Boinkie's Blog


Sunday, November 09, 2014

Charismatic? Or emotional and illogical?

I didn't have the link about the Pope trying to change Catholicism into the AoG or a pentecostal church, but First Things discusses it here.

For Francis, the Spirit dispenses sanctifying gifts that enable the members of the Church to contribute to her life in distinctive ways. In short, the path to unity is the path of spirituality and the cultivation of habits of behavior that allow for the sensus fidei to grow. This is the heart of his decentralizing vision both in terms of mission and ecclesial renewal.
The Holy Father drew on this idea in his closing remarks to the synod, where he suggested that the church could not err when she allows the variety of charisms to flourish in her midst as the path to the sensus fidei. Pope Francis does not merely acknowledge the messiness of this spiritual path—he seems to revel in it.

later they add

 One of the reasons why he supports the Catholic Charismatic renewal is that it embodies in certain ways his own vision of an ecumenism from below through the shared spiritual life of Christians. He explicitly connected this spiritual ecumenism to persecution and martyrdom of Christians when addressing the CFCC. From the perspective of the persecutor, all Christians are already one in their common declaration of Christ as Lord.
Integral to Francis’s concept of mission is an understanding of what he has called a “throw-away culture”—that is, the prevailing cultural mentality that the Church must address. Euthanasia, abortion, involuntary poverty, human trafficking, and abuse of the elderly are all part of this insidious mentality that privileges profits over the dignity of the human person. In his Evangelii Gaudium, Francis stated, “In the prevailing culture, priority is given to the outward, the immediate, the visible, the quick, the superficial and the provisional.” Indeed, his statements about the poor and a new idolatry of money attempt to identify this cultural mentality and how it functions.
Francis sees the most effective way of addressing this “throw-away culture” through lives that embody the teaching of the church. He wants models of the Christian life on display for the world to see. This is what holds together his understanding of mission, his focus on spirituality, and the role of the family.

so why is he underming bishops who try to insist on strengthening the family? The US family is essentially destroyed by the culture of promiscuity, easy divorce, and radical feminism (early feminists like Betty Frieden, who supported marriage, are now passe, replaced by marxist eunuchs).

and as I noted in my last post, it ignores the catholic way of seeing the material world as a sacramental revelation of God (see Greeley)

For later reading

Dissing Burke

 was he exiled or will he nowHead an anti Islamic cabal?

More propaganda at the AP

I should note that Father L's blog points out that the Pope tends to want to change the church to a pentecostal type church. This is nice, but the stress on psychological approach to a personal relationship to Jesus ignores the "sacramental catholicism" that sees God's love in personal relationships and nature and things around us (see Andrew Greeley's works for this idea).

And it also ignores that sociopaths will quickly use this to marginalize traditional morality and push Catholicism to become a pietist faith, which no longer has any relevance to the world.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Blame the dogooders

Paul VI vs Rockefeller

longer essay at ChristianPost.

yeah. Birth control was about eugenics, as a close reading of Magaret Sanger's essays would show.

Rockefeller knew his main enemy here was the Catholic church.


Related item:

I am right now listening to a podcast on how Tuberculosis decimated those in the slums of London...even today, it is a major cause of death among the malnourished.

Yet this fact is ignored by PC types who write "ain't it awful" articles about the evil types who tried to help keep these children alive, be it through adoption or orphanages or even placing them in foster care.

Today's BBC "oh the horrors" tirade is against Switzerland, where social workers took kids out of single moms families where they were neglected and abused, and placed them outside cities in healthy farm areas where they would do light chores in exchange for their care.

knowing how older adopted kids often projected their anger against those who adopted them (not just my oldest but from older moms who cried on my shoulder), I wonder how many of these kids were "abused" and how many actually were saved from poverty, crime and premature deaths by the healthier food available in farms.

Put into context: One of our sisters who I worked with in Africa grew up on a farm during WWII...there was a food shortage, but at least they could eat, even though in many other ways they were poor. In contrast, another sister who grew up in Hamburg tells stories of neighbors not having enough to eat and the pets disappearing. The story of starvation/hunger in the poor in Europe in the past, including the war, is often ignored by their more obese ancestors...(including Ireland--Frank McCourt's mom in Angela's Ashes lost two kids from "tyhphoid", i.e. malnutrition related disease, but the "Irish orphanage" death rate results in blaming the church, not tuberculosis, enterovirus or congenital syphillis compounded by a bad diet and/or bottle feeding).

