Abbey-Roads2

And relics.

My friend David sent me a link reporting the results of recent carbon dating upon the relics of St. Francis of Assisi. The Franciscans of Cortona and Florence had the robes, believed to have been worn by the saint, tested to determine their age. One tunic has proved to be authentic, while doubts surround the other habit in Florence. All in all, there are four habits believed to be from St. Francis in existence. I only knew of one before this, which is the habit kept in the custody of the Poor Clares in Assisi. It seems Holy Father St. Francis may have had quite a closet full of rags.

ROME (Reuters) - Carbon dating has cast doubt on the authenticity of one of four robes kept by Italian churches as relics of the medieval Saint Francis of Assisi, though another tunic, a belt and a cushion were found to be the right vintage. - Reuters

Photo credit: The habit worn by St Francis when he received the stigmata (1224) is preserved in the church of Ognisanti. The habit has been in this church for centuries in an urn under the main altar but it has now been put on permanent diplay in a side chapel.

And hate crimes.

Reading the blogs again, I came across some new bishop-bashing comments (and posts) concerning our own Archbishop Nienstedt  and St. Louis’ Archbishop Burke.  (Archbishop Burke happens to be a doctor of canon law, hence the title of the post.)   A few weeks ago a Catholic men’s group wrote a letter to San Francisco’s Archbishop Niederauer  telling  him what to do to correct a mistake he made in giving communion to transvestite nuns in early October. 

I find it strange that many Catholics have so little respect for the apostolic office of bishop that some will publicly attack and dictate to the bishops what they feel the bishops should be doing.  (I’ve been guilty of this in the past as well.)  To be sure, there have been abuses by bishops in office in the past, nevertheless, bishops deserve a modicum of respect due to the dignity of the office.  After all, as laity, we are not on the level of the apostle Paul of whom it is often said, “rebuked Peter to his face.”  (Galatians 2:11)

Catholic protestants.

Although the most worrisome of the bishop-bashing really seems to come from the progressive Catholic side; from those who insist that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is guilty of teaching doctrinal matters - which in their view  - rise to the level  of hate crimes.  We know who these people are; the women who seek ordination to the Roman Catholic priesthood, active homosexuals who seek the church to reverse its teaching on same-sex relations and allow gay marriage, and those who attack the Church for teaching against artificial contraception, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia.

These opponents of the Catholic hierarchy not only write audacious letters of rebuke, they stage open protests at cathedrals and rallies, attack the Church in media, and soon will attempt to make a federal case out of these matters.  It is happening in other countries and most likely will be coming to a U.S. court near you.

Yet who is persecuting who? 

Nevertheless, what fascinates me about the secularists who protest the authentic Magisterium of the Church when they teach on faith and morals (which indeed is the bishop’s duty), is that these “progressivists” are often hostile, venomous opponents of not only the Catholic bishops,  but Catholic Church doctrine itself.  Which begs the question, who is really being hateful in these situations - who is persecuting who?

[Photo credit: From the television series, "Burke's Law"]