Monday, November 30, 2009

K.C. comments on Chesterton's 'Orthodoxy' chapter one


"why I am Catholic" blog invited to K.C. and many others to partcipate in a discussion of Chesterton's little book....(K. C. is i purple)

My comments on the first chapter--Chesterton deflates human pride by pointing to God's Providence. A man imagines he is discovering a new land only to find the 'new land' is the land he grew up in! I get this same sense from some of the things you write. It is a conservative bent! ...

It is hard to be 'avant garde' if you believe the Almighty has been faithfully working thru an identifiable human organization for the past 2,000 years. [even before the Age of Aquarius!] Indeed thru the last and only surviving human institution which was witness to its Founder (no Roman Empire, no Sanhedrin).

...From this perspective, perhaps you see how the 'liturgical wars'-- which errupted in the 60's and 70's and 'liturgists' introducing worship foreign to the 1900 years which preceeded-- cannot not be a matter of indifference! worshiping as our great grandfathers, and great--great grandmothers should not be shrugged off as a peripheral issue since it is a visible sign of our unity with those who came before us. And eradication of their form of worship is a bold and tangible statement that we no longer believe as they did.

November 29, 2009 11:36 PM

from YIMC........

Mornin' k.c.! Conservative is a term I would have shunned even 20 years ago. Now I relish it. Maybe it's because my dad died, and he was a conservative (with a heart of gold) but more probably it's that I'm now a Catholic, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Fortunately (?), as a recent convert, I was blissfully unaware of the liturgical wars of my youth, although unfortunately I'm afraid they scared away a lot of god Catholics, some of whom I know pretty well.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

k.c. inspires YIM Catholic post

Kneeling Catholic said...

above is a link to a collection of recent presidential Thanksgiving day proclamations.

>>it's hard to imagine either Bush, a Clinton, or any other recent president putting God above country

---Mr. Bull, politicians giving lipservice to God is easy to come by. You will find a certain reluctance to mention God directly in Mr. Obama's address which does reveal a lot more than I would have guessed.

However lumping President Bush in with Presidents Clinton and Obama as not giving God credit doesn't square. Dislike of Bush - which you seem to be venting - , by Hollywood, the media and elites, stemmed from one word -- Abortion. Please don't tell me that it is people loving their country more than God that is the problem. It is a fact that people who feel little loyalty to their country generally have a problem with Faith in general. k.c.
November 25, 2009 5:45 PM

Webster Bull said...
k.c, I don't see how you can tweeze "dislike" of Bush out of a statement that puts all recent presidents in one pile and contrasts them with the father of our country, who, with his contemporaries, really took the Christian God into account when writing our founding documents and then governing by them. There is nothing in my write-up that contrasts Obama and Clinton with the Bushes. The contrast is with Washington, over 220 years, possibly with Lincoln over 150. By "lumping" Bush with Obama and Clinton, I am trying to crawl, clamber, claw my way above politics to a broader issue, yes, even broader than abortion. That is: what do I put first in my life, God or Caesar? Do I consider the Beatitudes before I bomb Iraq, for example? Do I consider the Commandments before I support abortion, for another example? I am opposed to abortion. I was opposed to the war in Iraq and remain so.
November 25, 2009 6:04 PM

Kneeling Catholic said...
>>Do I consider the Beatitudes before I bomb Iraq, for example?

---Happy Thanksgiving to you, Mr. Bull! You do know your statement betrays a pacifistic conviction. If the beautitudes make it obvious Bush XLIII should not have attacked, do they then make it obvious that Saddam,--who was paying suicide bombers in Israel [btw no seems to notice that that phenomenon ceased with Saddam's ouster], and had already attempted to assassinate Bush XLI, and did horrible things to the Kurds in Iraq--should still be in business? Do the beautitudes make it obvious that Iraqis should not now be voting in elections? ...

And! [back to George Washington] Do they make it obvious that the American Colonists should not have taken up arms and fought an eight year war?Please forgive my following pontification, but... Pacifism is a haven for elites and ingrates who loath their country. It is not Catholic. And forgive me if I have unfairly tarred you with pacifism, but you did leave yourself wide open...

