Abbey-Roads2

Gettin’ your groove on and makin’ yo “Va-jay-jay” smile with Oprah…

I’d be willing to bet Oprah’s Jesus laughs a lot, like the picture above, and he is rich too.  Anyone who watches Oprah, a woman I find likable BTW, knows she is big into New Age religious concepts, freedom of choice for women - from self-cultivation to killing their unborn children - just don’t mutilate the “Va-jay-jay” by female circumcision.  Spirituality, philosophy, life,  is all about fulfilling the self with Oprah.  That is not to deny she does much good with her charities and kindnesses to strangers, not to mention the political career of elitist presidential candidate, Barack Obama.   

The point is, Oprah does a lot of good, she also promotes some crazy New Age religious ideas, along with her women’s sexuality courses her shows sometimes become.  I’ve come across a couple of blogs that pretty much rip Oprah to shreds because of her New Age spirituality, as well as her continual self-promotion through her magazine, and the financial power she wields.  One blogspot suggested she could be the anti-Christ.  (Which is what I think made Jesus laugh in the picture above.)

False doctrine in your own neighborhood.

Bigger news is that she is corrupting America with her new series based upon “A Course In Miracles” - the popular pop-psyche/New Age/cult spirituality thing that has been around for years.  (I remember reading that a Trappist monk I knew was using Marianne Williamson’s books and loved the spirituality he found there - that and Centering Prayer turned me off to Trappists ever since.)

Anyway - I’ve gotten emails about this, bloggers  and Christian websites have written about it, that Oprah is doing this ant-Christian spirituality series on her radio show.  A friend contacted Snopes to see what they knew about it.  They responded that essentially Oprah’s promotion of the “Course” is really a personal thing on her part and that the ACIM program has been a best seller for a long time; some people like it, some don’t, -  although people are free to not listen to the program.

I think Christians, especially Catholics, have more important things to worry about than a television personality’s accommodation of New Age Christianity.  Catholics ought to be far more alarmed by dissident parishes teaching erroneous doctrine,  invalid baptisms, the secularization of Catholic education, and - oh boy - bishops and priests and women religious who teach the same crap as Oprah.  How stupid are we, anyway?

To read the Snopes piece, go here.

When dad does tricks. 

I came across an interesting article about a woman who wrote a book describing her experiences growing up with a homosexual father.  We often hear stories from parents of homosexual children, and now it seems children of homosexuals are coming out to tell their side of the story.  The author of  Out From Under, Dawn Stephanowizc is quoted here:

“Children are impacted long-term in homosexual environments – not just while they’re growing up, but throughout their adulthood,” said the author. “Children [of homosexuals] who have been in touch with me, even into their fifties and sixties, still describe certain difficulties that they are facing long-term.” - Americans For Truth 

One should think legislators and society would take a more cautious approach to same sex marriage and adoption before giving blanket approval - especially after listening to the kids. 

Wearing down Catholic resistance to the “G” agenda.

I have given up blogging about “G” issues for Lent, so this post is not really about that.  It is about psychology - kind of, sort of.

Vox Nova has a post, The APA and “H” that includes an excerpt of a review by Sally Satel wherein there is an “interesting tidbit about the APA’s decision to eliminate homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.”  I believe the reversal of diagnosis occurred sometime in the early 1970’s.  Millions of “G” people were no longer nuts.  Perverts no more!  Since then, many people in medicine and psychiatry felt the psychiatric industry had been coerced into taking homosexuality off the list of mental disorders by “G”  activists.  Hence the author of the entry posed the following question:

The APA changes its position on homosexuality after protest and harassment and people lose faith in the authority of its pronouncements? Go figure. It’s worth noting, though, that the conduct members of the APA were subjected to by those gay activists is just an extreme example of the social pressures scientists, academics, and other professionals are subjected to generally to conform their conclusions to the opinions of their social group. A researcher whose work tends towards some politically unpalatable conclusions is not likely to have people picketing his house, but he is likely to face a subtle ostracism from his friends and colleagues. - APA and “H”

I linked to the post and you can read it for yourself - the comments especially are rather interesting.  In fact, my main interest in the Vox Nova  piece centered upon the many comments it received.  I was impressed with how (some)  of the comments by defender of the Faith-style  Catholics,  paralleled similar positions taken by (some)  ”G” activists on their blogs when defending the “H” lifestyle.  The following two comments may help demonstrate my point.

