Saint Cory?

Bishop says God will decide.

Actually, if St Edward the Martyr and St Olaf, both of whom were killed for political reasons but both of whom promoted Christianity, are saints, why not two saints? After all, Ninoy knew he might be killed if he tried to return to run for office, but he felt it was God's will and did it anyway.

Pedophilia and Psychology

The link is to an article on a conservative US website about how Rogerian psychology and denial of the traditional sexual ethics destroyed the IHS nuns and got embedded in the "Pink" seminaries that were supposed to teach men how to be good and wise priests.

I have to say as a doctor, we learned some of this stuff in medical school, and most of the "it's okay" was the norm.
Indeed, we were told that holding in our sexual impulses was the reason for schizophrenia and other mental diseases that now are recognized as being biochemical.

If I remember correctly, ten percent of physicians have had sexual contact with patients, and it's much higher with psychiatrists...but much of it is heterosexual.

As for the "no harm": I was told by one nurse in AA that half of the men in her group became drunks because of sexual abuse as teenagers. Some had been in boarding schools, but not all...much of the abuse was drug or alcohol related...

Luckily for me, I was not in the US when a lot of this went on, but a priest told my son's 8th grade class that masturbation was okay (my son was adopted and 16 and angry at such wrong teaching, but not fluent enough in English to tell off the priest).

Sigh.

I also know one good bishop who told an audience that he had sent a priest for psychological treatment and was assured he was cured: Essentially he bowed to the authorities who told him that everything was okay...and of course it wasn't.

Sigh.

So this year is the year of the priest.

I once belonged to the lay carmelite groups and we prayed for priests. I lost touch and as a busy doc said the prayers of the office and rosary on and off since then, but I think now that I'm retired I'll have to go back to remembering priests in my prayers.

The Bishop as troublemaker?

the latest Bishop for Belgium is being criticized

From EthiopianReview:
The long-awaited announcement of the successor to the retiring Catholic archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, has sparked an unusual outcry in Belgium. The new archbishop, André-Mutien Léonard, is sometimes called “the Belgian Ratzinger” for his conservative views.
uh, that would be a complement, not a criticism for a lot of us...

Danneels ranks as one of the last liberal prelates in a Church hierarchy that has turned increasingly traditional under Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict.
Ah yes, replacing liberal prelates with Catholic ones, tsk tsk.

Léonard has beene a controversial figure in Belgium for his critical stands on homosexuality, same-sex marriage and condom use. He has been an outspoken opponent of abortion and euthanasia, both of which are legal inBelgium, and criticised the Catholic universities of Leuven and Louvain for their research into assisted reproduction and embryonic stem cells.

Imagine that: Standing up for Catholic beliefs, and criticizing killing of the innocent.

The most outspoken comment came from Deputy Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx, who is the country’s health minister. “Church and State are separate in Belgium, but when there are problems in our society, all the social partners sit down around a table, including representatives of secularism and of religion,” she told RTL radio. “Cardinal Danneels was a man of openness, of tolerance and was able to fit in there. Archbishop Léonard has already regularly challenged decisions made by our parliament.”

If Cardinal Danneeels didn't try to stop these things, and instead he sat around and let them go on, then heaven help him when he reaches heaven...

Onkelinx said Léonard’s appointment could upset the balance between secular and religious that Belgium has found. “Concerning AIDS, he’s against the use of condoms even while people are dying from it every day. He is against abortion and euthanasia … The pope’s choice could undermine the compromise that allows us to live together with respect for everyone.”

Imagine that. Instead of smiling and keeping quiet and compromizing with killing fetuses and old folks, the new bishop might actually open his mouth and say Thou Shalt not Kill...tsk tsk

No Catholics allowed in San Francisco?

a disturbing story from the NYTimes says that only 20 percent of those in San Francisco are Catholic,and that people who are Catholic are ashamed/afraid of admitting it.
In a city where intolerance is otherwise vilified, it has become socially awkward to profess devotion to any mainstream faith. While mentions of spirituality, meditation and yoga pass without comment, those who follow organized religions face, at minimum, a Berkeley eye roll.

It is hard to avoid this feeling.

When a friend said she attended Mass every Saturday night, it was the only time in 13 years living in the Bay Area that I had heard that. Later, she admitted she rarely shared that part of her life because she was concerned about the reaction. Mass? How odd. That is not how my friends in New England think.

He blames the priest molestation problem, but notice no one worries about gays seducing boys in schools, or paying runaway 13 year olds for sex.

The answer is twofold: One, among the elite, being catholic can get you ridiculed, so they stay silent.

The other problem is class: as the article notes, most of the Catholics are Hispanic or Filipino. And the elites proclaim their tolerance, but probably don't know much about the non whites in their area, because they aren't part of the elites.

It's like Tina Brown claiming she hated to leave NYCity where she didn't have to put up with "christians" in her neighborhood.

It's like Chesterton's "invisible man". The Catholics (and Christians and Muslims) are the bus drivers, the cops, the street cleaners, the nurses, the nannies and maids.

They just aren't seen by the elites. But the church is there for them.

Sigh

Spiritually I have been upset since Thanksgiving...our son was busy in Manila, and said since the family had been invited by an American (protestant) missionary there to eat Thanksgiving, we should meet them there.

Now, Manila is not "far" but even with the new expressway it takes three hours in regular traffic.

So my husband and I went, and found the "dinner" was a big meeting of that church's associates.

This "church" is actually a "interchurch" movement that stresses deciding what you should do by finding a Bible verse. I have many problems with this, mainly philosophical (God gave us reason for a reason, but also it makes the bible out as a "magic book", where verses out of context can let you do and believe anything you want).
but also cultural. And one of their "ministries" is to teach their lessons to "street children" who are cared for by the government. Separation of church and state, anyone? And culturally, teaching by stories would be more effective.
So we had to listen to a talk on their deeds, and a sermon (in English: This minister, like the one he replaced, doesn't speak Tagalog....neither do I, but I am not working here).

Then they prayed, and I felt the Spirit move.

I am not charismatic, but I do recognize the spirit of God.

So was I wrong to refuse to let the spirit move me?

The Ten foolish and ten wise virgins