Eerie and Ominous Seagulls at the Vatican

There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear

There's some birds in the air over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, What's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

You know, when a flock of seagulls mounts a protest of the Pope on New Year's Eve it must certainly be a sign of something going down. A sign that we got to beware.

Not the band.

Actual birds. Although there was a band called the Birds, not them either. A literal flock of birds from the Laridae family. This breaking news was brought to us courtesy of Lifesite News. Thank goodness for them because otherwise we may have never been aware. Other news sources have not even reported on the highly organized protest action. Those who defend the Pope most certainly would conspire to bury such breaking news.

The headline reads 'Eerie and ominous' sign appears as Pope Francis visits Vatican Nativity. The article reports.

At exactly the same time as the Pope left St. Peter’s Basilica and walked to the crèche in St. Peter’s Square, a squabble of about 500 seagulls suddenly flew up from behind the basilica and circled around the crèche.

They swarmed above the nativity scene, squawking and squealing for about the exact time it took for the Pope to walk from the basilica to the crèche. They then disappeared into a night sky lit up by an almost full moon.

Gives you chills. They posted this picture of the protesting birds.

I don't see the seagulls either. That doesn't negate the fact that we better stop, children, and listen to what's going down. Apparently the birds were protesting Pope Francis himself and this pontificate in which degradation and squalor continue in the Church, as well as the lurid nature of this year's Nativity Scene. This is truly eerie and ominous stuff. The birds at the Vatican, especially the seagulls, have been trying to tell us something for years and we just haven't been listening or maybe there has just been a deliberate attempt in the Catholic news media to keep us from knowing the truth.

Don't believe me? Well, I've done some research on bird activity at the Vatican going back several years and have connected the dots.

Pope Benedict XVI and the Peace Doves
In January, 2012 Pope Benedict released a peace dove from the a window of the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican. Begun by Pope St. John Paul II, the gesture has become a yearly custom of the Popes. The bird once released turned around and flew back in the window. Just over a year later Pope Benedict resigned and Pope Francis became our new pope. Surely, that bird was trying to tell us about the uncertain future that we would soon face under the pontificate of the new Pope and flew back into the window in abject terror. Never mind that birds are often confused when being released from windows. It is irrelevant, as well, that the same thing occurred to Pope John Paul II in 2005 and to Pope Benedict the previous year. It is only in hindsight that we can see that a bird doing what  is natural for a bird to do was actually an omen. Which is why it went unnoticed at the time, merely an amusing mishap.

Pope Benedict XVI and the Seagull
The following year, January 2013 Pope Benedict again released the customary peace dove from the window at the Vatican. This time the bird flew off only to be viciously attacked by a seagull. Again the story was reported as merely a kerfuffle. Again, in hindsight, we can see it for the sign that it was. Just weeks later Pope Benedict resigned from the papacy and Pope Francis became our new pope. Surely this seagull was telling us that there would be "no peace for you" during the coming pontificate. Never mind that you can see the seagull outside the window before the Pope releases the dove and it may have been unfortunate timing to release a dove right in front of a predator. Who would have thought that a seagull just might attack another bird that it has preyed upon and eaten in the past. Again, birds acting like birds went ignored. Not unlike the lone seagull that whacked Tippi Hedren in the head in the movie "The Birds" a bird acting like a bird can portend a coming momentous and calamitous event.

Conclave Seagull
Less than 2 months later, in March of 2013, we have another bird trying to tell us something. During the conclave that gathered to elect the new pope a seagull perched atop the chimney of the Sistine Chapel as people waited to see the smoke emitting from that chimney, letting let us know if a new pope had been elected. Never mind that seagulls and other birds probably perch there on a regular basis. This bird was there to tell us something. Most likely he was there to warn us concerning the new pope. His message being that the sole purpose of the new pontificate would be to blow smoke up our butts. According to the bird himself on one of his many twitter feeds he seems more interested in his 15 minutes of fame.

White smoke means there's a pope, black smoke means no pope. A seagull means I confused the hell out of y'all. Boo-ya! #PapalSeagull

— Papal Seagull (@PapalSeagull) March 13, 2013

Angry Birds at the Vatican
January, 2014. Pope Francis releases two peace doves from the window of the Vatican. Both doves are again attacked as happened the previous year, this time by a seagull and a crow. Many are now getting the message and see this as a omen of the pontificate of Pope Francis. There are many blogs written concerning the significance of this most recent attack. This was the last time the Pope released the peace doves. The following year he decided to release balloons instead, effectively silencing the birds and the message they have been sent to bring to us.

