't think too much new harm is done. Those sorts of fellows have said those sorts of things so many times that Catholics who hear them speaking have already made up their minds and written them off as false pastors, or have already bought into their way of thinking.

But when a respectable Bishop who's demonstrated some courage and independence preaches anything that resembles religious indifferentism, that seems to be still dangerous. Which brings us to Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, who was one of the few men in the American college to indicate he would dutifully enforce Eucharistic discpline in his diocese last fall.

Apparently, a lay official of the Colorado Springs diocese said that Catholics should not attend Protestant worship services (even if they also attended Catholic Mass) as part of an interview for an article was published in the October 17 issue of the Colorado Springs Gazette. (I couldn't find this online) Apparently, he also penned an article to the same effect for the Colorado Catholic Herald, the diocesan newspaper (also not online). Bully for Mr. Howard! It's shouldn't be a surprise to see a Catholic chancery official saying such a thing. It goes without saying that regularly attending Prot services is a no-no, even for those of us who may occasionally attend a Prot wedding, funeral or (in very extraordinary circumstances, after fulfilling ones obligation to assist at Mass) another Prot service . . . or so we thought, eh?

Well, apparently we thought wrong, says the otherwise-distinguished Bishop Sheridan in the October 21 Gazette article. Mr. Howard's comments do not represent Bishop Sheridan's "thinking on the matter." Apparently, we need no longer worry about being confused, and it's not true that the Church has no longer forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching. We can, in the evangelical capital of the World, Colorado Springs, regularly to go hear a "prosperity gospel" from a hip twenty-something preacher, or take comfort in a Baptist minister who assures us we can be SAVED notwithstanding whether we're diddling our intern, because of sola fides, once saved/always saved, or we can weekly watch some woman play-act the eucharistic sacrifice is an episcopalian ecclesial community . . . er, church . . . without danger to our souls.

I'm sorry your Excellency, I was taken in by Mr. Howard and those who think like him (you know, Pius XI and those clowns). I'll try to lighten up when I drive through your jurisdiction . . . really I will. Anything to keep the peace with Chuck Colson and your evangelical friends around town, right?

Wow, 1,000 hits.

Wow, I have 1,000 hits since I started counting. I'm not going to shower myself with praise over the attention I've drawn to myself, like Rocco at Whispersintheloggia (although he's drawn many, many times more attention to himself than I have). But I will reiterate the shock I feel that anybody reads this thing. Five hundred unique readers over the last few weeks, and a dozen or so regular readers, is more than this sloppy blog merits.

Wikipedia on the Cappello Romano

Here's more on ecclesiastical headgear, again from Wikipedia via answers.com:

Cappello Romano

A cappello romano (literally Roman hat) is a hat with a wide, circular brim and a rounded rim worn by Catholic clergy. It is made of either beaver fur or felt, and lined in white silk. Unlike many other articles of ecclesiastical attire, it serves no ceremonial purpose, being primarily a practical item. (The galero is a ceremonial wide brim hat no longer worn.) The wearing of a cappello romano is optional, but it is never worn during services. It is generally uncommon outside of Rome today.

There are some, mostly minor, differences in the designs of cappelli, depending on the rank of the wearer. The pope wears a red cappello with gold cords. All other clerics wear black cappelli. A cardinal may have a cappello with red and gold cords with scarlet lining. A bishop's may have green and gold cords with violet lining. A priest may substitute black lining for his. Cappelli worn by deacons and seminarians have no distinguishing items.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Wikipedia on the galero

In order to shed light on the great darkness regarding ecclesiastical headgear, I offer the following from wikipedia, via Answers.com

Galero
Plural galeri.
Galero, in the Roman Catholic Church, is a large, broad-brimmed tasseled hat worn by clergy. Over the centuries it was eventually limited in use to individual cardinals as a crown symbolizing the title of Prince of the Church. When creating a cardinal, the Pope would crown the candidate with a scarlet galero in consistory.

Second Vatican Council
In 1969, a papal decree following the Second Vatican Council ended the use of the galero as an act of humbling the Church hierarchy. It was deemed that by removing such elaborate regalia, the people could better identify with their pastoral leaders. Today, only the scarlet zucchetto and biretta are placed over the heads of cardinals in consistory. However, some cardinals continue to obtain the galeros privately so that the old ceremony of its suspension over their tombs may be observed.

