Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

And now, a brief interruption in our secular political programming for some ecclesiastical politics.

Yesterday, Bishop David L. Ricken took the chair as bishop of Green Bay Wisconsin. In a ceremony involving Cardinals Maida of Detroit and George of Chicago, the diocese was passed from the apostolic administratorship of Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan to the new incumbent, Bp. Ricken.

The 55-year old prelate comes to Wisconsin from Wyoming. He also did a stint in the Vatican bureaucracy. His initial statement of priorities is very heartening:

“I would say things I’m very interested in are Catholic education; promotion of vocation to the priesthood; enabling the laity to grow spiritually, to grow intellectually with the great treasury of knowledge of the church, and to be able to live their faith in our world today,” the bishop said.

We are reminded this week that Bp. Ricken has big shoes to fill, as his predecessor in Green Bay, Bishop Zubick, now bishop of Pittsburg, issued a statement critical of Speaker Pelosi’s MTP comments (much much more on that sometime this weekend).

I have previously reviewed Bp. Ricken’s record in Cheyenne, and found much of it encouraging. We wish him well, and encourage him to be a strong voice for truth in Wisconsin’s civil dialogue.

Humanae Vitae usually makes an easy target for liberals looking to score easy points attacking the Catholic Church. This is particularly true this year, particularly this week, as some celebrate and some lampoon the 40th anniversary of that encyclical. It’s not something I’m following terribly closely, and not something I have a particularly firm position on one way or the other.

However, I do want to note the Wisconsin State Journal column today from Bill Wineke attacking Madison Bishop Robert Morlino. Wineke criticizes Bp. Morlino for a comment made several weeks ago at a staff retreat and published last week in the Catholic Herald. In his remarks, Morlino said:

“[O]nce bishops, priests, and others decided that they could use conscience to excuse them from obedience to the truth, as taught by the Church - when bishops and priests started giving conscience the authority to determine moral truth, rather than to obey the truth as taught by the Church, it’s not surprising that [during those years] some priests and some bishops started to follow their own conscience in terms of sexual misconduct.”

This, Wineke finds utterly crazy. He dismisses it as “nonsense” and “bizarre.” I simply note that Morlino’s position has some currency among conservative Catholics. This month’s edition of FIRST THINGS, a journal of religion, culture, and public life that is widely respected on the right, carries an article entitled “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae,” which you can read here. It is authored by Mary Eberstadt, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. In it, regarding the sex abuse scandal, she writes:

[T]the disgrace of contemporary American Catholicism—the many recent scandals involving priests and underage boys—is traceable to the collusion between a large Catholic laity that wanted a different birth-control doctrine, on the one hand, and a new generation of priests cutting themselves a different kind of slack, on the other. “I won’t tattle on my gay priest if you’ll give me absolution for contraception” seems to have been the unspoken deal in many parishes since Humanae Vitae.
A more obedient laity might have wondered aloud about the fact that a significant number of priests post-Vatican II seemed more or less openly gay. A more obedient clergy might have noticed that plenty of Catholics using artificial contraception were also taking Communion. It is hard to believe that either new development—the widespread open rebellion against church sexual teachings by the laity, or the concomitant quiet rebellion against church sexual teachings by a significant number of priests—could have existed without the other.

Again, I’m not taking a position on anything here, either HV generally or the dissent’s effect on the sex abuse scandal in particular. My point is simply that Bishop Morlino’s point is not “bizarre” or “nonsense,” that it is a legitimate position taken by some serious people, and it should be respected and engaged seriously rather than lampooned.

This morning Pope Benedict XVI named the Most Rev. David Ricken as bishop of Green Bay. Ricken currently serves as bishop of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Early indications from his record in Cheyenne indicates he will provide a strong voice for orthodox teaching in Green Bay and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.

In the Cheyenne Diocese, Bishop Ricken has placed emphasis on youth outreach, including support for SPARK magazine and conservative Wyoming Catholic College and the Wyoming School for Catholic Thought. He’s been a guest several times on EWTN and he welcomed a cloistered Carmelite community. He’s also got a great record on inspiring vocations, which is often the sign of successful orthodoxy. He’s a supporter of NFP and the Theology of the Body.