That is until now when the seagulls decided to rise up and speak truth to power with an eerie and ominous sign.

You can judge for yourselves. I am just reporting the facts. But don't come crying to me when we look out the window and see this

The birds are determined to be heard. 

There's something happening here

What it is, is becoming more clear

There's some birds in the air over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, What's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

*************

tongue-in-cheek: with ironic or flippant intent; figure of speech used to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended; a statement witty in some way, particularly to the speaker. The tone or the context of the statement may make it to be taken seriously by the listener.

Sometimes when you write a tongue-in-cheek satirical piece there are those who don't recognize it as such, even though it seems to the writer that the exaggeration in order to expose the truly ridiculous is quite obvious. Anyone who has read my blogs knows that I am a defender of Pope Francis. Hopefully my readers will recognize the tone of this post and not worry that I have gone the way of those who once defended the Pope but now search for the smallest thing with which to criticize him. Some may worry however that since I haven't written in awhile I may have spent that time struggling with my loyalty to Pope Francis and decide to go over to the dark side. Although that seems to be a popular trend recently with some fairly well known apologist.

I began writing this particular blog "A Catholic Mind - For What It's Worth" so I could investigate stories that I thought were being used to manipulate. Which is why I chose the lyric from the Buffalo Springfield song "For What It's Worth"... there's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. Everybody look what's going down as my tag line. Because I wanted to show people that we really should investigate certain stories more fully before we allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated into making a negative judgement. Especially when that judgement concerns the Vicar of Christ. In my opinion Lifesite News took a story about birds being birds and turned it into a negative critique of the pope.

Here's what Lifesite News didn't tell you. The city of Rome (not just the Vatican) has a serious seagull problem. They really are a nuisance there. It is a common sight in the evening to see a flock of seagulls take flight. They are going after a feast of bats. They are seagulls being seagulls.  When that so happens to occur when the Pope was out and about it becomes an eerie and ominous sign.

It is a serious matter to turn the minds of the people against a Pope, regardless of whether he is a good one or not. We should pray for those who do so. Especially when they are more interested in the sensational rather than the truth.When reading such stories, before you get chills from the ominous and eerie you might want to check it out. Or you could follow the advice of another Flock of Seagulls.

And I ran

I ran so far away

I just ran

I ran all night and day

I couldn't get away.

As the last line says, sometimes we can't get away from it. But then there is always someone like me who will just write a blog about it.

For What It's Worth

Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good

Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood

The Animals 1965

From the very first day that he stepped out on the balcony of St Peter's, there have been those who have been horrified at Pope Francis. As a matter of fact, a blog headline on that first day of his pontificate read "The Horror". Even though the only actions the Pope had taken, as the Pope, at that time was that he wanted to dress and live simply, he waved and he asked for prayer. Even so, from that day to this, for nearly three years many have done whatever they can to prove that Pope Francis is not the man for the job. Every breath he takes, every move he makes, every single day and every word he says, they've been watching him. Watching for every misstep, watching for every misspoken word or mistranslation, watching for every analogy that might not hold up. Scrutinizing every  homily for the most minuscule perception of inconsistency. Then using those perceived inconsistencies to prove that Pope Francis is not worthy to be pope. Not only is he not worthy through an impression of ineptitude but rather they contend that he is an intentional heretic and a danger to the Church. They are then completely justified in turning others against him.

I have begun to get the reputation of a pope defender of none renown. I don't have enough people reading my blogs to claim any renown. Even so there are a couple of people who have Googled me and have seen that I have defended the Pope on more than one occasion. Those who wish to challenge my position often resort to a question like "Oh, so you just (blindly) think everything the Pope does is just swell?" Not necessarily. But I do give him the benefit of the doubt when something controversial is reported and I investigate. More times than not I find that while it may be said that the Pope is possibly unorthodox in style he is not heterodox in what he has said or done. I try to discover what the Pope may have been intending to teach me. I also know, if he makes a mistake, that "all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose"(Rom 8:28). So when the Pope makes a mistake, even if he is out and out wrong, I am not afraid the Church will come crashing to the ground. I believe that the Holy Father loves God and has been called according to his purpose, that Jesus sanctifies his Bride the Church and that the Holy Spirit is active in guiding it. I do not expect perfection from the Pope, I know that he is human. The Church does not teach that everything that the Pope says and does will be perfect, that it will not be subject to human flaws. The Pope's intentions are good. I believe, however, that he is often deliberately misunderstood. Some may say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That may be so. But right back at ya. It could also be said that to justify turning others against the Vicar of Christ, through intentions that we might consider good, a grave matter as well.