The galero is hung forever over the congregants of a cathedral, where they remain until they are reduced to dust, symbolizing how all earthly glory is passing.

Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, Illinois, the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Louis in Saint Louis, Missouri, and the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. are three Cathedral churches in the United States that hang the galeros of past Cardinals on the ceilings.

The galero (or "ecclesiastical hat") is still in use today in ecclesiastical heraldry as part of the achievement of the coat of arms of an armigerous Roman Catholic cleric. It replaces the helmet and crest because those were considered too warlike for the clerical state. The color of the galero and number of tassels (sometimes termed houppes or fiocci) indicate the cleric's place in the hierarchy. A bishop's galero is green with six tassels. An archbishop's galero is also green but has ten tassels. Both patriarchs and cardinals have a galero with fifteen tassels, but the patriarch's is green while the cardinal's is red or scarlet. Even a priest uses the galero in his arms, but uses a simple black with two tassels. However, priests who hold additional offices, such as vicar general or abbot, or who have additional honors such as Chaplain of His Holiness gain additional tassels and different colored hats. Popes do not use a galero in their personal arms, rather the Papal Tiara and Keys of Saint Peter are used.

The depiction of the galero in arms can vary greatly, depending on the artist's style. Typically the top of the hat is a flat, and the brim is very wide. However, the brim can also be rendered much narrower, and the top can be domed. Such variants sometimes look like a cappello romano with tassels, but in heraldry it is still considered a galero.

Caption for photo: Upon the death of a cardinal diocesan bishop, his galero is raised above the sanctuary of his cathedral church. This galero was raised in 1924 for Michael Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland.

Assumptions

Isn't it interesting how people you work with or work for naturally assume that you, as a similarly educated, similarly situated person, agree with them on all the issues of the day. What smugness! I'm surprised by it (but then, I assume that nobody agrees with me on anything--quite the opposite of this sort of person).

Standing around the coffee pot at the office, I listened to one of the senior folks at my office going on and on to some folks about the decision of Paul Morrison to challenge Phill Kline in the Kansas Attorney General's election. As it has with this person in the past, shots were fired at the religious right.

I gave this person a big, knowing smile as walked by. I keep trying to make it obvious, without saying so, that "mild mannered me" is really a reactionary, theocratic, choleric, monarchist, right-wing nut. I wonder if this person hasn't picked up on it, or just doesn't care.

A Catholic Utilitarianism ?

This post is just to direct your attention to the exchange of comments following my post Any Catholics in the Boston Chancery?, wherein Jeff (perhaps with rather more vitriol than necessary) takes an impostor posing as Todd of Catholicsensibility to task for some rather un-Catholic comments on the latest scandal from Boston's Catholic Charities. There is displayed, unfortunately for the Church, the lack of basic moral reasoning that plagues the laity and all but (perhaps) the highest level of officialdom in the Church.

Pius XII in a galero (Cappello Romano?)*

The Evil Traditionalists at Traditio in Radice and Inquisitor Generalis (who still haven't deemed me worthy) are all focused on finding pictures of supreme pontiffs in galeros (galeri?), cappa magnas (cappae magnae?) and suchlike. Here's my humble offering from my semi-regular search of eBay for interesting pope prints--Pius XII in a galero.

In case you're interested, this photo is actually on sale at eBay. Click here. (No commission earned). Pretty cool, but my wife is going to kill me when I get my print of Guy Fawkes from the UK (I forgot about ridiculous exchange rates as I was bidding), so I'll have to pass.

* Note added 10/27/2005: Actually Pius XII appears to be wearing a cappello romano, and one that is much less silly than that worn by the wikipedia model above.

Any Catholics in the Boston chancery?

Archdiocesan agency helps gays adopt children
October 22, 2005
BOSTON --The social services agency of the Archdiocese of Boston has allowed 13 foster children to be adopted by same-sex couples in the past two decades, despite Vatican teachings against homosexuality.

Silly me. I'm just a public school kid, and I don't know much serious moral theology at all, but obviously I know more than the Catholic Charities board or the Archbishop of Boston. I'll quote (without permission) from a priest I know, who recently applied the principle to another moral issue of our day:

Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. (Goodness arises from an integral cause, evil arises from any defect whatsoever)

What does this axiom mean? It means that the moral goodness or evil of an act can be determined by a thoughtful assessment of the act itself, as well as its attending circumstances. A good act, attended by good circumstances, is said to have an integral cause, and thus can be safely performed by Catholics; but however admirable an act may be in other respects, if even one of the circumstances is gravely evil, the act cannot be recommended to Catholics.