November 26, 2009 12:45 AM

Webster Bull said...
k.c.,Pacifism is indeed Catholic, although it is true that Catholic haters through the centuries have referred to us as "elitist," an obvious attribute of "Papism." The Catholic Church's position on war is, in fact, double. The choice is yours (and mine). The Church supports pacifism, and great Catholics like Dorothy Day and Francis of Assisi were proponents of it, in word and/or deed. The Church also supports the "just war," which is narrowly defined in Church writings, although we seldom hew to that narrow definition. Here it is -- The war must be, first of all, defensive, and given that, the following conditions must hold. * the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;* there must be serious prospects of success;* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.Continuing to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 2309):"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."We can argue about the American Revolution (it was at least defensive), but the Catholic position is unarguable. Let's set aside pacifism (by your choice). Did/does the Iraq war meet these conditions, beginning with "defensive"? (It's Obama's war now, I know that, as is Afghanistan, so this is not Bush-baiting.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to be "tarred with pacifism," a strange phrase but yours, so please write again. And have a great holiday.

later on.....

I can’t think of a better time than Thanksgiving morning to launch a series of posts about the Catholic Church’s position on war—which is a fundamental reason why I am proud to be Catholic and therefore fits comfortably within this blogging niche. I’ve thrown up that Roman numeral in the title of this post because this will be only a prologue.But what a prologue! I’m incited to write about Catholics and war by an exchange of comments with “Kneeling Catholic” that follows my post on George Washington’s first Thanksgiving Day address. The moment the inspiration hit me, I heard the voice of the Peacenik inside me. She said, “But W-e-b-s-t-e-r,” (the Peacenik speaks in soothing tones) “why not read the Divine Office first? It’s always a good idea, W-e-b-s-t-e-r. Why, even The Anchoress does it. It’s not without risks, but . . . ”The Angry Man butted in, “Aw, shut up! Webster—just read the Liturgy!” Which I did, bowing to the combined advice of my angel and my devil. Taking up the Liturgy of the Hours, I found, as I so often do, a reading for today, Thursday of the 34th week in Ordinary Time, that is eerily on point. Here it is. (I’ll be back to this topic later this holiday weekend, after much turkey, much TV football, three or four naps, and, I hope, a viewing of the new film “The Road,” based on Cormac McCarthy’s end-of-days novel.)......

Kneeling Catholic said...
>>>I’m incited to write about Catholics and war by an exchange of comments with “Kneeling Catholic” <<

If 'pacifism' is simply going to war as a last resort then we are all pacifists. If it is the flat refusal to take up arms in service of your country, then it is not Catholic....

" it is just that Christians invade the land you inhabit, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and alienate everyone you can from His worship" ...

Name that Saint!...

pray for me!

November 26, 2009 9:31 AM

Webster Bull said...
k.c., my new bff---1. Pray for me!2. I can't name that saint!3. I plan to discuss pacifism in more detail with future posts in this series, and I hope we will have more chances to discuss this, as well as the other doctrinal Catholic position, the just war. (I suspect we will.)4. I'm hoping to clear my head to think about all these things as well as possible.Peace! Webster Ooops, did I betray an elitist position by using the P word? just kidding ;-)

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Purple hearts for those wounded in action at Fort Hood?

someone has asked this question on 'yahoo answers'.

Here are some of the responses:

Should every soldier killed or wounded in the Ft Hood shooting be given the Purple Heart Medal? Line of duty?
death or serious wounds are given the Purple Heart Medal, don't the people killed and injured at Ft Hood qualify?

>>Yes they should receive the Purple Heart.*

USMCBAM7>>Unfortunately no they will not receive purple hearts. A purple heart is awarded for Being wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States or as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed forces.

Ruth Ann>>I don't think they qualify

Hooah>>>Being a victim of a crime doesn't qualify anyone to receive a Purple Heart. That is only for woulds sustained in combat. Some may argue that a Jihadist committing an atrocity would qualify, but that would be up to the command. I doubt it will happen.

Grambo>>I hope so, they deserve at least that........heroes they may not have died on the 'front-lines' but that is the point where are the front lines?.They are still heroes in my book.

answering the official question of whether or not our soldiers were "wounded in action" is going to put politicians in the military on the spot. They need to be petitioned to encourage them to do the right thing. So does our Commander in Chief.

as for the murderer... Is it now a matter of indifference to our authorities that Hasan probably has information about other imminent threats? Information he and his buddies hoped he would be taking to his grave. Let's not let that happen!

Mr. Obama! Do you want to revive your approval ratings? Hasan is guilty. We don't need an extended trial to prove that. (if you really are bumfuzzled as to why Nidal Malik Hasan slaughtered our soldiers, then your naivete makes you truly unique!) Is Guantanamo really out of business? Don't we have even one waterboard left? We need to pump Hasan for information and stop worrying about what the world thinks! Does the murderer have buddies? Who are they? and what sensitive information did he have access to that he might have leaked to our enemies?

