Autopsying the Brain of the American Loon

 There was an interesting show on NPR the other day in which people would call in and the host would ask: who are you and what are you angry about.  The show was in response to an NBC/Esquire report analyzing the various reasons people in America today are angry.  I think we can see in the success of Donald Trump’s strategy of targeting Latinos, immigrants, and Muslims in an effort to secure his adopted party’s nomination that anger plays well to a significant part of the American audience.  I am not sure that does not spill over into the Church(es) today and is not a considerable factor in the growing tension in the pews.  As is President Obama in the realm of politics, Pope Francis in particular is a flashpoint for many conservatives who find that his focus on the challenges to the environment, on income inequality, his opposition to the death penalty, and his support for immigrants has made them feel not at home any more in the Catholic Church.  As we look at “FrankieB’s” flood of comments to my site I think we can see that sort of anger and how, while it may be a bit more extreme than most, it is typical of the Katholik Krazie mentality. 

1. the reactive (as opposed to responsive) tone of FrankieB’s comments. 

Frankie doesn’t engage the issues—or even seem to notice them but jumps right to a reactive comment.  Ideas (and people who hold them) are “stupid” but the flaw in the argument is never laid out and a counter-argument is never proposed.  You simply have “garbage on the left” differentiated from a vague reference to what “loyal Catholics” (presumably like Frankie herself/himself) hold.  At the end of the day we really don’t know what Frankie believes, only what s/he rejects. 

2.    The amount of unfocused anger that underlies these comments.

Ok, we are clearly dealing with a rageaholic here.  People like Frankie have found that anger releases certain endorphins that give them satisfaction and even pleasure.  Some studies have shown that the endorphins released by anger are the same as those released by sexual excitement and offered that as at least a partial explanation for the connection between anger and rape.  In other words, you might want to steer clear of including people given to rage in your list of friends and acquaintances.  Not saying that you don’t want to invite Frankie to your next birthday party, but you might want to make sure there is always a crowd around.  But then would you really want somebody at your party who tells everyone with whom they disagree—which is most people—that they should “get out…” or questions whether they are as “stupid” as they appear, or that your Protestant guests are “apostate retreads.”  Again, to express such fury without engaging the issues is a sign that someone is off their meds, or in this case, found the combination to get them out of the psych ward.  But then they get their energy from hating.  You can be sure that Frankie B hates President Obama, Robin Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, The Disney Corporation, the French, The New York Times, Catholic Charities USA, the United Nations, and signs that say “No Turn on Red.”  Some people hate just because it is so satisfying and, unlike its endorphin equivalent, masturbation, you don’t have to confess it (though you should.)

3.    The frequent recourse to ad hominem attacks rather than engaging the issues at hand. 

Ok, so I’m stupid.  And I am a pseudo-Catholic Intellectual. And I am one of the most arrogant know-it-alls commenting on things Catholic. And I’m not too smart.  And I am a liberal retread.  And I have far too much time on my hands which is demonstrated by my having a “degree in religion.”  (Actually it is theology.)  And Cardinal Wuerl has been appeasing anti-Catholic liberals.  And the Pope is half-assed.  And Georgetown is an apostate heretical institution supporting a whats-what of anti-Catholic Left wing garbage.  But at the end of the day, what are you arguing for?  What specifically am I (and the Pope and Cardinal Wuerl and Georgetown and whoever else pisses you off) wrong about?  OK, you did mention the Holy Father’s efforts at ecumenism, so why are they wrong?  You rant but in the end you have nothing to say.  But only goes to reinforce my point about your being a rageaholic.  You’re angry but you can’t articulate a reason. 

4.  The lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching

FrankieB clearly has a limited knowledge of his/her Catholic faith.  S/he clearly rejects the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on Ecumenism and on non-Christian religions.  Social Justice issues being “bogus nonsense, s/he is unfamiliar with the social teaching of the Church found in Mater et Magistra, Populorum Progressio, Gaudium et Spes, Octogesima Adveniens, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Centesimus Annus, Caritas in Veritate, and—of course and probably most of all, Laudato Si.  If FrankieB knew her/his faith s/he would understand that far from the American Religious of the LCWR being not “quite content to undermine Church teachings to pursue their non-Catholic liberal political agenda,” but were, in fact, standing true to the magisterium while our silk and lace begowned clowns in San Francisco and Malta-on-the-Aventine were busy denying the sacraments those less worthy than themselves.  Fortunately Pope Francis cleared up that scandal over the Sisters and gave them a clean bill of health. 