The words of the Holy Father are often challenging. They require us to dig a little deeper and think a little harder. Knowledge and understanding are more easily retained when we have to seek it for ourselves rather than having it spoon feed to us. I think that we don't always want to put that much effort into it. We prefer to be spoon fed a pablum of Vatican clarifications of the Pope's words and intent. I wonder sometimes, is the Pope really that confusing? Because I am not confused by him. I wonder if it is truly a matter of ambiguity and lack of clarity or if many are confused by him plain and simply because they are being told that they are supposed to be? I do know that the Pope is often misunderstood. I also know with certainty that there are times that this is intentionally and deliberately so.

Recently such misunderstanding has surrounded the homily that Pope Francis gave on the Feast of the Holy Family. There are some that have determined that the Pope said that Jesus sinned or that he required forgiveness and mercy due to sin. I have read that homily and can say that even on the face of it, Pope Francis said no such thing. A couple of bloggers that I know have written some very good articles explaining things, both men far more astute and erudite than I in the areas of theology and apologetics. The first being Scott Eric Alt's article "Does the Pope Really Think Jesus Sinned" and a second piece by Dave Armstrong "Pope Francis Espoused a Sinning Jesus? Think Again". 

My perspective comes from that of your common every day pew sitter. Speaking as an average Catholic I think you can give most of us a little credit as to having a certain amount of intelligence and at least an elementary knowledge of Church teaching. We also can handle a bad analogy from the Pope or something that might be misspoken without getting all shocked, shaken or jeopardizing our faith. Most of us do have the ability to interpret something that might be unclear through something that has been previously made clear. The Church teaches that Jesus was fully human in everything except sin. That has been made clear. The Pope has said it, as well, more than once as referenced in the two articles I have mentioned. The Pope does not then have to clarify that in every homily. He might be able to assume that would be the default understanding. Unless, of course, you are looking to find fault with something that he said.

Our Holy Father, in his homily, spoke of the family as being on pilgrimage together specifically in worshipping and praying together. He spoke as well of the importance of mercy in the family and that family is "a privileged place" of giving and receiving forgiveness and "experiencing the joy of forgiveness."  He then used the gospel of that day, the finding of Jesus in the temple, and related it to the human experience within this context. Although I would recommend reading the entire homily in order to clearly understand the context of Pope Francis' words, the following is the portion that seems to have been the source of misunderstandings.

At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51).  This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families.  A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience.  We know what Jesus did on that occasion.  Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him.  For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents.  The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.  Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt.  Returning home, Jesus surely remained close to them, as a sign of his complete affection and obedience.  Moments like these become part of the pilgrimage of each family; the Lord transforms the moments into opportunities to grow, to ask for and to receive forgiveness, to show love and obedience.
In the Year of Mercy, every Christian family can become a privileged place on this pilgrimage for experiencing the joy of forgiveness.  Forgiveness is the essence of the love which can understand mistakes and mend them.  How miserable we would be if God did not forgive us! Within the family we learn how to forgive, because we are certain that we are understood and supported, whatever the mistakes we make.

The word "sin" is not actually used within the homily, not once. The Holy Father does use the word "mistake". Within context, however, it seems that he is speaking about our experiences in families and not speaking of Jesus. Most of the objections seemed to arise from the use of the word "escapade" and the idea that Jesus may have asked for the forgiveness of his parents.