Well, Bishop Sean, there you have it.

Is this blog abandoned? Not yet. . . Scheherezade.

Haven't posted in a few days. There certainly is a great deal to post about, locally and otherwise, but I've been too busy with real life. The demands of commerce and breadwinning are slightly greater than in past weeks, and we've had more activity here at the house. Also I'm reading EE Reynolds' book, St. John Fisher, which is taking longer that the typical large-type 180 pg Evelyn Waugh novel (although it's undoubtedly better for my soul). What I do have to say this afternoon really has nothing uniquely to do with being a traditionalist Catholic; sorry to disappoint.

Mrs. Curmudgeon and I went to the Kansas City Symphony on Saturday evening. It's the first time we've been in a few years. The program was ambitious for our little symphony: Richard Strauss's Don Juan, Ravel's Scheherezade, and Rimsky Korsakov's Scheherezade. The Strauss piece seemed (to my pedestrian ears) flawless, and the Ravel very good as well (although I had never heard the Ravel piece before and I'm not a huge fan of 20th century music anyways). Of course, in true middle-American fashion, a few dozen people clapped after the first movement of the Ravel piece. But, we Kansas Citians do catch on . . . there was no clapping between the second and third movements of Ravel, and no clapping between movements in the finale.

As for Rimsky Korsakov . . . he's at about the outer limits of my tolerance for Romantic music, but I like Scheherezade and Capricio Espagnol. How could anybody not? Even though Haydn, Corelli and Mozart are staples that get me through my week, a rousing round of Brahms or Rimsky Korsakov or Berlioz or another 19th century Romantic now and then is good to liven up my soul...like a nice prime steak after a few weeks of the better-for-me pork/chicken/hamburger/fish rotation.

The performance...WOW! You don't realize how complicated a piece like that is until you actually watch it (instead of just listen to it) performed. It wasn' t recording-perfect (I have a good recording of this piece). There was a hesitant entrance or two by the woodwinds and the assitant concertmaster missed a harmonic near the end of the last movement and marred a brilliant, horsehair-bustin' performance by the concert mistress. But it was really, really good. The concert mistress, the principal cellist, and the french horns were outstanding. I wasn't moved to tears like I am sometimes by 18th century music, but I was certainly moved.

I don't know anything about the new music director, Stern, but he seems to be leading the orchestra in the right direction. Based on a couple of concerts a few years ago I always thought of the KC Symphony as a mediocre orchestra in a mediocre hall (the Lyric, which I believe is an old converted Masonic hall). When Marilyn Manson was hired (or was it Anne Manson?), I would occasionally check the schedule when we had the money to go, but never saw anything I really wanted to hear so badly as to brave the artsy crowd and suffer in the cheap, poor under-the-balcony seats. But if Stern sticks around, and they continue on their present course, a new music hall in Kansas City might be worthwhile.

In the meantime, two things: (1) sit in the balcony; the sound is best there, and (2) dress like you're going to the symphony. Don't people know how to dress anymore? There were only a smattering of sportcoats and ties out there, much less men in suits. What's the world coming to when open shirts outnumber ties 2 to 1 at a Saturday night symphony concert?

Bill Tammeus blog

Kansas City Star religion editor Bill Tammeus, who seems to think that everyone should have faith, so long as no one takes it too seriously, has his own blog.

I don't have the stomach to look just yet. I will tomorrow. In the meantime, will somebody check it out and report back? Has he come around and become a traditional Catholic? Or does one need a bucket by the desk before starting it?

Today's Chesterton, for the Author of an Unread Blog

I told the Author of an Unread Blog, the "dyed in the wool feminist" commenting below, that in her honor, I'd post a bit from Chesterton, What's Wrong With the World on the subject of woman. This is from Part 3, Chapter III,