5.    The lack of actual knowledge about events, people, or how things work in the Church. 

FrankieB honestly thinks that letters from krazies like her/him/whatever set off the campaign about the Religious Congregations comprising the Leadership Conference of Women Religious?  Honeychile, I have to tell you about reliable sources of Vatican gossip: CRUX and Whispers in the Loggia, and even—I hesitate to say it—the inimitable Father Z. Their work demonstrates that it could help you get traction in your revival of the Spanish Inquisition if you know some desk jockeys in the Curia.  But Honeychile, I can all but guarantee your li’l ol’ letters were all but unread before (and even if) they got a pro forma acknowledgment and then used to wipe up the morning cappuccino that some Monsignore spilt on his desk.  No, no, no.  The attack on the nuns was a well-orchestrated attack by the evil Cardinal Law, the sartorially confused Cardinal Burke, and creepy Archbishop Lori who owed his rise to the peculiarities of a sycophantic relationship with the late Cardinal Hickey whom he served as “secretary.” They were aided and abetted by Carl Anderson, Grand Poobah of the Knights of Columbus and donor of millions of K of C Dollars to the Vatican (where much of that money was recently found stuffed in desk drawers where auditors were meant never to find them). It was nothing but a mean-spirited attempt to discredit the Sisters in favor of the (far) more subservient good Sisters of the various Congregations associated with the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious.  With a little education, some of the nuns were getting a little uppity, you see, like Sisters Joan Chittester, Elizabeth Johnson, and Sandra Schneiders.  Due respect and kowtowing to their Episcopal Lordships was sometimes being overlooked and embarrassing questions were being posed that hinted that the women questioning might be brighter than the mitered men being questioned and we couldn’t have that, could we? But fortunately Pope Francis came along and quashed the inquisition, giving the Sisters a clean bill of orthodoxy.  So y’all, plug into the Vatican Gossip mill and learn how things really run (despite Pope Francis’ attempts to clean out the barn.)

6.    The anger at Church teaching and polity to the point of rejecting magisterial authority. 

To a great extent this matter was covered in issue 4 which dealt with the ignorance of Church teaching.  Catholics have, for the most part, never been well catechized and I am amazed (not to mention distressed) at how many priests still preach the faith learned at their mothers’ knees as children rather than the magisterial Tradition they (hopefully) were taught in seminary.   But the fact of the matter is that many Catholics agree with the teaching authority of the Church when the teaching authority agrees with them.  The liberals were often in dissent during the previous two papacies and conservatives often stand in dissent during this one.  As I have often observed in this blog, all us Catholics, liberal and conservative, innovationist and neo-traditionalist, are dining in the cafeteria these days.  But FrankieB goes over the line when s/he refers to the Holy Father’s “half-assed attempts to appease the anti-Catholic liberals.”  His contempt, not only for the person and the office of the Pope, but for the heritage of socially conscious papal teaching regarding the rights of labor, of the poor, of the disenfranchised in society—a heritage that extends back almost a century and a quarter and which is rooted in the teachings of the Fathers of the Church—is not ignorance but is a rejection of the magisterium.  Ironically for all his contempt of his fellow-Christians who are Protestant, FrankieB has fallen into the root heresy that enabled Protestantism to develop, the heresy that each believer is his own Pope to define what Christian orthodoxy is.  Move over Martin Luther, there is a new guy in town with his own 95 theses challenging the Catholic Church. 

7. The racist and religious prejudices underlying many of the remarks.

Just look at what this person writes:

“to support the political agenda of anti-Catholic Leftists (including left-wing WASPs, Jews, and blacks)  … The Church is FAR too obsessed with social programs and taking money from white, middle-class Catholics and giving it to black anti-Catholic bigots from the Congressional Black Caucus … apostate Protestant retreads … If Catholics wanted spineless and gutless and effeminate leadership, we would have become Episcopalians … Reminds me of the loser who came to our office with a degree in "Black Studies" whatever the hell that is.” 

‘nuff said!  I think I need to go take a shower and make sure this filth is all washed off.

8.The inaccurate reading of the original article and thus wrong conclusions that result. 

Let me give you just one example.  I never said I was a student of Monika Hellwig.  I wasn’t.  I said I was a friend of hers.  In fact I was a “church-friend” of hers when we both worshipped at the same parish in Gaithersburg MD.  I didn’t know her through Georgetown at all. And in fact I knew her for several years simply as Monika and had no idea she was the famous theologian.  And, despite FrankieB’s inference, I did not study at Georgetown, though for both high-school and undergraduate work I was privileged to study under the Society of Jesus.  As FrankieB never seems to have quite grasped my points in the various postings, s/he seems only to given them a quick read before reacting.  In fact, in some of the postings I think there are some things FrankieB might have agreed with had s/he given them enough attention to actually see what the arguments were. 