“The misconceptions of many people”

 Gerald Augustinus Says:
February 18, 2008 at 1:00 am

Psychologists follow the same “manual” as psychiatrists. My wife’s a doctor of clinical psychology (which is why she can bear with me, coincidentally) and doesn’t think it’s an illness either, nor does she think that the orientation can be “cured”. She’s counseled HIV patients in the past, many of whom Catholic, unfortunately many a gay person took some serious damage from the way they were treated by (some) Catholics and resent the Church now. It seems nigh impossible to pull off the “hate the sin, love the sinner” act. In particular when people use the term “Sodomite”. (On this note - just how on earth was Lot any better than the men clamoring for the angels ? Hospitality > having virgin daughters gang-raped. Sweet…)

Common ground.

 Gerald Augustinus Says:
February 18, 2008 at 3:01 am

It is hard to tell the symptom from the cause in this matter. Certainly, it doesn’t help with psychosexual development to be widely stigmatized, in particular in the past. Regardless of what one thinks of Church rule on this subject, it must be horribly difficult to identify one’s desire for companionship, love, and, yes, sex with being ‘objectively disordered’. Suppression and sublimation certainly results in a secretive culture. The more open someone is, the less likely they are to engage in the more appalling elements of male gay culture. It’s the ‘closeted’ ones that tend to get caught in restrooms, park, and so forth. The sex abuse scandal in the Church largely happened because of sexually immature homosexuals who entered the priesthood as a ‘beard’ or in the hope to overcome their inclination. Such immaturity then resulted in abusing their emotional ‘equals’, teenage boys.

One could go on forever about the misconceptions of many people - like to claim that homosexuals ‘define’ themselves by their sexuality. For one, that which separates one from the majority sticks out like a sore thumb and by virtue of that becomes defining from both sides. In addition, to reduce homosexuality to a collection of sex acts is just as absurd as if one did that for heterosexuals.

Of course, due to the ‘deviant’ nature (de-viare, off the path) of homosexuality, there are problems caused by the fact that man and woman are made for each other (and even that isn’t all fun and games), and man and man, woman and woman, are not. Hyper-sexuality in the former, and hypo-sexuality in the latter, are quite common.

Lastly, while a gay person, in particular a man, is more likely to be more promiscuous, lead a more dangerous lifestyle (meth, in particular) etc, it ain’t necessarily so - there are many homosexuals who are quite ‘boring’ and ‘normal’.

I have a friend in Courage, I am not sure that ‘re-programming’ is part of that ?

P.S. “Sodomite” is as inappropriate a term as “onany”. The question in the story was the respect for guests, a big thing in the culture. That the women wouldn’t come clamor is self-explanatory. Neither seems ‘Lot’ to have deemed his fellow ‘Sodomites’ to be homosexual, but rather bi-, since he offered them his virgin daughters instead…(who later would go on to jump their drunken fathers and both managed to get pregnant, conveniently giving birth to ‘Ammon’ and ‘Moab’, thus paving the way for future genocide of the respective -ites.

The Catholic Church must conform! 

Contrast those comments with Michael Bayly’s  post (indeed, his website) regarding the APA’s decision, which also figures in well with his campaign for the Roman Catholic Church to discard Her own teaching on the subject:

Dr. Gonsiorek then proceeded to provide some insightful background information on the origins of NARTH – origins inseparable from the wider cultural debate on homosexuality and, specifically, the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders (followed two years later by the passage of a similar resolution of the American Psychological Association).

This change in the diagnosis of homosexuality was the result of the wealth of research data gathered since the early 1950s that showed no difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations in terms of “adjustment.”

In time, the psychoanalytical establishment also changed in its understanding of homosexuality; it now has the same sets of policies and principles about sexual orientation as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Yet there were “old guard” psychoanalysts who were disgruntled about being displaced and seeing their organization change its views on homosexuality. This disaffected group of psychoanalysts formed an alliance with conservatively- and religiously-oriented psychotherapists. It was from this alliance that NARTH was established. - Debunking NARTH

How queer is that?  Seems like that agenda thing may be working out after all.