You may find the use of the word "escapade" to be a little cheeky. Then again, the word is enclosed in quotation marks indicating the Pope was probably being a little tongue in cheek and not literal. Lord help us, however, if our faith can be shaken on a cheeky reference from the Pope. Then again, have any of us been in a situation like that, where we couldn't find one of our children? Not through sin or fault but because of a miscommunication or misunderstanding? Then, after they are found safe and sound the story is told at family events as an "escapade"? I can relate a story from my own family. My sister and her son became separated at the mall. Often we tell our children to stay where they are when they become separated and wait for us to find them. My nephew, thinking the one place his mother would have to return to would be the car, went out to the parking lot, got in the car and waited patiently for his mother to find him. He was completely unaware of the furor going on inside of the mall as my sister searched frantically for him with the help of mall security. Did my nephew sin? Of course not. He did what he thought would be the right thing. Eventually he was found safe and sound. This "escapade" is now part of the lore related at family events.

In a similar way, Jesus thought that he was in a place where his parents could find him. He answered a call to be in his father's house. When Mary and Joseph found him they expressed that anxiety, without sin. Any parent who has lost a child for more than a minute understands the profound depth of that kind of distress, as well as the depth of relief when they are found.  In answering his parents some have said that Jesus was challenging them with a higher calling to be in his father's house. I think, however, that it was possible that there was merely some surprise there. "I had no idea. I honestly believed that if you couldn't find me you would know that I would be in my father's house and would be safe there." Honoring your father and mother is a commandment. The Lord holds that commandment in high enough regard that the keeping of it will bring you long life and the answers to your prayers. So could Jesus have asked forgiveness because of his parents distress? To honor his father and mother? Jesus often did what was right because it was right. He did many things to demonstrate humility, obedience and because they were required by the commandments. So I find it completely credible that Jesus may have said "I'm sorry you were so worried." and his parents may have responded "We are sorry that we did not understand,"

Have you ever said you were sorry not because you were at fault due to sin, but because of a misunderstanding or miscommunication? Have you said your were sorry because it was the right thing to do? Have you said you were sorry because, even though you were not at fault, not to do so would have been a matter or pride? Have you ever said you were sorry because the other person might need to hear it? I have. Jesus who was perfect, and his parents who were of far greater virtue than me may have as well. Sometimes asking for forgiveness is an act of humility. And sometimes when we ask for forgiveness we are actually extending mercy rather than requiring it.

"Let us not lose confidence in the family!  It is beautiful when we can always open our hearts to one another, and hide nothing.  Where there is love, there is also understanding and forgiveness.  To all of you, dear families, I entrust this most important mission - the domestic pilgrimage of daily family life - which the world and the Church need, now more than ever."

These are the final words of the Holy Father's homily. I believe we should take them to heart and extend them to the Pope as well. We should, through charity, first seek understanding regarding what the Pope says and does. Sometimes he may very well be wrong. In this case, I do not believe that he was, nor do I believe that his message was as confusing that some would have lead us to believe. His words did not put into question the teaching that Jesus was without sin. Nor did they cause me to doubt his divinity. The default position in reading this passage of scripture is that Jesus was without sin and that Marty did not sin as well. The default position with the Pope should be to seek orthodoxy first. Unless of course one chooses to be obstinate in misunderstanding him.

He's just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh, Lord please don't let him be misunderstood.

For what it's worth.

The Games People Play

Oh the games people play now, every night and every day now

Never meaning what they say now, never saying what they mean

Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress, over at Patheos said recently that “internet Catholics be crazy.” I think she caught a little bit of flak for saying that. I just got a whiff of some people that might have been offended. I think it was because she didn’t use the word “some”, thus implying that all Catholics on the internet are crazy.  I don’t know for sure, though, I didn’t follow that one. Take it with a grain of salt. However, if people did take offense at what was obviously a tongue-in-cheek remark, if we wasted time in com boxes and twitter discussions over whether or not it is only “some” Catholics and not "all" who be crazy…well…that kind of proves Scalia’s point doesn’t it? To tell you the truth, as a Catholic blogger on the internet, I am going to have to agree with her, sometimes “some” Catholics on the internet just be trippin’.

