Westboro Baptist to protest Pope Benedict XVI

Members of Westboro Baptist Church – a Missouri sect that has gained notoriety for protests at funerals of US troops – are expected to mount protests at several sites in New York and Washington DC during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States. Spero News reports.

I saw an interesting documentary a while back on this hate-saturated cult of bigots ("Fall From Grace", directed by K. Ryan Jones). In one amusing scene, a group of bikers (dubbing themselves the "Patriot Guard") decided they weren't going to take it anymore and let the funeral of one of their own be disrupted. They parked their Harleys in a line between the protestors and their targets and started revving their engines, drowning out the chanting until they packed up and left.

(Note to papal security -- don't let these papal protestors in the same vicinity as these papal protestors, or you'll have quite a ruckus on your hands).

Responding to Voice of the Faithful's demand for "Structural Change"

Joseph F. O'Callaghan, professor emeritus in the department of history at Fordham University and past president of the American Catholic Historical Association, posts his "Reflections on Benedict XVI's Visit to the U.S.".

I must confess when I heard the name "Fordham" the images of two great Fordham Jesuits flashed through my mind -- those of Avery Cardinal Dulles and Joseph Koterski, SJ -- and I anticipated a respite from the usual griping from the mainstream press.

Unfortunately, O'Callaghan's reflections turn out to be much of the same (what fellow papal blogger Tim Drake has taken to calling the "WOCHA mantra"). Observe:

On each occasion he will give a homily or a formal address. The faithful will hear him, but will he listen to them? He could learn much about the state of the Church in the United States by participating in informal listening sessions with ordinary laymen and laywomen and rank-and-file priests. He would hear first hand people’s worries about parish closings, the lack of parish priests, and the divergence between episcopal pronouncements on sexuality and the lived experience of the faithful. By listening, by engaging in real dialogue with the people in the pews, Benedict XVI would show himself to be a true pastor. He would also show other bishops how it’s done.

Does Callaghan mean to suggest that the "lived experience of the faithful" in matters of sexuality is completely at odds with the "episcopal pronouncements" of their pastors? On what issues, exactly?

If the pope and his theologians can engage in dialogue with Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, and Jews in Catholic venues, he should ask our bishops: “why do you refuse to meet with faithful Catholics with whom you don’t agree and prohibit them from meeting on church property? Why do you deny members of Voice of the Faithful the right to gather in their parishes to discuss the scandal of priestly sexual abuse and the attendant cover-up by the bishops? Why do you deny them the right to gather in their parishes to discuss financial embezzlement by pastors and negligence in episcopal oversight? Why do you refuse to permit distinguished leaders of the American Catholic community, such as Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and Richard McBrien, to speak on church property if the events are hosted by Voice of the Faithful?

I'll concede that Callaghan has a point keeping the channels of communication open with regards to the survivors of priestly sexual abuse (a subject which, incidentally, Benedict plans to address during his visit). But to describe Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and Richard McBrien as "distinguished leaders of the American Catholic community?" -- Please. This might have a shred of truth were the 'American Catholic Community' constituted solely of those lobbying for a reversal of Church teaching on homosexuality and the acceptance of openly gay clergy.

And judging by the Review of Fr. McBrien's Catholicism by the NCCB's Committee on Doctrine, our nation's Bishops have good reason to be wary of this particular theologian, reasons that Benedict himself (as former Prefect of the CDF) might agree with.

O'Callaghan next raises the matter of the Eucharistic celebration and the vocations crisis ("the documented aging of our priests; the shortage of active priests; the precipitous decline in the ranks of seminarians; and the scant number of newly-ordained priests"). I happen to share his concern, but while I'd suggest the answer might reside in encouraging vocations among Catholic youth and heeding the Holy Father's own call to vocations, O'Callaghan's liberal "solution" is something else altogether:

Benedict XVI should act on the many proposals that have been put forward to alleviate this problem, namely, making celibacy voluntary; ending the ban on married clergy; allowing priests, currently inactive because they chose to marry, to return to ministry; and opening the priesthood to women.

O'Callaghan ends his list of demands for the Pope with the standard "progressive Catholic" sales pitch, the Magisterium be damned:

As all the members of that Body have their own special gifts that are essential to the well-being of the whole, should not these councils be fully representative of the whole body of the faithful, namely, bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laymen and women? Should they not possess deliberative authority on every issue affecting our spiritual lives? Would not deliberation concerning doctrinal, liturgical, disciplinary, administrative, and financial issues by a diversity of councils communicating regularly with one another develop a true sensus fidelium?”

