Tag: Blithe Spirit

Married priests are also on Francis’ agenda

He’s given a go-ahead in some priest-short areas and has lifted the ban on ordination of the married among Eastern Riters.

There’s been a lot of speculation the past several months that Pope Francis is willing to expand possibilities for ordaining married men to the Catholic priesthood. Austrian-born Bishop Erwin Kräutler, head of a diocese in the Brazilian rainforest, said last April that Francis told him he’d be open to married priests for particular regions or nations if there were consensus among the bishops of the area. [italics added]

Bishops’ consensus, good.

A small stream of married clergymen from other Christian churches have been allowed to be ordained Catholic priests over the past few decades, especially with the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate.

The nearest such Anglican-Roman Catholic parish, or community, is in Indianapolis, by the way:

St. Joseph of Arimathea [St. Joseph of Arimathea Anglican Use Society]

Phone: (765) 475-4970
E-mail: stjosephofa
Website: http://stjoearimatheasociety.org/
Location:

520 Stevens Street
Indianapolis, IN 46203

Mass Times
Sunday
8:00 AM
Holy Rosary Parish, Indianapolis

Here you find a traditionalist’s delight. The style seems more Roman than the usual Roman Catholic church in the U.S. or at least in the Midwest.

This [Anglican dispensation, as it were] has always angered Byzantine Catholics in places like the United States, Canada, and in other places considered the “diaspora” (outside their original Eastern Rite territories), because the Vatican has forbidden them from following their unbroken tradition of ordaining married men. It was thought be a scandal in places where celibate, Latin Rite priests were the majority.

Envy, scandal-taking, shock . . .

Not anymore. Pope Francis has lifted the ban. The only provision is that the ordaining Eastern bishop must consult with his Latin Rite counterpart. [Again, good] Why did the Holy See impose it in the first place? The U.S. archbishops asked for it back in 1893. “It is the solemn judgment of the Archbishops of the United States” – says the minutes of their Fourth Annual Conference – “that the presence of married priests of the Greek rite in our midst is a constant menace to the chastity of our unmarried clergy, a source of scandal to the laity and therefore the sooner this point of discipline is abolished before these evils obtain large proportions, the better for religion, because the possible loss of a few souls for the Greek rite, bears no proportion to the blessings from uniformity of discipline.” The conference vote for uniformity, under the leadership of Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore, was unanimous. [Again, italics added]

“Plus ça change?” asks Robert Mickens in Commonweal.

This married-priest issue has lain dormant for decades, as women priests have taken the forefront.

One major difference, of course, is that the first has been done, is done, and can be expanded.

Wouldn’t you pew-sitters like to hear God and heaven etc. discussed by husbands and fathers now and then from the pulpit?

About Bill Cosby

He’s a budding social conservative, accused of the “horrific act” that is rape. But keep in mind:

Politically speaking, the Bill Cosby scandal may be more than what it seems. If he is guilty, Bill Cosby represents only what we will be permitted to see by the people who manufacture image.

He will be tossed out of a circle of protection that exists in Hollywood and ultimately lends sanctuary to rapists and pedophiles and fornicators and polluters and tax evaders and drug users and pornographers and on and on and on throughout the entertainment industry.

That circle of protection exists to obscure the sludge and debauchery that is the epitome of modern celebrity from the disapproving eyes of what progressives deem socially conservative hypocrites who preach morality.

From Irene F. Starkehaus at Illinois Review.

Is President Tired-of-Waiting supposed to enforce or make laws?

Depends on what you mean by “make,” says Barack the Magnificent.

The defenders of the president hold that he has a wide discretion in how to enforce the law. They are correct, but that does not settle the question. There must be a point at which the president exercises too much discretion. Otherwise we make nonsense out of the president’s constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This expression must mean that the president is to try to be faithful to what the law intends, not to whatever he happens to think is for the best.

From Catholic Vote, which further observes:

Liberals ought to be as concerned about this as conservatives are. They should consider the precedent that it sets, and how it might be used by a future president whose policy preferences are very different from President Obama’s. If the president’s immigration order is to stand, then what will stop, say, a Republican president from issuing an executive order deferring enforcement of whatever provisions of the health care law he or she thinks are too burdensome? It would be the exact same thing.

Food for thought here, a sort of Kaopectate of the mind.

The dimensions of the Rauner victory: historic and convincing

From Matt Custardo, his North Shore campaign field manager:

Historic: It was “the first time the president’s governor lost a re-election since 1892.”

Rauner “won by 5% in a state President Obama won by 25% — a 30 point swing.”

Quinn “outspent Rauner on advertising in the final 3 months of the campaign.”

A day and two days before the polls opened, “[Expert forecaster] Nate Silver predicted a Rauner loss. Public Policy Polling . . . said Rauner would lose by 2%,” toppling conventional wisdom that a Republican had to be ahead at that point.

Convincing: Rauner bested Bill Brady and Mark Kirk, winning “moderates outright (52-45%) . . . independents by more than two to one (64% to 29%) . . . a larger share of Democrats . . . class voters by a larger margin (55-44%) . . . ”

He bested Brady, winning “both Republicans (93%) and conservatives (81%) by larger margins.”

He “closed the gap with 18-29 year old voters to single digits.”

So much for (simply) buying the election, as Mark Brown and other commentators said beforehand.

The Justice Department becomes a schoolyard bully in Wisconsin — Geo. Will in WaPo

War on non-govt institutions goes apace:

It is as remarkable as it is repulsive, the ingenuity with which the Obama administration uses the regulatory state’s intricacies to advance progressivism’s project of breaking nongovernmental institutions to government’s saddle.

Eager to sacrifice low-income children to please teachers unions, the Justice Department wants to destroy Wisconsin’s school choice program. Feigning concern about access for disabled children, the department aims to handicap all disadvantaged children by denying their parents access to school choices of the sort affluent government lawyers enjoy.

I’m all right, Jack, say affluent govt lawyers.

Don Harmon taking flak from anti-fracking people

Among other things, they do not like his attitude:

After the vote, Harmon said the committee was weakening the rules because the Department of Natural Resources made them stronger after an unprecedented turnout at public hearings. “We aim to displease both sides equally.”

That’s the kind of flippant comment a legislator usually makes in a Springfield session bar when they’re too intellectually lazy or too inebriated to explain their actions. It’s embarrassing language when discussing an issue that puts communities and lives at risk.

It’s a “Profile in Cowardice,” they say.

Sad day coming for U.S., when Obama goes royal (his word for it)

Royal, not presidential in character, he said.

Tomorrow promises to be a sad day for the United States, as the president will knowingly overstep his constitutional authority to regularize the immigration status of millions of illegals for narrow partisan purposes. Juliet Eilperin and Ed O’Keefe report Obama’s anticipated executive order at the Washington Post.

Consider “the instances and the relevant quotations here.” Plus videos.

Yes. He “he has baldly lied about his past statements.”

He “is a famously cold-blooded character. He now proves himself once again to be a cold-blooded liar.”