The wife is like the fire [generally more useful than narrower inventions like electric bulbs or asbestos stoves, but not as well suited to a single task], or to put things in their proper propostion, the fire is like the wife. Like the fire, the woman is expected to cook: not to excel in cooking, but to cook; to cook better than her husband who is earnign the coke by lecturing on botany or breaking stones. Like the fire, the woman is expected to tell tales to the children, not original and artistic tales but tales--better tales than would probably be told by a first class cook. ... But she cannot be expected to endure anything like this universal duty is she is also to endure the direct cruelty of competitive or bureaucratic toil...She should have not one trade but twenty hobbies; she, unlike the man, may develop all her second bests. This is what has been really aimed at from the first in what is called the seclusion, or even the oppression, of woman. Women were not kept at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary, they were kept at home in order to keep them broad. The world outside the home was one mass of narrownewsss, a maze of cramped paths, a madhouse of monomaniacs. It was only by partly limiting and protecting the woman that she was enabled to play at five or six professions and so come almost as near to
God as the child when she plays at a hundred trades. But the woman's professions, unlike the child's, were all truly and almost terribly fruitful; so tragically real that nothing but her universality and balance prevented them being merely morbid. This is the substance of the contention I offer about the historic female position. I do not deny that women have been wronged and even tortured; but I doubt if they were ever tortured so much as they are tortured now by the absurd modern attempt to make them domestic empresses and competitive clerks at the same time.

. . .

The final fact which fixes this is a sufficiently plain one. Supposing it to be conceded that humanity has acted at least not unnaturally in dividing itself into two halves, respectively typifying the ideals of special talent and of general sanity (since they are genuinely difficult to compbine completely in one mind), it is not difficult to see why the line of cleavage has followed the line of sex, ofr why the female became the emlem of the universal and the male of the special and superior. Two gigantic facts of nature fixed it thus: first, that hte woman who frequently fulfilled her functions literally could not be specially prominent in experiment and adventure; and second, that the same natural operation surrounded her with very young childre, who require to be taught not so much anything as everything .... When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heaving because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children abou the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.

This is at pages 91-95 in the Ignatius Edition of the book (And no, I'm not getting paid for that link, but you ought to buy the book, and you ought to buy it directly from Ignatius so they can keep the Amazon markup. After all, I'm sure poor Fr. Fessio would appreciate the business; his little press can't be doing well, because it doesn't have any other prominent authors or hot books in its catalog these days).

--Curmudgeon

Billboards

My oldest daughter has suddenly noticed, and started commenting on, billboards.

So far, little harm done: just a big Hall's department store billboard with a handsome waiter, fully clothed (in a tux, no less), serving shoes on a silver platter. However, I'm going to have to buy a blindfold soon, before she notices the "adult" entertainment billboards or (for that matter) some of the other Hall's billboards they've run recently.

Spokane Plaintiff's Lawyer

One of the lawyers with the more significant practices representing alleged victims in stealing from the collection plates in the Spokane dioceses is Michael T.Pfau. He's with a larger firm (80 attorneys, having what appears to be a general business practice in the Seattle/Tacoma area):

Michael T. Pfau
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, LLP
One Union Square
600 University, Suite 2100
Seattle, Washington 98101(King County)
(206) 676-7533 Phone
Email: pfaum@gth-law.com
Website: http://www.gth-law.com/attorneys/lawyerinfo.asp?lid=35

Mis-directed indignation?

Todd of Catholicsensibility takes me to task for lashing out at those members of the plaintiff's bar that are ravishing Holy Mother Church at present in the wake of the clergy abuse scandal. He says he's unsympathetic. Of course, I don't want sympathy. I'm a curmudgeon, not a sad sop. I want justice. I take a risk here of making an enemy, because Todd's comment was obviously not intended as a carefully-thought-out analysis and refutation of my rant. That's exactly why it's useful to answer him point by point . . . he raises the typical knee-jerk reactions made by those who haven't thought carefully about the issues prior to having a microcassette recorder or a camera stuck in their face by a pimply reporter seeking commentary (or by thoughtful enemies of the Church who are doing the devil's public relations work).

Seriously, though, I'm grateful for Todd's coment because it gives me a chance to set fire to set fire to some straw men, pickle some red herrings, etc:

Saith Todd, "if you went to the root of the problem: bishops, you might get some action." I suspect that Todd means that the bishops failed to govern their clergy, and are thus responsible for the morass. Indeed many are--we all know the names of the worst ones (and let's not forget that the bishops as a whole aren't responsible--individual bishops are responsible--and some bishops did faithfully guard their flocks and also act as good stewards of the Church's material patrimony). I say (and I assume Todd didn't) that the bishops are also at the root of the problem because they failed to take canonically obligatory steps to protect the patrimony of the Church under the civil law, by setting up parishes as separate civil law entities each with their own property, and/or by holding property in explicit trust under the civil law rather than as property of the corporation sole. (I posted on this a month or so ago)