In other words, the problem is poverty, and this was the least bad option, but these articles don't mention such things.

And children often have distorted memories with the idea that all would have been better at home...we often see this in kids who "love" their abusive parent, when outsiders see the signs of repeated abuse and neglect.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

st therese

Bishop sheen's sermons on the little way of ST Therese can be found HERE

sermons on life is worth living can be found HERE

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Cardinal Kasper is so mad at being outed as a racist that he is threatening to sic reporters on the reporter who actually quoted him accurately.

Father Z has details and links.

Heh. There is a "jounolist" for the church dissadents? that might explain much of the bad reporting on what went on.


To put things into perspective on that kerfuffle: the aim of the dissadents was to deny that sexual sins were serious, in the name of "compassion".

Yet, one wonders if the Pope actually meant not to preach so rabidly that compassion was lost.

A good example of putting things into perspective is this essay by old lefty Archbishop Cruz (ret) on the murder of one of our boy-girl prostitutes by a US Marine.

So what if there are Filipinos who sell their votes to moneyed political candidates, who sell their services as housemaids to able families or who have nothing else than their own bodies to sell and make some money to support their parents, brothers and/or sisters?
Does that mean that they are lesser human beings, that they have lesser human dignity, that they have lesser inalienable rights, that they are but things to be used and exploited, and to be thrown away after they are useful no more and wherefore considered useless?...
As to the above recent Filipino victim of the sick and sickening American sailor, certain questions come to mind: So what if the victim was a transgender? Since when did a given sexuality lessen human dignity? Since when did sexual constitution lessen the worth of human life? Since when did sexual identity lessen the significance of a human person? Since when?!

ah, but the elites at the Inquirer see Jennifer as "chosing" to sell her body, a "human right". This will please the elites gay clique in Makati so they don't feel guilty about messing around with each other, but the backstory of this is that too many "mess around" with the local street kids or mess around with their maids/employees of either sex.

Like the Bishop's meeting, this is not really about "compassion" but about selling the idea that sex is always okay, and judgementalism here is wrong. Ah, but what about the innocent parties? Do we approve of "second marriages" when the first marriage partner is struggling to make ends meet, or do we go back to the days when people stayed in miserable marriages for the sake of the children? The latter led to a lot of miserable folks, but I'm not sure that serial "living together" with boyfriends and no father at all is a better idea.

All this ignores the real story: the severe poverty behind "Jennifer" deciding to help her family by selling her body. She was the major breadwinner of her family...

which is the bigger sin? Selling one's body because one is poor, or politicians who take bribes to look the other way when casinos and bars cater to these things or rich businessmen/tourists exploit poor locals?


Friday, October 17, 2014

African cardinal added to "experts"


Cardinal Kasper (who had his english version of the interview taken down) dismissed African concerns.

So the spin doctors appointed an African Cardinal to one of their boards.

yes, he openly says they are on the wrong track, but once he is "appointed" to the committee, he starts talking legalize/vaticanspeak.

And I am amused that the liberal NCR sidebar is worried about how Milleneals want the conference to do

Uh, milleneals refers to college educated younger people who vote Democrat, went to ivy league colleges and read that dissenting Americaan catholic paper.

Just ignore the rest of the catholics?

St Athaasius redux?

Father Z and other counterculture blogs have a lot of back story on the so called report issued in the middle of the bishops discussion of marriage.

ent in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable.
The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called “revolutionary,”teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality.
CWR: How important is it, do you think, that Pope Francis make a statement soon in order to address the growing sense—among many in the media and in the pews—that the Church is on the cusp of changing her teaching on various essential points regarding marriage, “remarriage,” reception of Communion, and even the place of “unions” among homosexuals?
Cardinal Burke: In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue[So far so good.  He thinks a statement is overdue.  That means he thinks that the Pope should issue a statement, as described above: to address "a growing sense", etc.] The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position.
The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church.  [Okay.  That's okay too.  There was never a time when the faithful did not look to the Pope in time of uncertainty for guidance, and when they did not wish for swift guidance.]THAT’s a suggestion that the Pope should “apologize”?  Really?
And read the rest of his piece, wherein conservatives are painted now as the “dissenters”.  Ironically, in that view, “dissenter” will become code for “defender of Church doctrine” and “ideology” will be code for “the Magisterium”.
Somehow, a complete "mid meeting" report got written and published without anyone knowing anything about it.