People walking up to you, singing glory halleluiah

And they’re trying to sock it to you in the name of the Lord

A case in point has been the fervor and sensation created over a priest suing a blogger.  This story began to develop from what would seemingly have been a personal issue between the two men to a cause celebre. It began to take on other implications and even exaggerations. I have already addressed some specifics of that story here and will not continue to beat that horse. For me that story began to become less about the specifics of that situation, nor the actions of those two men, anyway. Rather it became more about how we were reacting to it and how that was impacting the Church. As I said in my previous blog, my next series of posts will be examining what could be happening here. There seems to be a shortage of calm reason and balance but a plethora of emotionally driven and reactionary sensationalism, exaggeration, speculation and deliberate bias prolific in the Church today. Some of it, in my opinion, a concentrated attempt to cast doubt upon the Pope, the Church and the upcoming Synod. There seems to be an interesting propensity to sock it to the Pope and the Vatican in the name of the Lord. Some media outlets and blogs devoting themselves to letting you know exactly how desperate and bad things are. And quite frankly there are people who are lapping it up and passing it on in a true heard-it-through-the-grape-vine manner. I wonder if the Pope had an idea of what was coming when he consecrated the Vatican to the protection of St. Michael in July 2013. They certainly could use that protection in the way that the Pope and the Vatican are beset, besieged and attacked with news stories based exclusively on opinion or speculation. Some of the stories relying on remote or anonymous sources. News that we take at face value, without question because of a deliberate bias against the Vatican or Pope Francis himself. Many are choosing not to trust them right now and will nit pick news stories to find the smallest tidbit to hold against them to prove, justify and promote that mistrust.

Happy are those who fear the Lord, who greatly delight in God's commands...The shall not fear an ill report; their hearts are steadfast, trusting the Lord. Ps 112:1, 7

 Someone steps forward and says they are a childhood friend of the Pope and leaks a bombshell to the press that the two main concerns, the priorities of this papacy, is to overturn the archaic notion of priestly celibacy and give communion to the divorced and remarried. He also reveals that the Holy Father then gave a dispensation for the reception of Communion to a women living in a situation of cohabitation. Everybody is shocked and shaken that this indicates the Pope's agenda to change doctrine. They herald this message of doom and gloom without once questioning the credibility of the source, the inconsistency of the claim or the fact that there is no way to collaborate or substantiate the story. Because it fits the bias that they want to promote. Never mind that the Pope has indicated himself that one of his priorities is to evangelize the Gospel message especially to the peripheries and the marginalized. Never mind the reforming of the Curia, Never mind the plight of Christians facing martyrdom in various areas of the world. Never mind the myriad difficulties the family faces that he found so urgent that he called a Synod to address them. And the list goes on an on. Never mind all of that because according to the best friend of the Pope, (who by the way is close enough to the Pope to know his mind and be in his confidence but does not seem to mind risking that friendship and confidence by revealing private conversations to the press) they had a conversation six months ago (which he is just now getting around to telling us about) that indicated otherwise. Oh and by the way the Pope said somebody could have Communion who really wasn't supposed to according to the teachings of the Church. Never mind that if the Pope were to give that kind of dispensation to someone he would probably  document it in some way with at least a note to their pastor so that they would not face resistance in receiving their dispensation. We seem to believe that the Pope is going around saying "Sure, go ahead. Tell them the Pope sent you" without giving them something to verify it. Or am I the only one who thinks of this stuff? We certainly do believe, fear and sometimes revel in ill reports.

Oh we make one another cry, break a heart then we say goodbye

Cross our hearts and we hope to die

that the other was to blame

There have been quite a few ill reports centering on the Extraordinary Synod last October and leading up to the one in October of this year. The more progressive Catholics are hoping that it will bring a change in doctrine while some traditionalist Catholics fear that it will bring a change in practice that is tantamount to a change in doctrine. Never mind that something like that is not even the purpose of a Synod. The Synod is an assembly of bishops from around the world who assist the Holy Father by providing counsel on important questions facing the Church in a manner that preserves the Church's teaching and strengthens her internal discipline. Pope Francis has recently warned against disproportionate expectations of change leading into the Synod. Funny thing, but we have spent so much time arguing the doctrine (that some hope to change and others fear will change but which in fact never can change) that we have been completely and utterly distracted from thoroughly examining the issues themselves. Or reaching any real solutions regarding them. And in the end if the faithful do not become disenchanted and disheartened in the Church because of the ill reports they most certainly will become disheartened if the Church is disabled from finding practical solutions to assist them in living out an authentic faith in the face of modern issues facing the family. Yep, if my agenda were to disable the Synod, and possibly the papacy as well, that's exactly how I would play it. And no matter which side you are on, the other guy will be to blame.