It should be clear that I don't think we're obliged to, and in fact, as good stewards may be morally prohibited from, entrusting our own souls, our childrens', or even our temporal goods to any cleric who we believe will exercise malfeasance or misfeasance on them. I and many others dream of the day when a strong Roman Curia will dust off the Rite for the Degradation of the Bishop. I could also respond to Todd's suggestion about me getting some action from the bishops. I wish I could do something, but all I can do is withhold financial support from an errant bishop, refuse obedience to him personally (depending on the facts and circumstances, of course), and send a libellus to the Congregation for Bishops. As (God be praised) I'm not currently supporting, or subject to, any such bishop now, and as I lack standing to bring canonical action, there's nothing I can do but rant. And I do. That's not the point of this post.

It is necessary to consider separately the bishops' failure to deal with pederasts (and, BTW, the bishops' failure to protect the patrimony) and the resultant civil law assault on the Church by the plaintiffs' bar. The bishops' sins do not, in any way, excuse the immoral actions of the litigious victims and the plaintiffs' bar. Did the sins of Caiphas and the "temple authorities" excuse the sins of Judas or Pilate, or vice versa? No. Each of us is responsible for our own actions, regardless of how we, or our clients, have been used. I'm sure someone smarter than me can point to exactly the place in the Summa Theologica or the Roman Catechism or elsewhere for a definitive, and much more clearly stated, exposition of this point.

Saith Todd, "First money isn't everything." Were money (or enmity toward the Church) not driving this, the plaintiffs and their lawyers would be out to humble and impoverish the errant bishops and their pederasts personally, but would leave the patrimony of the Church to be used for the purpose for which it was given. Money seems to be pretty important to the victims that are represented by these people--who I suspect are not as saintly as the SNAP propaganda suggests. And as to whether "money is everything" to the Church . . . that's a ridiculous statement that barely deserves a response. No one would suggest that money is "everything" to the Church, but the material patrimony of the Church is clearly very important to her mission. The church needs material goods (and thus the money, which, while not a good, is necessary in our economy to acquire them) to "order divine worship, to care for the decent support of the clergy and other ministers, and to exercise works of the sacred apostolate and of charity, especially toward the needy." Can 1254. Without money, there's no way to build, maintain, or heat the worship spaces, no means to support Fr. Cool Joe, inadequate resources to lobby and run radio spots for "social justice," no postage for the invitations to ecumenical gatherings, and (lest we forget) no salaries for full time lay liturgists, no new Oregon Catholic Press publications in the parish library, and no McBrien textbooks for the New Whine program.

Saith Todd, "Second, most victims I know or dealt with just wanted to be treated with honesty and respect by the diocese, not stonewalled by smug dudes in dress blacks." By the diocese, I hope he means the chancery office. It's a bit much to ask for each cleric and layman in the whole diocese to be beating his breast and wailing mea culpas (in the vernacular, of course) about the malfeasance of those over whom they have no control . . . and under whom many of them suffered in less dramatic, but equally scandalous, ways that don't get written up in the Boston Globe and LA Times. Were the victims and their lawyers motivated by honesty and seeking respect, why would they attempt to stake a claim on property of those who have done them no wrong?

Saith Todd "Third, you might have a protest on your hands if you encouraged people to walk out on the homilies of people like Rigali." I'm not sure how walking out of a Rigali homily is relevant to my post. Frankly, I'd likely never walk out on a homily by an errant cardinal or bishop (again, I'm not sure what the Rigali connection is here). That's because I'd never be sitting at the beginning of a homily by a Mahoney or a Law or a Tod Brown or a Skylstad. I just wouldn't go. I have walked out of a homily or two in my time though--not a bishop's . . . merely a priest at a parish I was visiting who was spouting heresy or otherwise undermining the Magisterium. But for the record, I strongly recommend that (a) anyone who can avoid Mass said by or a sermon preached by an unrepentant cleric who has previously manifested grave dereliction in his duties should do so and (b) anyone who is caught unawares at Mass by a cleric preaching heretical things or undermining the doctrine and discipline of the Church should, in fact, walk out, because it does not offend our Lord to refuse to listen while others give Him offence. The foregoing principles should apply as equally to Rigali (whom I guess Todd holds out as a neo-con Catholic hero) or an SSPX or FSSP priest, as they do to the notorious offenders whose names we so often recite.