Sounds like a takeover by a group of activists, but the church doesn't have political activists, does it (sarcasm off).

the church has been here before, and good old St Athanasius was the one who stopped them.

Athanasius’ life stands out as one of the most remarkable in the entire history of the church. Rejecting the life of ease that would later come to characterize so many bishops, Athanasius was prepared to live in constant turmoil and suspense rather than compromise on the deity of Christ. Though he would not live to see it, his battle against Arianism was successful, as seen by the fact that the modern descendents of Arius (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) are now exiled from the true church.
Although Athanasius’ enemies had hoped to silence him by removing him, the result was actually the opposite. During the seventeen years that he spent in exile, Athanasius had a chance to visit Christians in far off places, spreading his influence as a learned teacher and opening up wider and wider ministry opportunities. These periods of exile also gave him a chance to write and enabled him to leave behind a rich legacy of books.
Athanasius’ most influential work, On the Incarnation, continues to help Christians to this day in understanding the importance of Jesus’ divinity and humanity. In other works Athanasius distinguished himself as a leading apologist, defending Christianity not only against the Ariun threat but also against pagan and Jewish opposition. Other influential works include his Easter or Festal Letter of 367 which is often credited as being the earliest surviving statement of the New Testament canon.
“The whole world is against you!” a colleague once exclaimed to Athanasius when it looked like the entire Roman empire was lapsing into Arianism. Unperturbed, Athanasius replied, “Then it is Athanasius against the world.” These words (usually known in Latin: Athanasius contra mundum) have rung out down the halls of history as an inspiration to all those who have held fast to the truth against powerful opposition.

and update: it's not only those stupid Africans or that right wing American Burke, the man from Oz is causing waves too:


and the bishops shouted down the elites trying to hijack the conference.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

slandering Africa

I refused to read Kingsolver's book the poisonwood bible, for two reasons: One, I found her other books nonsense, and two, the reviews seemed to have little to do with reality.

I worked in Africa, and the comments about "the jungle" etc. and the loathsomeness of the so called missionaries was nonsense.

First of all, most missions weren't just there to preach: Usually they also had a school and/or a clinic to treat sick people.

So I was surprised the Kingsolver actually lived a year in Africa. What is interesting about this interview is that she based her novel not on the real people she knew but on the post colonial marxist theories so beloved of academia.

This story came from a long-term fascination with politics and culpability, and my belief that what happened to the Congo in 1961 is one of the most important political parables of a century.  I’d thought about this story for a very long time, ever since the early 80’s when I read Jonathan Kwitny’s Endless Enemies, a stunning non-fiction account of that piece of history.
Here’s how I framed the question, to myself:  nearly every industrialized country has arrived at its present prosperity by doing awful things, extracting wealth from some unfortunate locale, whether in the form of tea or diamonds, cheap labor, or even human slaves.  Most of us alive today didn’t participate in those decisions, but we do benefit materially from this history.  How do we think about that, if at all?  
ah, but what did she find in reality, as in contrast to the cliches of academic marxism?

Did you ever live in Africa yourself?I did.  And I’m happy to say, my own experience was nothing like The Poisonwood Bible.  My father worked for fifty years as a physician dedicated to medically underserved populations.  Mostly he practiced in rural Kentucky, but occasionally he took our family to live in other places, where “medically underserved” is an understatement.  We spent 1963 in a Congolese village where most residents had never experienced electricity or plumbing, let alone western medical care.  I was seven years old when we went.  My parents were not missionaries, though we met some missionary families and benefited from their generosity on many occasions.
My memories of playing with village children and exploring the jungle are acutely sensory and indelible.  My parents were courageous to do the work they did, risking their own comfort and security to help address problems like leprosy and smallpox.  But for me, it was just an adventure.  I was a child, and understood only about a thimbleful of what was happening around me in the Congo.  The thematic material of The Poisonwood is serious, adult stuff.  I wrote the book, not because of a brief adventure I had in place of second grade, but because as an adult I’m interested in cultural imperialism and post-colonial history.  I had to approach the subject in an adult way.
back to top 

art should be based on life and truth.

This book is propaganda.

When I was in college, we were told all sorts of things about the wonderfulness of communism in China and in VietNam, most of which have turned out to be lies.

Chomsky's writings are persuasive, but have little to do with reality.