Links:

http://www.powells.com/review/2008_02_14.html

Objectifying men in Holy Orders.

Catholic news is often full of stories about liberal nuns who want greater equality in a male dominated Church, along with reports of their counterparts who either lobby for female ordination or go ahead and have themselves ordained. 

Then there are the periodic reports of the occasional scandal involving a priest leaving orders to marry a parish worker or some Camille he may be counselling.  Media, including Catholic bloggers love to exploit these stories.  Such stories also provide an excellent opportunity for uber-Catholics to proclaim their orthodoxy and fidelity to everything traditional, while condemning the heretics.  It’s something to blog about.

However, I find it curious that women, like gay men, seem to have an inordinate attraction not only to the priesthood, but to priests themselves.  I’ve heard some very traditional women say they think the priest is sexy in his cassock - even if he may have ho-hum looks.

Of course, Donatella Versaci has been rather vocal about her attraction to Monsignor Ganswein, the Pope’s secretary; last year she based a portion of  her men’s collection on clerical wear because of him.  The Monsignor also seems to be popular with female bloggers - Catholic and non-Catholic, and as one would expect, gay men seem to have the hots for him as well.  The poor Father is just too sexy for his cassock.

Respecting boundaries. 

Fatal attractions for priests and religious are nothing new, the movie, “The Devils” based upon the book by Aldous Huxley, ”The Devils of Loudon”, contains several scenes of Vanessa Redgrave’s character lusting after the local parish priest.  She was especially turned on by her fantasy of him naked beneath a lacy alb.    I don’t really know what it is that women find so attractive about priests and seminarians - and although I have a few ideas, I won’t go there.  (Photo: Oliver Reed from “The Devils”, Ken Russell, 1971.  Shown here is his scene as a fantasy of Christ for the prioress [Redgrave] who lusted after him.)

Even the most devout and sincere woman can mistake attraction for  devotion and dedication to her faith or position in the parish, although in many instances, she is most likely in denial.  I expect that must be the case when it leads to a priest leaving ministry for the woman he either worked with or counseled.  There are all sorts of situations which can befall a priest, and although it takes two in cases involving romance, the woman may indeed have greater responsibility in the affair.  Why?  If, as studies suggest, women are more intuitive than men, they ought to be more sensitive to the onset of infatuation and lust.  Men, ordained or not, often just don’t see it until it  happens. 

In such cases women would do well to recall the old saying; “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”  Although before it gets that far, they ought to keep in mind the  other saying;  ”Where there’s fantasy there’s desire”.

It may be better to pray for priests, rather than to foster crushes on them.

Links:

Priests and Emotional Love, by Rev. Thomas G. Morrow - A very good article on the subject.

 [Top photo:  Monsignor Ganswein with another prelate.]

BBC NEWS…

An article from L’Osservatore Romano reports a  further dramatic decline in monastic and religious vocations worldwide.  In fact, during the pontificate of JPII, the number of nuns fell by a quarter.  The report says the decline is continuing, the numbers fell by 10% between 2005 and 2006, and new vocations are not replacing the nuns who die or abandon consecrated life.  BBCNEWS  has the story.

Just some thoughts…

So where are all the vocations John Paul II inspired?  I thought there was supposed to be a huge increase in vocations.  I know of a couple of congregations in the U.S. that are flourishing, evidently that doesn’t count or make a difference in the statistics.

Discounting our narcissist culture, along with the luxuries and pleasures modern life affords, as well as the potential for personal wealth and fame, what else could be the reason few men and women show an interest in religious life?  Especially those who are active in their church, who practice their faith, and want to participate in the new evangelization?  Well, they can do all of that without sacrificing anything or bothering to enter a religious community.  Today we treasure our independence, which allows us to have our cake and eat it too.

Living a religious life in the world.

The young person with a degree in music, liturgy, theology, religious education, and so on, is ready and qualified for a pretty good job working in a parish, teaching at a Catholic school or college.  The active participation of the laity in evangelization may have provided enough of a sense of vocation to preclude any need or attraction to the religious life for young people.  Especially as it is represented by older religious from established congregations.  Young people know they too can lead a prayerful life of service to the Church, keep their own apartment or home, with a car, and anything else they want.  Or, they can get married and continue to work for the Church, and maybe even get on the religious lecture circuit, write numerous books, become a tele-evangelist, or conduct tours to Medjugorje.  

