extreme Catholic 

6:49 p.m. EDT April 12, 2004 - A priest who holds views questioned by some in the Roman Catholic faith is being criticized as he starts a new church, Channel 4's Ellen Gamble reported Monday.

The Rev. Bill Hausen was transferred two years ago after advocating the ordination of women and married men during a homily at St. James Catholic Church. He is now listed as the pastor of the Christ Hope Ecumenical Catholic Church, which begins services May 2 at the Sewickley Country Inn.

"I think a man should have a right to be a priest and be married," Hausen told Gamble. "I think the place of women is a big issue that I would like to discuss."

The Web site for the new church says everyone is invited to attend services.

"We say 'ecumenical' because we welcome persons of all faiths. We say 'Catholic' because we are seekers of universal truth and wisdom," according to ChristHope.com. "We celebrate God's hope and love for every person, and embrace who you are, as you are."

Hausen said he intends to have all the sacraments at Christ Hope. Services will feel much like a traditional Catholic Mass, but it won't be called "Roman Catholic" because Hausen doesn't want to be constrained by labels.

The Rev. Ronald Lengwin, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, said Hausen "cannot establish another Catholic Church. He doesn't have the authority to do that."

Hausen and his followers could face severe consequences, according to Lengwin.

"The next thing that could happen is he could excommunicate himself," Lengwin said. "If a person chooses to separate himself from the Catholic church, then they lose their rights as Catholics."

The diocese put Hausen on administrative leave in October 2003, according to Lengwin, who did not say why the move was made.

"He is not a priest in good standing," Lengwin said.

Hausen said it's sad that the diocese would use "scare" tactics to try and keep him in line.

"They're using fear, intimidation and guilt, and I feel they built on sand," he said. "I think a lot of people will be afraid of that, and it will keep people from coming (to the new church). All we can do is our best.

"Some people will be here. How many? That's up to the Lord."

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:19 PM   Permalink  

... I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act...

Of course "how to act" is often a matter of right and wrong. If you were there, what sort of answer would you get if you asked: "Senator Kennedy, are you still going to keep the Ten Commandments?"

JFK confused the two enumerations: the free exercise of religion and the prohibition against the establishment of a national religion with something called "separation of church and state" -- and confused the conduct of the state with personal moral choices and personal choices.

There are opinion pieces appearing all over the place (Newsdayand Newsweek for example) arguing that people are free to self-identify as Catholic like it is a tribal identity for a tribe for which there is no authority, no tradition, no definition for who is a Catholic. Is it a contradiction to be a Catholic and an atheist? Is it a contradiction to be Catholic and believe that bishops lack authority in matters of faith and morals?

A historical note, the great Senator Kennedy/Cardinal Cushing conflict was over the public funding for parochial schools. No one thought that this policy position separated Kennedy from the Church.

Kerry upped the ante by making a public claim that he is a Catholic and receiving Holy Communion while being vocal about his support of partial birth abortion.

It almost seems as he's begging to force a confrontation with the bishops.

I don't see a downside for Kerry -- nothing happens if the bishops refuse to act, and if the bishops act he gains status as a martyr for his conscientious stand against the Church, a regular Martin Luther.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:38 PM   Permalink  

This anonymous web site screams 1996 in terms of how it looks.

I hope they keep it updated.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:27 PM   Permalink  

The Blogger software that I'm using has a restriction for the time being that requires me to call my Atom feed "atom.xml".

If you have referenced the old feed it will no longer be updated.

Blogger FAQ: What is Atom?

What it means to be Atom-enabled. and Finally Atom

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:18 PM   Permalink  

A Jimmy Breslin column published April 7 in the New York City edition of Newsday included direct quotations attributed to the Rev. Lou Sheldon describing his views on homosexuality. In response to the column, Sheldon, the chairman of the conservative lobbying group Traditional Values Coalition, said in a telegram to Newsday: "I do not recall ever meeting or being interviewed by Mr. Breslin. I have never made statements like these to Mr. Breslin or anyone else."...

... The April 7 Breslin column should have indicated that it was based on a conversation that took place in 1992. And the column did not adhere to Newsday's standard of publishing only direct quotations that are accurate and precise.

He sent a telegram?

UPDATE: I put this into a Otto-de-fe (if you like my blog, you'll like his) comment box.

My favorite Breslin story is from the Crown Heights riots. From his office he wrote about those stupid Irish-American cops over-reacting. When he got to the scene in the midst of this riot, he got a beat-down from the rioters and his clothes were ripped from his body and ran four blocks in his underwear into the arms of the police.