Finally, his pastoral statement on abortion in 2004 was masterful! Equally, after a lesbian couple in his Cheyenne diocese “married” in Canada and them trumpeted this fact in local media, their parish priest said:

”It is with a heavy heart, in obedience to the instruction of Bishop David Ricken, that I must inform you that, because of your union and your public advocacy of same-sex unions, you are unable to receive Communion.”

The bishop said the couple’s sex life constitutes a grave sin, ”and the fact that it became so public, that was their choice.”

One commentator attributed this decision to his training as a canon lawyer. Given Bishop Ricken’s prior actions and statements in Wyoming, I have great hope for the work he will do for the church in Green Bay and Wisconsin.

The two Madison daily newspapers, the State Journal and the Capital Times, both recently carried major stories about a lawsuit involving the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison. The suit, filed by Phoenix Fundraising Counsel, alleges that the Diocese broke its contract after Phoenix refused to disclose certain survey data it considered confidential. I have not seen the lawsuit, so I cannot comment on which side has the legal upper-hand. I do, however, think some claims made in the news stories bear critique.

For instance, the Capital Times story starts out by attacking Bishop Robert Morlino:

It’s not the first time the outspoken, deeply conservative Morlino has been accused of heavy-handed tactics. In 2006, his threat of repercussions against any priest who challenged his hard-line stance against same-sex marriage — including a mandatory, recorded sermon to be aired at Sunday Mass — prompted some area Catholics to lash out in a full page ad in local newspapers.

There’s an awful lot of subjective judgments in there. “Outspoken”? Though probably quoted more often in newspapers than a low profile bishop like Peter Christensen in Superior, he’s probably quoted far less, and saying less controversial things, than former La Crosse bishop Raymond Burke (who was recently appointed by the Pope to a top job at the Vatican). “Deeply conservative”? Orthodox, certainly, but I don’t know that the “deeply conservative” label adds anything to the story. “Heavy-handed tactics” - that’s a totally subjective judgment and shows no regard for the traditional executive role played by a diocesan bishop. His stance against same-sex marriage was no more or less hard-line than that of nearly any other bishop in America. The mandatory playing of a recorded homily is hardly unusual - the cardinal archbishop of Detroit did the same thing before that state’s marriage amendment referendum. And the local Catholics who “lashed out” did so because they are liberals who do not like the universal church’s stance against same-sex marriage. They can take that up with the Pope and the Bible, not Bp. Morlino.

The multi-million-dollar capital campaign was being planned at a time when the diocese was consolidating parishes because of a shortage of priests and confronting criticism from rank-and-file Catholics for placing bricks-and-mortar spending ahead of social justice initiatives.

The consolidation of parishes is a fact of life in many diocese across America. And while there may be a priest shortage, the influential Catholic blog Whispers in the Loggia recently labeled Morlino a “vocational wonder-worker” among American bishops for his increase from six to over 30 candidates from Madison studying for the priesthood.

In a follow-up story, the Capital Times repeated the “social justice” spending line:

[S]ome Catholics have questioned whether it makes sense to spend tens of millions on a new cathedral rather than the needy.

Of course the Christian church is called to care for the needy and to work with social justice in the world. But we are also called to be a temple, a sanctuary for the Spirit of the Lord. While we do that in one way as persons living as the body of Christ, we also do it corporately by providing a physical structure that is home to the tabernacle. One need only read the story of the Israelites in the Old Testament to see the profound importance of having a home for the Lord to dwell in. Moreover, the Code of Canon Law constantly refers to the necessity of each diocese having a cathedral.

Phoenix claims that despite a November 2007 letter to parishioners promising that all survey results would be “considered confidential,” Morlino on March 7 personally pressured Phoenix president and CEO John Richert to turn over the results to him. Morlino demanded the names of priests who expressed concerns or who registered complaints about him in the survey process…

What a total non-sequitur. There was a letter to parishioners promising confidentiality, whereas Bp. Morlino sought information about the survey results from priests. There is a major difference here - while Catholics owe the bishop loyalty and respect, the priests in particular are employed by and responsible to the bishop.