[The other reason for the decline is because of all the gays!  I'M KIDDING!   That was just for you Arthur!  LOL!  Okay, I'm done now.]

(Photo credit: I think these are CFR nuns.  I stole the photo from Crescat.)

The blame game.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has a good review of Philip Lawler’s new book, The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture, which is going to press this week.  The book has the endorsement of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, who says: “Lawler’s masterful analysis is sobering and provides an urgent incentive for authentic renewal. If St. John Chrysostom is correct when he says that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, it would be a mistake for any bishop or priest to miss this book.” - First Things 

I believe Fr. Neuhaus probably thinks the quote from Chrysostom is more hyperbole than fact, although it sounds as if he likes Lawler’s book.  He suggests the book is really two books interwoven, the foundational thread covering the  ’past’ abuse crises in the Catholic Church, while the other proposes to document the decline of Catholic culture in Boston.  It seems Lawler lays blame for the abuse crises at the feet of the bishops of the United States.

““The thesis of this book,” writes Lawler, “is that the sex abuse scandal in American Catholicism was not only aggravated but actually caused by the willingness of church leaders to sacrifice the essential for the inessential; to build up the human institution even to the detriment of the divine mandate.”

“The first aspect of the scandal, the sexual abuse of children, has been acknowledged and addressed,” Lawler writes. “The second aspect, the rampant homosexuality among Catholic priests, has been acknowledged but not addressed, and later even denied. . . . The third aspect of the scandal has never even been acknowledged by American church leaders.” The third aspect, the malfeasance of bishops, “is today the most serious of all.” - First Things 

Although Fr. Neuhaus offers a favorable review of the book, he does have a few points of disagreement with the author - which Father suggests he will address in a future article.  I want to read Father’s analysis, as well as Lawler’s book.  The following excerpt caught my attention as it relates to homosexual priests:

Lawler adds: “Homosexual influence within the American clergy was not in itself the cause of the sex abuse crisis. The corruption wrought by that influence was a more important factor.” He very gingerly addresses a theory proposed by a number of commentators on the crisis, namely, that bishops engaged in cover-ups and other deceptions because they were threatened with homosexual blackmail. He cites a number of instances in which this appears to be the case and bishops were permitted to resign when their misdeeds could no longer be denied. “The blackmail hypothesis,” he writes, “provides a logical explanation for behavior that is otherwise inexplicable: the bishops’ willingness to risk the welfare of the faithful and their own reputations in order to protect abusive priests.” - Paved with the Skulls of Bishops

Art:  “Bishop” - Fernando Botero

I got a new attitude, ooh, ooh, ooh!

While researching some things on the Carthusians, I came across the following quote, attributed to Fr. Raphael Diamond, the deceased prior of the Vermont Chaterhouse.

“Davidson was Roman Catholic who had a kind of faith,” as Father Diamond put it, “that did not need to be fulfilled by attending weekly services.” - Joseph George davidson, PhD - founder of the Vermont Charterhouse. 

I liked the way Fr. Diamond stated that.  I’m adopting that attitude from this day forward,  as regards relatives and friends who do not go to Mass, or those I once may have considered “luke-warm” or “irreligious”.

I suppose some ubers will protest, “But!  But!  We have to tell people they are sinning and warn them they are going to hell!  We are required to offer fraternal correction.”  Yeah… so…

Anyway - from now on, I’ll certainly hesitate before self-righteously calling other people “lukewarm” or “Sunday Catholics,” simply because I cannot know their level of faith, their interior life, or even if their faith is so strong they do not need to go to Church as often as I do.  Instead, I can keep the fact that I am much worse than others, ever before my eyes.

So just talk amongst yourselves in church.  ;) 

So what’s new?

Many, many people have complained about the lack of press coverage for the annual March For Life in Washington, D.C., which took place last week in opposition to our country’s abortion laws.  It happens every year - the press virtually ignore the event.  Most political leaders ignore the event as well, and although our pro-life President never shows up, he makes a safe, diplomatic, phoned-in speech of support. 

This year the lack of press coverage has been blamed (by some)  on the death of a movie actor.  Pro-life supporters believe the secular press used coverage of Heath Ledger’s death to ignore what they usually ignore every year anyway - the March For Life.