9.    Lack of confidence in current papal leadership

Well, lets just refer back to the Holy Father and his “half-assed attempts to appease anti-Catholic liberals.”  And then there was “Only in your warped world-view of moral equivalences can key moral issues regarding divorce/marriage/sexuality be cheapened by supporting bogus "social justice" nonsense as if increasing Food Stamp monies offsets butchering an unborn babies head. But for all I know, PF thinks the same thing.”

10.An anti-intellectualism that betrays a contempt for education  

Well, there is that remark about people who have a degree in “religion” having too much time on their hands.  And then there is the remark about “pseudo Catholic intellectual(s) and “one of those theologians at a ‘Catholic’ college’.”  And then there is the thing about “how many 70-IQ liberals do you think actually know what this (Scholastic positivism leading to semi-Pelagianism) means?”  Unfortunately intellectual life is not a level playing field and it depends on both natural ability and educational levels.  Natural ability can—in those of exceptional intelligence—compensate for access to formal education but it obviously fails to do so for FrankieB and so s/he has a need to dismiss it to keep up the self-delusion that his/her ideas are of equal merit to their intellectual betters.  But I bet s/he can beat me at beer pong. 

Well, I have had more comments from FrankieB and now his or her several aliases over the days since I had originally composed this posting  but they are just more of the same rant: LCWR are dissidents, deviants and lesbians preaching heresy who should be excommunicated and denied Catholic burial; Republicans are the Catholic Party and Democrats hate the Catholic Church; bastardized Protestant retread denominations; and my personal favorite “What the f*** is your (my) problem?”  I gather that most evenings somewhere around 9 pm (Central Standard Time) I am going to be treated to a flood of vituperative (look that one up in your Funk and Wagnall’s, Frankie girl) ignorance.  Sounds like someone has just come home from an unhappy happy hour in a futile attempt to wipe away the loneliness and insignificance of his/her life, but this is the end of the FrankieB show.  I have other topics to move on to and as long as I know that I am rattling a few cages, I am content to keep posting.  I don’t always like being the cheery idealist or the devout goody-two-shoes, sometimes that arrogant know-it-all side of me just has to be let out to have some fun rampaging around the Krazie Palace.   My confessor doesn’t approve but then he is a saintly man and I am still getting detoured while I am finding my way to the Kingdom.  So, FrankieB, Jim H, Joe L*******, et al good night and good luck to you and don’t forget your meds.    

Well, anyway, the above is what I wrote about a month ago, before I started hearing from JimH.  And then Joe L.  One of the skills one learns while teaching under-grads over a period of 25+ years is how to recognize people by their writing styles—how they punctuate a sentence, consistent misspellings, repeated themes, idiosyncrasies in capitalization or vocabulary etc.   As I said, I have been warned that FrankieB has multiple personalities and so next may be SuzyQ, JohnnyBGood, and Pasadena pole dancer, D.D. Melons.  But under whatever nom de plume he/she writes, the comments aren’t going to be posted, not because I don’t post responses that I disagree with but because Frankie’s responses aren’t up to publishing standards.  And it is my blog.  Frankie can get her or his own blog and publish whatever she or he wants.  It’s a free country, Frankie.  Go get ‘em, Tiger.  You might want to join the Katholik Media League: they have a wonderful summer retreat at Loon Lake. 