The State Journal story is a more toned down version of the same, though it still tosses the zingers. Without knowing the full facts of the situation, I would suffice it to say that the press in Madison will not give Morlino the benefit of the doubt, and has decided to play this story into their overall Catholic hierarchy is bad narrative. Even if the facts don’t fit that story.

Twice in the last two weeks, Brian has pointed out that America’s obsession with biofuels is contributing to the rise in world food prices (here and here).

The Acton Institute (which is Brandon’s favorite think tank and top three for me), on its PowerBlog, notes that Vatican officials are getting on the bandwagon as well:

Despite heavy lobbying from environmental activists, the Church has given priority to the needs of the human person and his integral development. In practice, this has meant Vatican criticism of bio-fuel subsidies and Vatican support for biotechnology that increases agricultural yields such as the use of genetically modified organisms.

For example, at a recent FAO conference in Brazil, the Holy See’s representative, Msgr. Renato Volante, said “bio-fuel is a serious threat to the natural right of every individual to proper nutrition, causing food riots and an increase in worldwide poverty.” The bishop of San Marino, Luigi Negri, hosted an April 22 event that highlighted the potential of GMOs and new seed specimens that are already being used by 12 million farmers worldwide. And Archbishop Silvano Tomasi the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations in Geneva, has blamed poor distribution, rather than the lack of food, for the crisis.

And thus we have another instance of sound economic thinking breaking out at the Vatican.

Earlier this month we reported to you on the homily by Cardinal Franc Rode, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life at the opening Mass of the Jesuits’ 35th General Congregation. As you may recall, the Homily was a pretty stinging indictment of many of the Jesuits’ modern tendencies, particularly regarding theological and moral relativism.

This morning John Allen brings to our attention an interview in L’Avvenire with Cardinal Rode published today. In it, the Cardinal was asked about his homily. His reply:

“As you know, the Jesuits are the lone order that, for the most delicate questions, historically have a direct rapport with the pope which is not mediated by the office I lead. In any event, I was asked to preside at the Eucharistic celebration for the opening of the General Congregation. I based my homily on information I received above all from Western Europe, North America and also from India. I asked advice from eminent representatives of the Society, and I did not fail to submit my text in advance to the superior authority. It was important to underscore the fidelity of the Society of Jesus to the church, and concretely to the pope. St. Ignatius desired that the Jesuits go into combat under the standards of the Cross and the Roman Pontiff: this is their identity. If, in particular situations, it has not received sufficient emphasis, I believe it’s opportune to recall it.”

Today marked the opening of the 35th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, the worldwide governing body of the Jesuits. The opening Mass was preached by Cardinal Franc Rode CM, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. His homily called for the order to “think with the Church” and “love the hierarchical Church.”

A few excerpts from His Eminence’s homily (headings are mine):

Get on board the BXVI train
It is with sorrow and anxiety that I see that the sentire cum ecclesia [thinking with the Church] of which your founder frequently spoke is diminishing even in some members of religious families. The Church is waiting for a light from you to restore the sensus ecclesiae.

Follow the lead of the Pope and Bishops
With sadness and anxiety I also see a growing distancing from the Hierarchy. The Ignatian spirituality of apostolic service “under the Roman Pontiff” does not allow for this separation. … The fundamental nucleus of Ignatian spirituality consists in uniting the love for God with love for the hierarchical Church.

Don’t Confuse the faithful
It is the need to present to the faithful and to the world the authentic truth revealed in Scripture and Tradition. The doctrinal diversity of those who at all levels, by vocation and mission are called to announce the Kingdom of truth and love, disorients the faithful and leads to a relativism without limits. There is one truth, even though it can always be more deeply known.

[John Allen: "Rodé appeared to suggest that the wide variety of theological positions espoused by Jesuits can feed what Pope Benedict XVI has called a 'dictatorship of relativism.'"]