Well, I do think we've experienced what happens when we permit the masses to "deliberate" over liturgical matters -- Benedict's written quite extensively on this subject, and has devoted his pontificate in part to repairing the damage of the last four decades.

Likewise, one can only wonder what we'd end up with if every Tom, Dick and Harry got together to "deliberate" over doctrinal issues and refashion Church teaching according to the prevailing winds of public opinion. (G.K. Chesterton had it right when he said "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.")

Let us listen, then, to some relevant words from our dear Pope Benedict -- in his prior incarnation as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking with David Quinn of the Sunday Business Post December 17, 1995). Ratzinger speaks specifically with regard to women's ordination, but his answers touch upon questions of obedience and authority that are pertinent to us all, even O'Callaghan and Voice of the Faithful:

How was the cardinal's response to the charge that this teaching effectively reduces Catholic women to the status of second-class citizens within the Church?

“I would simply say that it is erroneous to think that priests are first among Christians and everyone else is second-class.

“This is a fundamental misunderstanding of priestly service.

“You obviously do not have to be a priest to be a good Christian.

“If you read the New Testament you can see that for the Lord, priestly service entails being in the last place, not the first. This is the opposite of power and privilege.”

But surely it could be objected that this is not a convincing reason to deny women this mode of service?

“It must be pointed out first of all that we are not building Christianity out of our own ideas. The Church is given out of the will of God, and the will of God is in turn a gift to the Church and it determines our will. We must be in communion with the will of the Lord.

“Second, decisions of the Lord can at first seem inexplicable to us. We must follow his way before we can begin to understand. The Pope is obliged to obey the Lord's will.

“The Lord's will is visible in the New Testament and in the tradition of the Christian life and he has shown that men and women have different gifts which are shown in different ways but are equal in dignity.

“We gave to reflect more on why the Lord decided so, but we cannot simply treat the Church as a sociological construct and change it according to our will.”

Yet isn't it true that the Church's magisterium, its teaching authority, is exercised by men and men only? Therefore, isn't the priesthood in reality more about power than about service?

“Two things must be said here. The magisterium is not exercised only at the past moment when a Pope makes a decision or publishes a text. The proclamations of the Holy See develop out of a long process of Church life involving contemplation, study, and experience. In this process, all members of the Church are present. It would be easy to find the influence of Christian women on vital decisions of the Church throughout its history.

“In the end, the Pope can only give definitive form to what is already part of the faith. The second point is that the promulgation of doctrine is not an exercise of power, it is an exercise in obedience.

“There are certain things the Pope cannot do if he is to be obedient to the will of God, and this includes allowing the ordination of women. The magisterium is not like a government which can overturn the decisions of its predecessors.”

The cardinal rejected any suggestion that this teaching could someday be reversed.

“It is impossible because it is part of the deposit of faith.”

The question of women priests has focused attention once again on the way in which authority in the Church is exercised, and has strengthened calls for the Church's decision-making process to be more “open and democratic'‘.

“I think we must reflect more on what democracy in the exercise of authority would mean. Is truth determined by a majority vote, only for a new ‘truth' to be ‘discovered' by a new majority tomorrow? In the fields of science or medicine such a method of arriving at the truth would not be taken seriously. A democratic magisterium in this sense would be a false magisterium.”

(The whole interview is available online here -- classic Ratzinger -- and worth reading in its entirety).

* * *

On April 9, Voice of the Faithful ran an advertisement in the New York Times in anticipation of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States next week, calling for "structural change within the Catholic Church." According to Catholic News Agency, the Bridgeport, CT chapter of Voice of the Faithful had sent their proposals regarding laity-run elections to ecclesial office to William E. Lori, the Bishop of Bridgeport; but O’Callaghan said “We have heard nothing from him about it.”

Denver canon lawyer, J.D. Flynn, however, has responded to the group's demands:

“Much of what VOTF calls for in terms of lay, religious, and clerical participation in evaluating the needs of the diocese already takes place in a diocesan pastoral council and a diocesan synod,” Flynn explained.

While granting that lay input into the selection of bishops “is not, in itself, a bad thing,” Flynn said that because the VOTF proposal involves pressuring the Holy Father it would eliminate “both obedience and virtue from the responsibilities of the Christian.”

Flynn called O’Callaghan’s proposal for a direct election of bishops by a diocesan synod, with no confirmation from the Pope, “totally unacceptable.”

“To remove the Holy Father, or seek to minimize his role, as the VOTF plan does, is to impede the communion of the divinely instituted college of bishops,” he said.