Attempts to Justify--More on Saga of the Priest Who Refused Communion

Cardinal Donald Wuerl,
Archbishop of Washington

The saga of Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who last Saturday, February 25, refused communion to a woman at her mother’s funeral because the woman is living in a same-sex relationship continues to unfold.  It began to appear on the internet on Monday and in the newspapers on Tuesday.  The Archdiocese was quick in damage control and hung the priest out to dry, claiming that he acted contrary to diocesan policy.  (He did—that was very clear, as Cardinal Wuerl has made a point that people are not to be refused communion during Mass for any foreseeable reason.)   By Wednesday the story was circulating that the woman’s partner had encountered the priest in the Church before the Mass as she was preparing a reading and the priest asked who she was.  She supposedly identified herself as the partner of Barbara Johnson, the daughter of the deceased.  That is what gave Guarnizo a heads-up that Johnson was in a relationship that is outside the bounds of Catholic morality.  Following on this information, Guarnizo then refused Johnson communion at the Mass saying “I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin according to the Church.”  By Wednesday evening the story had evolved that Johnson had confronted the priest in the sacristy before Mass, introducing the other woman as her “Lover.”  Well what was a priest to do when challenged like this?  One account has it that he then “warned” Johnson that she should not come up for communion due to this sinful relationship, but she confronted him by appearing first in line for Holy Communion.  In another version Johnson stormed out of the sacristy before the priest could warn her that she should not receive.  Whichever version—if either—being true, Guarnizo felt that under the circumstances he was justified in his decision as Johnson had been duly warned that her living situation removed her from active participation in the Sacraments.  He was only doing his duty.  
I would have more confidence in the story if the versions put out by the priest’s supporters were consistent but details seem to be added with each round to bolster his case.  And I am not saying that the account isn’t true, but frankly it doesn’t wash.  Priest friends of mine say that Guarnizo’s version of the story “sounds fishy.” The usual protocol at a funeral is that the family arrives at the Church accompanying the body just in time for the funeral Mass.  One priest said: “I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but in thirty-five years of priesthood  I don’t ever recall a family member being in the sacristy before the funeral.  I invariably meet them at the door of the Church when the undertaker brings in the casket.”   Others who know Ms. Johnson say that she is frank about her relationship but not “in your face” and couldn’t imagine her using the term “Lover” in those circumstances.  Her family and guests at the funeral supports her version of the story that the refusal of Holy Communion was unprovoked.
       Another priest friend of mine said that he could not imagine this happening as it was recounted to him.  He said that in his parish he always visits with the family at least once before the funeral to ascertain their needs and then he attends the wake or vigil service before the funeral to meet the family again and see how they are handling the death.  He said that he would know if there was some “irregularity” in the family situation long before the funeral Mass.  A third priest I spoke with said that the local funeral director always tips him off about family situations when the details are being arranged with the Church.  Both priests thought that if Guarnizo didn’t know the situation before the funeral he should have.  Then a parishioner from the parish said: “Father may seem soft-spoken and quiet, but he is a scrappy little fellow, quick to fight over what he thinks is right.”  But does all this address the issue of his “right” to refuse the woman communion? 
     If the (Arch)bishop has a policy regarding Holy Communion—or any other question about public worship and administration of the sacraments, is an individual minister of the Eucharist, priest or lay, free to take the decision into his own hands?  One canon lawyer said: “Absolutely not!  Look at it from the other side: can you imagine if a priest in Saint Louis had given communion to Senator Kerry after (then Archbishop) Cardinal Burke had said he was not to be given the Eucharist?   The bishop sets the policy, not any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to be giving out Holy Communion.”  Another said: “This is not the situation for which canon 915 applies. That canon is for manifest public sinners and the decision about how it is to be implemented rests with the Ordinary (the Bishop).  This woman’s sin—and it is a sinful situation—this woman’s sin is considered in the private realm and not public even though friends and family would be aware of her relationship.  Public sin would refer to something like criminal behavior—heading up a Mafia family, being a racketeer, publicly known to be operating a house of prostitution or an illegal gambling establishment.  It could be applied to the owner of an abortion mill or its physicians if they were publicly identified with it.  Moreover it not only has to be a matter of public knowledge—as distinguished from common knowledge—but the person has to obdurately persevere in the sinful activity.  That is they need to be publicly admonished and remain in the sinful situation after and in spite of the public admonishment.  The case of Ms. Johnson clearly falls under private and not public sin.  Even a first year canon-law student would know this.”  
       But the crazies still clamor for blood—and not Marcel Guarnizo’s.  Local bloggers Restore DC Catholicism and An Archdiocese of Washington DC Catholic have been joined by Les Femmes—a one woman band from the hills of the Shenandoah—and her ties to the Catholic Media Coalition will spread it through the Catholic neo-con network in an attempt to bring down Cardinal Wuerl and his policy of not refusing people Holy Communion.  She has long been critical of Wuerl, his predecessors, Cardinals McCarrick and Hickey, and her own bishop, Paul Loverde of Arlington.  I suspect the publicity will run out of fuel before it achieves its goals of having Cardinal Wuerl or Bishop Loverde “corrected” by Rome, but it is a fascinating picture of the struggle over who determines Church policy.  This—the struggle for controlling Church authority—is an increasingly interesting issue as it puts the religious right into the role of rebellious and unfaithful Catholics, a role with which they are usually most uncomfortable.  We have to do a posting on that topic.