Keep your theologians on the team
The exegetes and theological scholars are involved in working together “under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings.”

Get America back on the team
May those who, according to your legislation, have to oversee the doctrine of your magazines and publications do so in the light of and according to the “rules for sentire cum ecclesia” [thinking with the Church], with love and respect.

(N.B. - I am not going to be providing any in-depth coverage of the Congregation as it meets for the next several weeks. For that, I suggest Rocco Palmo and John Allen. I will, however, blog occasionally on those items of interest to the Marquette community).

After watching parts of the Youtube/CNN Republican debate last night, I again was reminded how disappointing the field of candidates is. A. Mark Steyn pretty much summed it up for me in his recent New York Sun article:

If I could just sneak out in the middle of the night and saw off Rudy Giuliani’s strong right arm and John McCain’s ramrod back and Mitt Romney’s fabulous hair and stitch them all together in Baron von Frankenstein’s laboratory with the help of some neck bolts, we’d have the perfect Republican nominee. As it is, the present field poses difficulties for almost every faction of the GOP base…So if you’re a pro-gun anti-abortion tough-on-crime victory-in-Iraq small-government Republican the 2008 selection is a tough call.

Fortunately, my dad forwarded me a certain email this morning, which eased a bit of my disappointment. To some this may be familiar. The following is the text of a full-page age in the October 20, 2004 Washington Post, just a few weeks before the 2004 presidential election. Businessman George J. Esseff Sr. ran a $104,655.60 ad in the Washington Post in response to Howard Dean’s comment that many Republicans hadn’t done an honest day’s work in their lives. People have been saying this about Republicans for years, but I guess Dean really pushed him over the edge.

Maybe you’re a Republican?

In today’s America ask a growing number of high school and college students, their teachers and professors, the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of al l ethnicities the question, “What is a Republican?” and you’ll be told “.. a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment, the working poor…and all whom they exploit…”

I am a Republican - And I am none of those things…and I don’t know any Republicans who are!

WHAT I AM first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 72 plus years, the father of four and an American who’s proud of his country…and his country’s heritage

WHAT I AM is the grandson of immigrants who risked every-thing, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.

WHAT I AM is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed first hand the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.

WHAT I AM is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life.

WHAT I AM is a husband who at age 24 started his own business for the “privilege” of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.

WHAT I AM is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears and plenty of them…, made it possible for me to provide a secure living not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees who in turn were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.

WHAT I AM is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country… and all for which it stands.

WHAT I AM is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today’s world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them….and the eyes of those who give them.

WHAT I AM is an American who’s proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as “politically incorrect” as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted…and it must be defeated.

WHAT I AM is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.

WHAT I AM is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and “political incorrectness” in her character.

WHAT I AM is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent.

WHAT I AM is a man who believes in the sanctity of life. A man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.

WHAT I AM is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.

WHAT I AM is an ex-movie goer who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated “entertainers” who have appointed themselves “experts” in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions….much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.

WHAT I AM is an American who understands the difference between “censorship” and “choice.” Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same “celebrities” receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is “censorship.” What they seem incapable of understanding is…the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended…as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to and refuse to support those I don’t. It is my right as an American a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.

WHAT I AM is a voter, tired of politicians who every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of “attack ads” and “negative campaigning”….and the news media who allow them to get away with it.

WHAT I AM is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith and who’s been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals in both private and public life whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what’s best for them….rather than what’s right… often times at the expense of many…. including our national security.

WHAT I AM is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That’s why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike is understood, respected and believed.

WHAT I AM is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America’s war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious, personal and political attacks both h e and his family are made to endure.

WHAT I AM is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man nonetheless who though not always successful has continually strived to do “what’s right” instead of “what’s easy.” A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths, to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of “what’s right” and “what’s wrong,” but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.

WHAT I AM is disgusted with the Courts who on one hand call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide,” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as “pro-choice”.

WHAT I AM is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary “leadership” qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals (John Kerry). That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as pa rt of that state’s 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the “conservative” nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply….as well it should you. (Are you listening Mr. D?)