“It also goes without saying that the little tin gods in the media did their level best to ignore and obfuscate this colossal event. When the homosexual propaganda film star, Heath Ledger, died of a drug overdose on two nights before the March, that provided the hedonistic media the perfect reason to wail and gnash their teeth for a prolonged period of time about their immoral agenda and derail coverage of the life event.” - Fr. Euteneuer

I have the deepest respect and admiration for Fr. Euteneuer, and I certainly appreciate the frustration with the press in his statement.  I also have no doubt there is media bias against the pro-life movement - we witness it every year.   Having said that, how do we explain the fact that media in our country also ignores just about every other humanitarian news story that doesn’t have a connection to celebrity news, economic fears, climate change, or the political race for president?

What network news agency in this country is actively reporting upon the terror the people of Kenya  are currently enduring?  Or the murder of priests  and nuns so often repeated throughout African and Muslim countries?  Although it is old news, what do we ever hear of the ongoing genocide in Sudan?  Or the continual sufferings of peoples just about anyplace you look in Africa?  While NO ONE in this country ever seems willing to report on the progrom of extermination against the Palestinian people  by Israel?

So what’s up with that? 

[Photo:  Kenya in flames.] 

And gay icons.

You have all heard the term gay icon, I’m sure.  Similar to pop icon, the terms refer to famous and/or popular personages who are idealized  and  idolized by a certain fan base.  A person usually becomes a gay icon because of his/her beauty, glamor, style or fashion sense, the drama or pathos of the person’s life, especially if it is marked by tragedy, or the person is perceived as an outsider.

Secular canonization.

In short, if the figure reflects any of the neuroses some psychologists believe underlie the homosexual adaptation; or if the figure ever suffered discrimination, persecution, or addiction to alchohol or drugs -  and especially those who have died tragically - then that person has a good chance of becoming a gay icon.  For instance, since the onslaught of HIV/AIDS in the early 1980’s, secular media and gay people have more or less canonized many sufferers who have died from the disease as gay martyrs.  At the same time, men or women who have died as a result of “gay bashing” are also canonized, if you will.

Mythic proportions.

The fact is however, the person elevated to the status of gay icon usually had no choice in the matter.  The person became a cult figure because of the meaning the fan base projected upon that particular person’s life and/or death.  The cult often develops independent of the person and is focused upon a perceived reality, of that person.  Their reputation  is often sentimentalized,  and as time passes, it is usually embelished by fantasy, romance, and heroism.  Even if these attributes are true, they are normally idealized.  In short, the cult figure becomes a patron saint of popular culture or gay people - sometimes both.

Gay icons are not always gay.

This whole thread came up on my other blog, Abbey-Roads, in a post I did marking the death of Heath Ledger.  A few commenters suggested he was a gay icon and for that reason did not deserve the press he received.  The same things were said about John Lennon, Princess Diana, and other celebrities when they died.  (Not that they were gay icons, but many felt they were undeserving of the press they received.)  I disagreed. 

Although I wasn’t a huge fan of Heath Ledger, neither was I aware he was considered a gay icon.  He made many more films other than “Brokeback” - but it seems his portrayal in that film is what garnered him the title of “gay icon”.  I’m certain he did not set out to gain that “honor” for himself.  In my post I wrote he would probably attain the cult status of James Dean, because of his great talent, young age when he died, and the tragic circumstances of his death - not to mention his popularity amongst young people.  I do not think it is appropriate to demon-ize a famous person simply because some people have declared him a gay icon.  After all, Ledger was simply a flawed human being - much like the rest of humanity - and he died suddenly at an early age.

Here is a short list of Gay Icons - personages some LGBT people have adopted as heroes:  (Go here for the long list.)

Catholic Saints: (Go here for more.)

St. Sebastian

St. Joan of Arc

St. Perpetua and Felicity

King David and Jonathan

Ven. Cardinal Newman

Secular gay icons:

Matthew Shepherd

Marie Antoinette

Alexander the Great

Judy Garland

Rock Hudson

James Dean

Marilyn Monroe

David Beckham

Cary Grant

I’m sure there are longer lists somewhere - but remember, this stuff is simply made up by a small group of people.