Cathars, Jansenists, and Today's Submariner Heretics

The Palace of the Popes, Avignon, built by Jacques
de Fournier as Benedict XII

Jacques de Fournier was named bishop of Pamiers in 1317 and he undertook a campaign to root out Catharism from his diocese.  Fournier had studied at Paris while a Cistercian monk and then had been abbot of Fontfroide—an important abbey on what is today the border between Spain and France.  This was an area, the Hautes-Pyrenees, where the Cathars had remained strong.  It is not far from the modern pilgrimage center of Lourdes.   Named Bishop of Pamiers, Fournier determined to do something about the survival of Catharism in his diocese.  The Inquisition—not the Spanish Inquisition, just the local diocesan process—interviewed hundreds of people in an attempt to discover and uncover this heresy among a population that for the most part seemed outwardly to conform to the Church.  Fortunately for historians—and to the relief of the local population—Fournier was elected Pope in 1334 and he took up residence in Avignon (then the papal court) with the regnal name of Benedict XII.  He brought all his records with him, but being Pope is a full time job (well, at least for the serious ones and this fellow was serious) and the records just more or less sat around until they eventually ended up in the archives where a historian, Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie (born 1929), discovered them and wrote a fascinating study: Montaillou, village occitan.  This book is a detailed and fascinating look into life in the fourteenth-century village of Montaillou, a hamlet of 250 people, outwardly  Catholic but secretly given to Cathar belief and practice.  Even the village priest,  Pierre Clergue, was a secret Cathar.  We see that Catharism was not something always distinct from Catholicism but, like many heresies, could infect outwardly faithful Catholics and remain almost undetected.   Montaillou is a very important book historically as it shifted historians from big-picture history to micro-histories which are far more nuanced and give us fascinating details.  You don’t have to be a historian to read it—it is an interesting read on its own.   But the point I want to make is how heresies survive beneath the cover of orthodoxy.  Let me give you an interesting example.         

      Today in the United States we implement the new translation of the missal.  The monastery where I often attend mass has been using it for over a month now and I am getting used to it.  There are features that I like, and there are features with which I am not impressed.  Ok, that is one man’s experience and I don’t expect the world to revolve to my preferences.  But I do see two curious things.

       One is a strong distinction between the sacred and the secular in language—the use of a language that is not the language of us mere mortals.  We don’t speak of “the dewfall,”  ineffable is a word that my electronic thesaurus doesn’t recognize, and I am a bit taken aback to hear a carpenter’s cup called “a chalice.”  And then there is the entire matter of “and with your spirit.”  Why is there a need for sacred/secular—body/soul dichotomies?  I am all in favor of elegant language and graceful vocabulary but I am suspicious of dichotomies that undermine the mystery of the Incarnation in which the Divine enters fully into our human experience.  There is always something of the Gnostic in everyday Catholicism that suspects the world and denigrates human experience.  It is subtle but this dichotomizing ultimately undermines the mystery of the Incarnation.     

      Equally problematic is the issue of he “for all” and “for many.”  I have written on this before but it is hugely problematic as our Catholic faith condemns as heretical any idea that Christ did not die for all.  He did not die for some, nor even for many, but for all.  The Jansenist heresy taught that Christ only died for those who would ultimately be saved.  Like Catharism at Montaillou, Jansenism is alive and well beneath a veneer of orthodox Catholicism among many American Catholics.  This was not the time to put into the liturgy that Christ died “for many.”  It will be used to reinforce the unhealthy piety of those who have deceived themselves into believing they are the “elect” culled from a world that stands outside salvation.    Just check out some of the (supposedly) ultra-Catholic websites and blogs and you will see a Catholicism riddled with Jansenism and other very uncatholic ideas.   There are other heresies alive and well beneath the veneer of pious and traditional Catholicism—Quietism is one, illuminism another—but Jansenism is the one that scares me most because, as Jean Jacques Olier said about four centuries ago—Jansenism eats charity out of the heart of the Church.  I see that today in figures such as Michael Voris and his “Real Catholic TV” who promote a Catholicism of anger and self-righteousness.  I see it too in the “vigilante” Catholicism represented by self-appointed arbiters of the faith such as the “Catholic Media Coalition” or “Tradition in Action,” or Trinity Communications/Catholic Culture.  Henri Bremond wrote of the Jansenists of his days as “Before penetrating into the depth of the mind Jansenism ruins the peace, condition of all true religion.  Before making converts it makes partisans, sectarians, whom it fatally severs from the mystical currents of their time.” As it was in the past it is now too.