Atheists jump on board the Papal Protest Train

"The Pope is Coming to America ... And We’ll be Ready to Protest the Vatican’s Oppressive and Theocratic Agenda for Our Country and the Rest of the World!", proclaims the organization 'American Atheists.' (Via A Long Island Catholic).

Cinematic Screed against Catholic Church timed with Benedict's Visit

Gary Stern reports that Pope Benedict XVI's visit to New York (and the eve of Passover) will be accompanied by a film based on James Carroll's controversial polemic Constantine's Sword:

Carroll is a former Catholic priest and sharp critic of the Catholic Church. His book is largely about the history of anti-Semitism in the church.

A release says that in the film “Carroll raises difficult questions about Pope Benedict’s leadership.”

The timing of the premiere will, one has to believe, strike some people as inappropriate.

Here is a synopsis of the film from its website:

Constantine’s Sword is the story of James Carroll; a former Catholic priest on a journey to confront his past and uncover the roots of religiously inspired violence and war. His search also reveals a growing scandal involving religious infiltration of the U.S. military and the terrible consequences of religion’s influence on America’s foreign policy.

Carroll focuses on Christian antisemitism as the model for all religious hatred, exposing the cross as a symbol of a long history of violence against Jews (and, most recently, Moslems). The film brings the history of religious intolerance to life, tracing it as a source of the fanaticism that threatens the world today. At its core, Constantine’s Sword is a compelling personal narrative — a kind of detective story — as one man uncovers the dark areas of his own past, searching for a better future.

Unlike other histories of anti-semitism (I would personally recommend Fr. Edward Flannery's The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism), Carroll in one who has, in his laudable zeal to "purify" the Church of latent anti-semitism, "thrown out the baby with the bathwater" -- identifying anti-semitism so closely with Christianity that the only real solution would culminate in the end of Christianity itself. His scholarly efforts are impeded by the fact that he brings to the table his own personal agenda and a desire to refashion the Church according to his whims.

Eugene J. Fisher, former associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (and by virtue of his office, typically sympathetic to Jewish concerns over anti-semitism), reviewed the book and found it wanting ("Two Millennia of Catholic-Jewish Relations" America March 5, 2001):

The chief flaw [of Constantine's Sword] is that the book uses the tragedies of the Jews over the centuries in order to make the quite unrelated and entirely internal Christian point that the author thinks the church should be structured differently than it is—i.e. as a democracy—and that its Christology is too high—i.e. that the church really believes that Jesus was and is God as well as a man. For Carroll, this leads to “exclusivism” at the heart of Christian theology, which means that all human beings in some way known only to God are saved in and through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, even those who are not baptized. [...]

Whether one agrees with Carroll’s theology, however, the point remains that he has absolutely no right to use Jewish suffering over the centuries to push it forward. Ironically, Carroll’s failure here can best be paralleled by, and is a logical inversion of, that of the early church fathers, whom he rightly criticizes for having used the historical incident of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple as a “proof” of the divinity of Christ. Why else, they argued, would God have been so righteously angered at his own people, unless they had killed his Son? See how the Jews suffer and are dispersed? That is God’s punishment for deicide. So, too, I believe, does Carroll fall into the classic Christian temptation to use Jewish suffering as a proof text. This, history has shown (and Carroll himself writes a lot of that history extremely well), is a very dangerous course to take. Self-projection may make for good narrative in a novel, but it is not very good history.

Two other reviews by "Dismantling the Cross", by Robert Louis Wilken (Commonweal January 26, 2001), Sins of the Fathers, by Daniel P. Moloney (National Review. March 5, 2001) arrive at similar disappointed assessments.

All the more reason, then, to treat with caution the book's cinematic adaptation.

Related

• As Catholic News' Diogenes observes, "what really irks Carroll is the Pope's "positing Christian superiority to other faiths" This leads to some pretty peculiar accusations, as when Carroll himself fans the flames of religious strife by accusing the notably anti-war Benedict of "supplying a religious underpinning" to George Bush's "crusade" in Iraq.

• More logorrhea from the Boston Globe & James Carroll - Fr. John Zuhlsdorf deconstructs Carroll's criticism of Benedict's institution of the "prayer for the Jews" in the Good Friday liturgy.

Pope Prompts Peaceful Protest for Protection of Pluralism!

Now say that three times really fast! -- The so-called Forum for the Protection of Religious Pluralism (FPRP) is organizing a peaceful march to protest the papal visit:

[The march] will proceed at 10 a.m. on Friday, April 18 from the United Nations building to the Gandhi statue in Union Square Park. Another demonstration and parade will be held outside Yankee Stadium during the Papal address there from 1-4 p.m., on Sunday, April 20. FPRP is holding these events to voice another view of religion, international politics, and civil rights.