People have asked the Holy Father to clarify church teaching regarding certain matters. He has in fact made many statements that are clear regarding doctrine. The doctrine itself is clear. We are just not following it. And, quite frankly, no matter how clear the clarification, there would be some on both sides of the spectrum that would insist that he had not made it clear. What I think people are actually demanding is not that Pope Francis clarify teaching but that he clarify his position as being orthodox concerning teaching. Which he has done as well but we aren't listening or it isn't getting reported. There is no drama or sensation created by reporting that the Pope is indeed Catholic. In a recent interview our Holy Father has said that the sacraments aren't a "badge of honor". He expressed that those in second marriages are called to reinstate themselves into the life of the Church. "Some people simplify it, saying that going to church is enough to give Communion for the divorced and remarried," he said. "But with that you don't solve anything. What the Church wants is for you to be part of the Church's life." Many of the articles don't even carry that quote being more attracted by the headline that the Holy Father said his papacy may be short. Or nit picking to criticize a joke that he made.

Some have suggested that the Synod is a charade. Merely a shill so we won't notice a stealth attempt to undermine Church teaching. They have wondered if the Holy Father has stacked the deck of the Synod in order to do so. When in fact he has begun balancing the deck in favor of upholding doctrine with the addition of South African Cardinal Wilfid Napier to the leadership of the next Synod. As well as the recent addition of the Vice-president and professor of sacramental theology of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage as an adviser to the next Synod. Marriage and family are at the core of th study of the JPII institute's scholars who have openly opposed recent proposals regarding the divorced and the remarried. Is it at all possible that the Holy Father's intent in assembling the Synod was to legitimately examine how to confront modern problems in the light of Catholic teaching? How best to assist the faithful in living out those teachings daily in a demonstrable way? How to productively evangelize the Gospel and those teachings to unbelievers and those separated from the Church?  That he might recognize that as a shepherd he is tasked with not only guaranteeing the integrity of those teachings but with the pastoral transmission of those teachings into concrete realities? 

Look around tell me what you see. What's happening to you and me? 

God grant me the serenity to remember who I am

Some Catholics do be crazy. Some be trippin'. Some may be playing games to deliberately shift the power structure of the Church. So that in the end they will have the power to determine what the Church should look like be it one extreme or the other. And woe to anyone, pope or otherwise, who stands in their way. This is a trap that must be avoided. With steadfast hearts we put our faith in the Lord and in the Church he has established. We remember not only who we are but who he is and the divine assistance he has promised through the Holy Spirit. Remember as well the rock on which the Church has solidly been set. So that when the floods come and the winds blow and buffet it, what has been set solidly on rock will not collapse.

That's just my opinion. For what it's worth

"Games People Play"  written, composed and performed by American singer-songwriter Joe South, released 1968.

   

The Saga of Father Thomas Rosica and David Domet

As a blogger I often peruse the internet looking for all things Catholic. I have followed certain stories and read many blog posts. I have noticed certain patterns in how we relate to each other as Catholics, how some of us react to situations we read about and how all of this may be coloring, possibly even clouding our perceptions of what is going on in the Church right now. I have seen how in certain ways these things could be damaging to the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The tag line of this particular blog is from a 60's song by Buffalo Springfield called "For What It's Worth".

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear...It's time to stop, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's going down. 

I had planned to write a series of posts that took a look at some of the stories I have been following from the perspective of asking the question, is there something happening here? Something that may not be clearly apparent at first? Is it time to stop and examine what's been going down, to maybe take a good hard look at ourselves?

One of the stories I had planned to devote a couple of posts to was the story of Father Rosica and David Domet. There is a lot to cover concerning that story, and what I have observed in the reactions to it, that just couldn't be properly covered in just one blog. I found, however, that it might be necessary to first tell the story. For some reason, when this story broke, I found myself wanting to look into things myself rather than taking the reports at face value and following in the direction the initial reports were trying to lead me. My concerns with this story are not due to any support of Father Rosica. Rather, I write this story to bring a balance and integrity that may have been lacking in the narrative due to a somewhat sensational, reactionary response of Catholic media and the blogosphere.