Did you see 'Taken' where Liam Neeson hooked that guy up to 220 volts AC? Go and do likewise! You have a duty to us and our children, the future targets of terrorists.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

General Casey and Senator Graham emphasize politcal correctness over truth

We have to be careful,” Gen. George Casey said Sunday on CNN. “Because we can't jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that come out. And frankly, I am worried – not worried, but I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that. It would be a shame, as great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate armed services committee, also counseled restraint.
“At the end of the day, maybe this is just about him,” the "At the end of the day, I think it's going to be about him." (Sen Graham)

We're not supposed to speculate, Senator Graham? Isn't your "at the end of the day" speculation?

So the jury is out. At the "end of the day" we might also find that the mass murder was given encouragement or suggestions or assistance from other jihadists.

What are the General and the Senator going to do when the obvious question of Purple Hearts for the dead and wounded is breached? They might soon find themselves in an awkward position, fighting not only against the truth of what happened, but also against the honor of those wounded and those slain.


Monday, November 9, 2009

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who do not purify their fingers

after touching the Eucharist

This is an edited excerpt from a letter written last week by the father of a student at one of Corpus Christi's Catholic high schools... The son is scandalized that the school's new 'spiritual director', a layman, doesn't purify his fingers after distributing Holy Communion: son sees the director as a bad influence since he:

1) Encourages hand Communion (by example)

2) exacerbates the theological problems of the above by performing as an extraordinary minister and not bothering to cleanse his fingers even after distributing the Eucharist.....

I don't disagree with my son that these are related problems...i.e. Hand Communion does promote indifference towards Holy Fragments, otherwise everyone touching the Eucharist would be purifying their fingers before and afterwards, and the 2nd problem, if my son is correct, demonstrates an extremely cavalier attitude since extraordinary ministers - having handled Hosts which have been dusted during the fractioning--will often end up with small Fragments remaining on their fingers......

The doctrine that the Whole of Christ's Divinity is in each tiny Fragment seems to have gone out the window........... But perhaps a direct questioning of our lay people is called for: "Why don't you purify your fingers every time you touch the Holy Eucharist, just as a priest does?" (is the priest doing it just for show?) I'm afraid you would find an abysmal confusion as to what the Church actually teaches.

Friday, November 6, 2009

The President's announcement re: Fort Hood K.C. in purple

It's two minutes and 28 seconds into the light hearted 'attaboys that the President actually gets around to mentioning the tragedy. Remember how as a candidate he said he could multi-task? (as opposed to McCain who wanted to drop everything to deal with crises)

well here's how it works

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins bans Communion on the tongue

Here we go again Friends! Here is how his Excellency worded it....

November 2, 2009
Ongoing Communication regarding the H1N1 Flu Virus
To all clergy and employees of the Archdiocese of Toronto,
I wish to provide you with an additional update regarding proactive measures in relation to the H1N1
Flu Virus. In my communication of September 16, 2009, I provided a number of recommendations
based on counsel from health officials and those experienced with pandemic planning.
We have been closely monitoring the situation. At this time it is necessary for us to elevate our
diligence to the next level in pandemic planning. For the health and safety of all people of faith,
parishes must implement the changes outlined below at all masses as of Tuesday, November 3,
2009 until further notice.
 Temporarily suspend communion from the chalice.
 Temporarily suspend communion on the tongue.
 Parishes should provide hand cleaning stations near church entrances.
 Refrain from shaking hands during the sign of peace. A nod, bow or other appropriate gesture
should be encouraged.
 All those distributing communion are asked to wash their hands before mass. An alcohol-based
sanitizer should be provided so that all ministers may sanitize their hands before and after
distributing communion.
 Please remind your parishioners that if they are feeling sick or ill, it is best for them to stay
I ask that you communicate these changes widely to your parish community. Our Office of Public
Relations & Communications will release this information to local media and through our own H1N1
To the faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto, I recognize the distress these changes to our sacred
liturgy may cause for some. Be assured that these are temporary measures only, intended to protect and
care for our most vulnerable brothers and sisters. Please join me in offering prayers for the sick and
suffering in our community.
Sincerely in Christ,
Thomas Collins
Archbishop of Toronto

From Father Zuhlsdorf, who finally says what everyone knows...>>>From my own experience, I have always been able to distribute Communion on the tongue without any contact between my fingers and any tongue. I could probably count the number of times they have made contact on my otherwise dry fingers.<<< ...therefore hand Communion promotes skin to skin contact between the minister and the communicant. Communion on the tongue prevents it. This fact was instrumental in delaying hand Communion's introduction back in the seventies. Now simple logic has been disconnected and we are in the grips of leaders who 'don't let a good crisis go to waste'.

Do not surrender to this 'temporary' measure! Its only support is a false premise. a lie!