Saith Todd, "Fourth, technically speaking, it's not your money or mine, but if we're talking selling off episcopal mansions and chanceries, it's likely our grandparents' money." I think I have acknowledged, in the relevant posts, and in the post where I talk in detail about the material patrimony of the Church, that the patrimony comes from those who've passed before us, not just the Church Militant. I know much of it was our ancestors money. (Frankly, if it's an episopal mansion, it probably wasn't even my grandparents' money).

Even so, determining the origins of a piece of property doesn't change the ownership of the property now. Technically speaking, canonically speaking, the money is given to and held for the benefit of the Church, not the administrators to whome the goods are given. See Book V, Titles I and II of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. What is the Church? In the spirit-of-vatican-too, it's us, the "people of God," not just the guy with the crosier. In traditional doctrine, it's . . . lo and behold . . . the same thing: "The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head." (Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Q489). Once we write a check, isn't just the bishops' cash, it's all of ours, and the bishop holds it in trust to be used for our spiritual benefit, just like an executor holds a decedents estate, and (here I get personal) just like a 401(k) trustee or pension trustee holds our retirement money for our benefit.

Saith Todd, "Fifth, you might consider the Bride's own lawyers, who, in one instance, tried to help a priest dodge responsibility by suggesting the woman should've practiced safe sex." I, and many other traddies, and a number of neo-con Catholics, have considered those fellows. (although it came to light before I started blogging and I never felt a need to post about it). Their reprehensible conduct does not defile the Bride, nor does it in any way excuses those of the litigious victims or their lawyers. Would you have it that Sadam Hussein's immoral conduct to his own people justified Bush's secular Wilsonian crusade into Iraq, or that Bush's crusade excuses the violence perpetrated by Iraqi insurgents on non-combatant Iraqis? (Not that I wouldn't, in the right circumstances, favor a real Catholic crusade to conquer the infidel, mind you).

Saith Todd, "In sum, plaintiff lawyers in general (those whom you're attacking here) are engaged in a practice which is morally prudential, unlike bishops, some chancery officials, and offending sex predators. " I'm not attacking all plaintiffs' lawyers (although, as a group, I don't care for them), I'm attacking plaintiffs' lawyers who are trying to take away some or all of the material patrimony of the Church. Their conduct is not a moral or a prudential question (by which I'm not sure if Todd means it's wise or it's a matter of fair dispute). A tort suit that will result in an settlement or a judgment that directly or indirectly diverts the patrimony of the Church to something other than its intended purpose is objectively forbidden. So much so, that (while the 1983 Code does not deal with offences with such specificity) the 1917 Code of Canon Law imposed serious penalties (I think excommunication, but I don't have a copy of the 1917 Code to check) against those who used the civil courts to attack the Church. And with regards to the folks in the chancery and the pederasts, I think it should be obvious (even if I hadn't just said so repeatedly) that the sins of A do not excuse the sins of B.

Saith Todd, "I'd doublecheck the people your serving with righteous indignation." Indeed I've checked them many times over. I've listened to them, I've thought carefully about what their doing, and the system that they're working in, and my analysis stands!

The gunpowder plot

In a couple of weeks it will be November 5 again, the day Guy Fawkes was caught in the cellar, preparing to blow up the heretics in Parliament in 1605. As we all know (well, most of us know), he failed. It was custom once (as presented in Thomas Hardy's novel The Return of the Native, for the heretics in England to light bonfires on that night as a sign of vigilance against us papists.

What if anything, did the papists do in response? I need an answer now so I can prepare. It's only a few weeks away.

Smurf Infanticide

A good post from the Curt Jester, turning the Dutch anti-war Smurf video on its head. See Oct 11.

Where do these people come from?

As of today, I've had over 500 page views and 261 unique visitors to this blog (OK, make that 259, as two of these "visitors" are actually me, from the two computers I use to post). I probably get 5-10 new visitors and 5-10 returning visitors every day.

Sure, that's nothing to an Amy Wellborn or a Mark Shea or a Rocco de Palmo. They all have something to say (and on the days they don't, they manage to say nothing in an artful, entertaining, and well-proofread way). But that's a lot of visitors for some schmuck in Kansas City who really has nothing to say and who has only brought this blog to the attention of a handful of people. How on earth do people find out about these things?