Ditto for the anti capitalism stuff of the modern left, including many in the religious left of the Catholic church.

The problem is not capitalism but corruption. And a lot of the anti colonial propaganda is based on a smidgeon of truth, but tell you what: Which do you prefer, starvation and death from raiders of neighboring tribes while living the traditional lifestyle, or working in a plantation?

This so called novel is about evil white vs stupid african, and written to fit a template.

One longs for nuances. There is enough evil in colonialism to fit a book, but without context you have no understanding.

So if missionaries were so terrible, then why are African (and Asians) returning to the west to return the favor of bringing christ to the godless Europeans?

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Went to church early this morning,, and it was superdecorated. A feast of the Virgin: yes, the feast of the Holy Rosary was last week, a feast day that used to be called Our Lady of Victory, to celebrate how prayers helped the victory at Lepanto against the Turks.

 but this one is the Filipino feasts of our Lady of the Rosary of La Naval, that commemorates the naval battle that kept the Dutch and English from taking the country over.

there is also the feast of the Holy name of Mary, that commemorates the arrival of the Polish cavalry that broke the Siege of Vienna.

presumably in the future, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, who encouraged catholics to repent and pray for Russia so that she wouldn't spread her "errors" all over the world, will also remember how Catholics for 70 years prayed the rosary to convert Russia, and how the Iron Curtain fell with little violence and no civil wars.

And of course, Filipinos remember our own People Power revolution, when the Army under General Ramos (a protestant) was defended from Marcos' local troops by a million Pinoys lead by Cardinal Jaime Sin carrying a statue of Our Lady of Fatima and praying the rosary and singing hymns. There is no Catholic feast day yet, but there is a shrine on the EDSA (main street) with a thirty foot tall madonna, one of the ugliest madonnas anyone has ever seen. Oh well.

The idea is that if you pray enough, you can stop wars.

Why the virgin? Maybe because for poor people, the big shots who preach make God into a boogeyman who judges all your sins and is ready to smash you, but Mary, like your own Mom, will support you and welcome you back.

True, there is the Prodigal son to show this is how God works, but Jesus didn't tend to help the big shots who kept all the rules and had time to discuss the bible and theology, but the ordinary ignorant folks. And as I linked last week, devotion to Mary goes back to within 50 years of Christ's death...maybe because it was easier for ordinary folks to understand Jesus and God as mirroring our own family life. Here in the Philippines, it's Kuya Jesus (older brother) Mama Mary, and over all of them God the Father.

as for "read the bible and show me the place" folks, well, I have two answers to that:

One, Mary got the wine at the wedding feast so folks could have a good time. So we figure that she cares about little things, while Jesus does the big miracles.

Two: devotion to Mary predates the "bible" and for 1500 years, few christians could read, so the way people were taught how to know, love and serve God was by teaching stories. The art works, statues, music and fiestas were all part of this teaching.

Andrew Greeley points a lot of this out in his non fiction books (including this one).

And if this sounds "pagan" or Newagey, then all I can do is quote Pope Gregory the Great, who when he sent missionaries to Brittain instructed them to retain what is good in the native beliefs and use them to point to the true God.

Along with the letter to Augustine, the returning missionaries brought a letter to Æthelberht that urged the king to act like the Roman Emperor Constantine I and force the conversion of his followers to Christianity. The king was also urged to destroy all pagan shrines. However, Gregory also wrote a letter to Mellitus,[76] the Epistola ad Mellitum of July 601,[77] in which the pope took a different tack in regards to pagan shrines, suggesting that they be cleansed of idols and converted to Christian use rather than destroyed;[76] the pope compared the Anglo-Saxons to the ancient Israelites, a recurring theme in Gregory's writings.[77] He also suggested that the Anglo-Saxons build small huts much like those built during the Jewish festival of Sukkot, to be used during the annual autumn slaughter festivals so as to gradually change the Anglo-Saxon pagan festivals into Christian ones.[78]
which to keep and which customs to "baptize" is an ongoing debate in Christianity. I was just reading about how many early Korean converts were martyred died after the Pope insisted they should not join Buddhist rites to honor their ancestors. Yet a better western understanding could have prevented this, especially since there are Christian customs to honor our dead.

So Mary is not just a woman who held the maker of the Universe in her womb for 9 months and raised him to adulthood, she is also a symbol of God's love and mercy.