He is a 74-year-old bitter self-hating Irish-American who peaked creatively 30 years ago.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 3:31 PM   Permalink  

This came to my attention first in Catholic World News (paid subs. reqd.) links to this transcript of Cardinal McCarrick's appearance on Easter on Fox News Sunday

On Catholic World News, I made the comment (quotes are from McCarrick)

"I think every archbishop has the right to make his decision in his own area."

Here McCarrick slaps the bishops who declare Kerry unworthy to receive Holy Communion (canon 915) as being arbitrary and not acting on a principle which would rightly bind all bishops to act.

"Certainly, I think we all would be critical of anyone who did not agree with us."

The follow-up question: "Is abortion a matter of mere 'agreement' or sin?"

Catholic pundits such as Maggie Gallager who I blogged below and Pat Buchannan on WorldNetDaily on this topic. Pat wrote:

But the real problem is not Kerry or his Catholic colleagues like Kennedy, Dodd and Daschle who vote and, one assumes, believe as he does. The problem rests with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Many prelates have failed dismally in their pastoral duty to correct, admonish and sanction our Catholic lords temporal, even as some failed to protect Catholic children from predator-priests.

Rather than act as a pride of lions defending Catholic truth, they have, with rare exceptions, behaved like a rabbit warren. Time to get off the lettuce diet and return to the raw meat of doctrinal truth and episcopal duty to which they have all been called.

The Catholic blogs are hammering away at this as well:

Secret-agent man has a great fisk of a Kerry-is-a-good-Catholic opinion piece from Newsweek: Who are the "Real" Catholics?

Mark Shea and his readers have comments on the above.

Amy Welborn on Newsweek's piece.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:05 PM   Permalink  

The world has moved on since the case of Terri Schiavo, whose husband sought to remove the feeding tube that kept her alive, briefly grabbed public attention last fall. But Terri's life remains at risk.

Michael Schaivo, her parents, the state of Florida, and advocacy groups continue to fight over her future. She keeps losing where it seems to matter most — in court.

Keep Terri in your prayers and keep reading the news.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:14 AM   Permalink  

This incredibly arrogant comment comes from Tom Kean of the 9/11 Commission -- from Fox News: Commission defends Gorelick.

Tom, you hold a position of public trust. Your business is the public's business. The "our" of "our business" is all the people of the United States.

Gorelick has a conflict of interest. It's just more evidence that there's a media bias that the Gorelick memo on the "wall" that prevented communications inside government regarding terrorist threats was higher than law required went unnoticed in the New York Times. They editorialized the obvious lie that the FBI wanted these handcuffs on their own investigative powers.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:01 AM   Permalink  

National Review Online, Stephen Moore: Santorum's Shame Say it ain't so, Rick.

No one can question Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's free-market and pro-growth credentials. Santorum has been ranked as one of the most fiscally conservative Republicans in the Senate by groups like the National Taxpayers Union. He has led the fight for tax cuts and smaller government. And pro-growth contributors, for their part, did a lot of heavy lifting to help get Santorum into the Senate in the first place and into the leadership position he now holds. It was an investment that has paid off in spades.

That is why Santorum's recent interventions on behalf of Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Republican primary are so bewildering. Specter is now locked in a razor-tight race against conservative three-term congressman Pat Toomey. Toomey's voting record, especially on economic-growth issues, is very similar to Santorum's and is as impressive as Specter's is dreadful. Specter was one of only three Republicans who tried to eviscerate the Bush tax cut; he was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the Washington, D.C. school-voucher bill; and he was ranked by the Citizens Against Government Waste as the "Pork Spender of the Year."

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:50 AM   Permalink  

What does the United States need in 2004?

A President who can be accommodating and reasonable with our enemies.

A President who is idealistic and prepared to use the overwhelming power against our enemies.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:17 AM   Permalink  

2 things:

Insane ambition and rich old lady.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:13 AM   Permalink  

Stay with me a minute. This is not a column about a presidential candidate. It's a column about a religion. My religion. And maybe yours, too.

I'm a Roman Catholic. I woke up the day after Easter to find this headline in The New York Times: "Kerry Attends Easter Services and Receives Holy Communion."

Weird, right? It's hard to count all the ways. First, the "dog bites man" aspect: John Kerry, who describes himself as a "believing and practicing Catholic," goes to church on Easter. This is headline news? Second, there is the uneasy feeling that some unspoken boundary is, or is about to be, crossed. For faithful Catholics, communion is not just a nice ritual: It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and the ultimate sign of our willingness to be incorporated into the church. Why are the sacraments of my faith being (I dunno) dirtied up with presidential politics? ...