WHAT I AM is a man who feels the need to spend, ONE HUNDRED & FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED & FIFTY FIVE DOLLARS ($104, 655.60, tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world’s poor. At the risk of soundi ng self- serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that…and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick….. and continue to do so…and I’m not alone in that work.

WHAT I AM is someone who is paying for this announcement at my sole expense in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, “The rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government.” For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with the Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.

WHAT I AM is a man who understands, “the American way of life” is a message of self-empowerment for all.

WHAT I AM is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement.

WHAT I AM is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it.

WHAT I AM is blessed to be an American…. and proud to be a Republican.

Anyway, even though this was published over three years ago, it is always nice to read some common sense and true conservatism, two characteristics lacking in all of the Republican candidates, the Republican Party, and in the nominee selection process. So now why can’t the GOP find a candidate who thinks like Esseff? On Brian’s recent post on Mike Huckabee (well done, Brian!), loyal reader, Kat, Brandon’s cousin posted: “Actually, I think the bigger question here is this: are there any REAL conservatives left in the Republican Party? I highly suspect the answer is no. Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.” I couldn’t agree more!

You have all doubtless seen the COEXIST bumpersticker on the rear of a car in front of you while driving through Madison or the East Side.

Todd McMahon created a parody, substituting two of the symbols in the middle to make a point.

Charlie Sykes posted the parody on his blog, and has taken flack from the Left for doing so.

In the spirit of the blue bumpersticker, here is my suggestion:

As the days of Advent approach, it is good to remember that God so loves us that sent His one and only Son down to Earth to be born, live among us, and die on a cross for our sins.

UPDATE: Click here to buy a “Convert” bumper sticker.

In a recent post on his TheoCon blog, Catholic writer Deal Hudson wonders aloud whether Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis was punished by his fellow bishops for being so conservative and outspokenly pro-life. It’s a fair question, but I doubt that it is true given the other candidate that Burke lost to - auxiliary bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago. The two ran for chairman of the Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.

Hudson quotes Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., to say that it is “very unusual” for an auxiliary to beat an archbishop in such elections. For starters, let’s remember that Fr. Reese is not a source that a conservative should be quoting too authoritatively. Fr. Reese said of the same bishops’ meeting: “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice? What they are saying is, ‘Yes.’”

Anyway, I highly doubt Hudson/Reese’s thesis that Archbishop Burke was defeated because the other bishops wanted to minimize his profile and authority. First off, don’t discount the fact that he was in Rome, not Baltimore, for the meeting.

Second, Bishop Paprocki is a civil and canon lawyer and a solid conservative. Last month, Bishop Paprocki called for a new approach to tort claims against the Catholic Church that would limit their liability.

Third, for those who worry that Paprocki will not take a strong stand on communion: Bishop Paprocki is an auxiliary professor at Loyola University Chicago Law School. When the Law School decided to give its distinguished alumni award to pro-abortion Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Bishop Paprocki called for the University to rescind the award and invitation.

Fourth and finally, Bishop Paprocki was responsible for amending Faithful Citizenship at the meeting to reflect the reality of America’s ongoing war on terror:

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago, for example, proposed adding a reference to “the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror.”

“The reference to the ‘roots of terror’ reflects a naïve understanding of the global phenomenon of jihaidism and fanatical extremism,” Paprocki said from the floor. “Those the coalition forces are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere are not the poor and oppressed seeking to throw off their chains, but jihadist fanatics who believe they’re doing God’s will.”

Paprocki said that Pope Benedict XVI recognized these realities in his lecture at the University of Regensburg in September 2006, and that the U.S. conference should do the same.

Plus, on top of all that, Bishop Paprocki is a hockey stud.

P.S. I have added a new category as of today: “Here I Stand.” It’s the new home for all of the religious commentary that I engage in … in the past I’ve put it all in “Ministry of Strategery,” because much of it was about politics and religion. I will do my best to keep the purely religious, like this, out and separated in this new category.