Forum for the Protection of Religious PluralismFPRP is devoted to raising public awareness of religions that have been victimized by aggressive proselytization campaigns that are grounded in religious exclusivism, which is there is only one way to God and all other ways are wrong and even evil that needs to be destroyed.

"We represent faiths, including several Christian denominations, that do not support proselytization and view the practice of it as a complete contradiction of their beliefs," says Jonas Trinkunas from the World Congress of Ethnic Religions (WCER), one of the organizations that is sponsoring the event. "When the members of the U.N. say that they support religious freedom and then give privileged treatment to the leader of a religion that regularly endorses deceptive proselytization campaigns at the expense of others, we feel that we are being penalized for remaining true to our faiths. If religious freedom is going to be shared by everyone, this unequal treatment must stop."

Detailed information is at www.protectreligions.org.

Rainbow Sashers' "childish" scheming to disrupt Pope's welcome

LifeSiteNews picks up the story of the Rainbow Sash Movement's stated intent to throw ashes at the Pope during his visit:

The RSM plans to throw ashes at the Pope, because "ashes are an ancient and appropriate greeting for a sinner who has caused the Church so much division and pain," stated the movement.

"We will also be greeting him with whistles; these were used by the Polish People to show shame for the violation of human rights by the Communist Government prior to the end of the cold war," added a RSM statement.

"We are a community of Catholic GLBT along with our allies who work for change in the Church. To continue to hide our identity only enables shame and homophobia. We are committed to working from within the Church," says the movement.

The RSM is best known for its large Pentecost Sunday protests, in which openly practicing homosexual, bisexual, and "transgendered" individuals identify themselves as such with multicolor sashes and demand Holy Communion during Mass.

The Pope has been a vocal opponent of homosexual "marriage". In January 2007, after praising traditional families, the Pope said, "projects that aim to attribute to other forms of union inappropriate legal recognition appear dangerous and counterproductive."

The RSM contrasts with ministries in the Church that support Catholics in their efforts to live a life of chastity and to overcome homosexual inclinations when possible. The Courage apostolate, founded by Fr. John Harvey, OSFS in 1980, has five main goals: Chastity, Prayer and Dedication, Fellowship, Support, and Good Example.

Insight Scoop's Carl Olson responds: "This deeply principled and loving act is meant, I assume, to show the world how devout, committed followers of Jesus Christ express their respect and love for one another".

Homosexual protestors plan reception for Pope Benedict XVI

Last year we reported on the rather rude and obnoxious reception then-Cardinal Ratzinger recieved at the hands of gay-activists ACT-UP when he visited New York City in January 1988 (See Pope Benedict XVI: Grace Under Fire August 31, 2007). According to the New York Times:

The demonstrators — some shouting “He’s no man of God,” “inquisitor” and “Nazi” — interrupted a talk by Cardinal Ratzinger for about 10 minutes. The A.P. reported that Cardinal John J. O’Connor, the archbishop of New York at the time (he died in 2000), “sat somberly beside him during the disruption at the presentation.” Six demonstrators were arrested.

Unfortunately, it looks like a few of these ruffians have something in store for the Holy Father when he comes to visit in April 2008.

• According to PinkNews.co.uk, The Rainbow Sash Movement is calling on "Catholics of good will" to take the Papal visit as an opportunity to shower the Pope mobile with ashes instead of confetti:

  "Ashes are an ancient and appropriate greeting for a sinner who has caused the Church so much division and pain," RSM said in a statement.

  "We will also be greeting him with whistles; these were used by the Polish People to show shame for the violation of human rights by the Communist Government prior to the end of the cold war.

  "This will be a loud call for reform, that the Pope will be unable to turn a deaf ear to."

• Dignity USA plans a somewhat less disruptive response (Gay Catholics to ‘address’ Pope during Washington visit Washington Blade March 7, 2008):

  The gay Catholic groups Dignity USA and New Ways Ministry are planning to send a respectful but forceful message affirming the presence of gay people in the Catholic Church during Pope Benedict XVI’s April 14-18 visit to Washington.

  New Ways Ministry, which has advocated for reconciliation between gay Catholics and the church hierarchy for the past 31 years, announced plans for four prominent gay and lesbian Catholics to deliver statements to the Pope about their “lives, loves and hopes for the church” at an April 10 news conference at the National Press Club.

  Among those addressing the Pope at the news conference will be Heather Mizeur, the openly gay member of the Maryland House of Delegates, whom New Ways Ministries says is a practicing Catholic. . . .

  Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of Dignity USA, whose local chapters organize weekly Sunday Masses for gay Catholics, said representatives of her group plan to greet the Pope with signs along his motorcade route in Washington.

  “We will present a positive message in a respectful way to counter the hurtful things he has been saying about GLBT people for so many years,” Duddy-Burke said.

  “The policy we have for the Dignity events is to keep them peaceful, prayerful and positive,” she said. “We want to let people know we have great joy in our lives, that we are productive citizens and that we have faith in our lives.”

Pope Benedict XVI: Grace Under Fire

Cross-post from Against The Grain]

The Pope is scheduled to visit the U.N. in New York City next year. From the blog of the New York Times, a post recalling When Ratzinger Last Visited New York:

The A.P. reported that on Jan. 26, 1988, “several prominent rabbis refused to attend a meeting with Ratzinger because he maintains that Judaism finds its fulfillment in Christianity.” The following day, gay demonstrators, angered by Cardinal Ratzinger’s contention that homosexuality is a “moral disorder,” heckled him during his talk at the Saint Peter’s Church, a Lutheran congregation in Midtown.

The demonstrators — some shouting “He’s no man of God,” “inquisitor” and “Nazi” — interrupted a talk by Cardinal Ratzinger for about 10 minutes. The A.P. reported that Cardinal John J. O’Connor, the archbishop of New York at the time (he died in 2000), “sat somberly beside him during the disruption at the presentation.” Six demonstrators were arrested.

Cardinal Ratzinger’s talk, and a closed-door conference on Jan. 28, 1988, were organized by the Center on Religion and Society at the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal foundation based in Charlottesville, Va.

It was actually Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus (at that time still a Lutheran pastor) who coordinated then-Cardinal Ratzinger's visit to the United States. The text of Ratzinger's address: Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today; the proceedings of the conference were published in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Eerdmans Pub Co (May 1989).

In an interview with NewsMax.com, Fr. Neuhaus recalled Ratzinger's encounter with obnoxious protestors intent on disrupting the Cardinal's speech:

. . . Throughout, the cardinal was the very picture of tranquility. When he got a chance to speak he prefaced his lecture, which was on the subject of biblical interpretation, with a moving reflection on the 1968 student rebellion in Europe that helped him to understand more deeply the indispensability of civility in human relations.

On this and other occasions, it was obvious to me that his tranquility is rooted in a tried and tested faith. The next day the tabloid headlines blazoned, "Gays Protest Vatican Biggy." He chuckled at his new title of Vatican Biggy.

From the perspective of a protestor, demonstrating typical liberal support for freedom of speech and the civil exchange of ideas:

... Ratzinger took the podium and began to speak. As soon as he finished his first sentence, a group of about eight people to the left of the crowd leaped to their feet and began chanting "Stop the Inquisition!" They chanted feverishly and loudly, their voices echoing throughout the building. The entire room was fixated on them. Activists suddenly appeared in the back of the church and began giving out fliers explaining the action. Two men on the other side of the room jumped up and, pointing at Ratzinger, began to scream, "Antichrist!" Another man jumped up, in one of the first few rows near the prelate, and yelled, "Nazi!" All over the church, angry people began to shout down the protestors who were near them; chaotic yelling matches broke out. . . .

Suddenly, I jumped up on one of the marble platforms and, looking down, I addressed the entire congregation in the loudest voice I could. My voice rang out as if it were amplified. I pointed at Ratzinger and shouted: "He is no man of God!" The shocked faces of the assembled Catholics turned to the back of the room to look at me as I continued: "He is no man of God -- he is the Devil!"

In an article at the dawn of Benedict XVI's pontificate, Alice von Hildebrand recalled the visit to New York as well (No Prophet In His Own Land: Reflections on Benedict XVI Crisis June 2005):

My Latin blood started boiling. Before I knew it, I got up and said at the top of my voice, “Shame on you!” The police were called and they forced the dissidents to leave the Church; they went outside and continued screaming. The cardinal stood quietly on the podium with a grieved but gentle expression on his face. I could not help but have the feeling that he was praying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Peace was finally reestablished, and once again, His Eminence proceeded with his text as if nothing had happened. He was clearly deeply recollected. But it was not the end of this ugly affair. After some ten minutes, other protesters seated in the back of the Church started spitting their gall once again and giving expression to their unholy rage. The same scenario was repeated; but this time, the police were nearby, and the speaker could complete his talk.

His attitude throughout was admirable—peaceful, calm, loving, no bitterness, no resentment. He accepted their insults and, in doing so, gave testimony to the teaching of Christ: Love those who hate you.

Let's hope our Papa will receive a kinder, warmer welcome on his next visit to the Big Apple.