This New York Times account on St. Francis de Sales is incorrect. The reversal of policy was the Archdiocese's. The Archdiocese had agreed to the personnel changes planned by Fr. Murr.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:50 PM   Permalink  

New York Post Michelle Malkin: Hindsight Hypocrites

The Bush-bashers who have relentlessly accused the president and his War on Terror team of acting like jack-booted bigots are now imperiously attacking them for acting like light-footed fumblers. This self-serving display of liberal hypocrisy has provided more idiotic entertainment than "The Nick & Jessica Variety Hour."...

...Like the boy who cried "wolf," the liberals who cry that the Bush administration "didn't do enough" to fight terrorism should be dismissed as sniveling children stuck in an indulgent world of make-believe.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:20 PM   Permalink  

NRO Jonah Goldberg: The Blame Game

...Considering that it'd been reported in Time magazine in 1998 that government officials believed Osama bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States, I'm not sure the president should have raced back to Washington from his ranch in August 2001.

But I am 100-percent sure that the folks at the New York Times editorial board would have snapped their pencils in rage if the president had suggested increased "profiling" of passengers in August 2001, let alone proposed the Patriot Act — which the Times detests — and never mind doing everything "conceivable."

This blame-game stuff is counterproductive and dangerous when Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if that's the game we're stuck with, it's an indisputable scandal that the Clinton administration is getting off scot-free...

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:13 PM   Permalink  

Each question contained one of the following:

• Error
• Your Critics...
• Mistake
• "you got that so wrong"
• falling public support
• "feel any sense of responsibility for Sept. 11"
• Failed

These questions seem scripted by the Democratic National Committee. They reflect the attitude that it's the roll of the press to do a "gotcha" on President Bush while grandstanding in front of the media: Soundbites for a future Kerry ad attacking Bush on the war on terror.

Here is CNN's own spin: Bush: 'Maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be'

I applaud the President for showing restraint that I would not have shown to these hostile questions.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 12:03 PM   Permalink  

Some of my favorite political authors are women.

I think it's just common sense and nothing connected to the fact they are women. The Case for Marriage is co-authored by Maggie Gallagher. I'll be posting part of her most recent column later.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:03 AM   Permalink  

On Holy Thursday, I was disappointed at the turnout at 7.30PM but as time passed more people arrived, I guess they were thinking it's like a party and you get to be fashionably late. The pastor-celebrant is a wonderful priest, and recently raised to Monsignor.

More than a few people just decided that 45 mins. was enough for them -- that was the just before the Gospel. Many of the parish are Spanish and not bilingual, so some of the readings, and some of the prayers and responses were given in Spanish and not not English. At some unpredicatable times, he would use Latin. Verbum Domini: Laus tibi, Christe. Sursam Cora: Habemus as Dominium.

For the washing of the feet, he picked 12 men. These men were scattered through the church and he walked from place to place where they sat. This, I believe, is the third year in a row where it has been viri and before that it was six men and six women.

On Good Friday, I visited my father-in-law's parish in New Jersey. The people there arrived on time and remained until the end. The central image of Christ in the church is a Christ Risen, in awkward corner at the front of the church is a crucifix. There was an awkward moment as the deacon invoked "Let us kneel..." and the priest-celebrant said "no, we'll remain standing". For other parts of the service we did kneel so it wasn't as if we never knelt.

At Easter Vigil, we had a capacity crowd at the start of the Mass. The sacred fire was lit. I had earlier checked that the fire extinguiser was in its proper place and charged. A few years back it was almost knocked over.

The pastor at the conclusion of the baptisms and confirmations asked that the neophytes be applauded. He told the applause lacked intensity. He apparently didn't notice that 1,000 people before him were holding lit candles.

Some of the ushers somehow became distracted and scattered and I had to tell them that what they were hearing was the prayer of the faithful and the collection would follow.

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:12 PM   Permalink  

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997' has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

So it's been released. Do you see anything in it that would lead you to act differently?

If anything, I think that if President Bush pre-9/11 told the FBI to take the gloves off in attempting to identify, to investigate, to interrogate, and to seize evidence from suspects from countries with al Qaeda connections, there would have been cries that he was tearing up the Constitution, and the people crying the loudest would be the same partisan Democrats trying to get more Democrats elected, and the same ones defending Clinton's inaction on terrorism.

• Blame Bush for not being pre-emptive: not attacking al Qaeda's Afghanistan's bases.
• Blame Bush for being pre-emptive: attacking Saddam for refusing to comply with UN resolutions.

What is in this memo is stuff that wasn't clear following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or following the ABC Television interview that John Miller had with Osama bin Laden in 1998?

Anyone paying attention knew OBL had the means, motive, and opportunity to project terrorism into the United States.

Also discussed at Command Post

posted by Patrick Sweeney at 7:53 PM   Permalink