Father Thomas Rosica is a Canadian Catholic priest. He is the CEO of Canada's Salt + Light Television network. He is also the English language assistant to the Holy See Press Office. David Domet is a blogger from Canada who writes the blog Vox Cantoris. Mr Domet has written several blog posts that were critical of some of Father Rosica's statements and actions. Recently, Father Rosica issued a cease and desist letter, through his lawyers, against Mr. Domet. The letter stated that Domet made false and defamatory statements against Fr. Rosica and expressed the possibility of future litigation. Michael Voris and CMTV broke the story. Certain circles of the internet lit up with protest, support for David Domet and condemnation for Father Rosica, implicating the Vatican as well. That's the nutshell version.

Most of the background for the long version I got from reading Mr. Domet's blog, Vox Cantoris.  It seems the original focus of his blog was to advocate the traditional liturgy and traditional liturgical music. He basically sticks to posts relating to that premise for the first few years of his blog. His posts averaged anywhere between one a month to several. He writes about the liturgy. He writes about being sympathetic to the situation of the SSPX. He writes about Summorum Pontificum. He expresses respect and affection for Pope Benedict XVI. On occasion he writes a post that is critical of an individual and the tone of those post could be described as derisive. His rate of posting saw a dramatic increase from around the Synod until the present with 41 posts in October, 51 in November, 27 in December, 37 in Jan and 35 in February. Many of them critical of the Synod, Pope Francis, certain members of the Synod, as well of Father Rosica.

Mr. Domet states in his blog that he has had personal experience with Father Rosica going back 20 years. He posts his first criticism of Father Rosica in April 2010. There has been no other individual that Mr. Domet has criticized as many times as he has criticized either Father Rosica or Salt + Light. Many people have wondered why Father Rosica did not write to Mr. Domet to say "David, don't do me like that." Well, it seems that he may have, at least in the past. Mr. Domet makes more than one reference to receiving emails from Father Roscia that he describes as nasty and unbecoming of  a priest. He also makes reference to twitter exchanges. Communications may have broken down at some point, however. Mr. Domet indicates that he was blocked from Father Rosica's twitter.

So why all the detail here? Because there has been much speculation concerning the nature of the action Father Rosica took against David Domet. Speculation associating that action with a stealth attempt by the Vatican to silence bloggers. A "shot across the bow" is how I have seen it described. What I see going on is that there was tension between these two men going back for years and that tension accelerated and intensified over the time of the Synod. Any other implication does not seem to be justified by these details and may indeed be an exaggeration of the facts. It seems that this action was taken not because Mr, Domet dared to express his opinion or that he dared to express an opinion that was critical of the hierarchy. This action was taken because of the WAY that Mr. Domet expressed his opinion concerning Fr. Rosica. In other words, you can have an opinion, you can even have an opinion contrary to some in the Church. You can even express that opinion in any tone that you would like. What we can't do is express that opinion in a way that defames someone. I do not see what happened as an attempt to deny freedom of speech, but rather a question of whether or not that freedom had been misused. Fr. Rosica obviously thought that a line had been crossed in that regard. That is why he took the action that he did

The supporters of Mr. Domet insist that he merely used Fr. Rosica's own words and public statements to expose Fr. Rosica's error. This is true. He did repeat Fr. Rosica's exact words in the my-comments-in-red-fashion that is so frequently used on the internet. What wasn't reported was the mocking way that he spoke of Fr. Rosica; that he openly told people to cancel their Salt + Light subscriptions; when blocked from Fr. Rosica's twitter account, Mr. Domet expressed that there was more than one way to access a twitter account with today's technology. This implies an intention to continue twitter confrontations despite Fr. Rosica's desire to discontinue them. None of this necessarily justifies a lawsuit but it indicates that the postings went beyond mere reasoned correction and contributed to the escalation between them.

The letter. Otherwise repeatedly referred to as the "threatening letter" in many reports. I imagine David Domet did feel threatened and intimidated when he received that letter. It is certainly disconcerting to receive letters from lawyers telling us that we could be facing some sort of legal action. The letter was, in fact your standard cease and desist letter. Stop what you are doing, remove certain offending posts, publicly apologize or we will take further action. The door is left open for future litigation even if you do comply. We're lawyers. That's how we roll. Father Rosica said in a public statement that he never intended to sue. The supporters of Mr. Domet. of course, refer to the letter and say that it clearly states an intention to sue, so Father Rosica is an obvious liar. Not so fast. The fact that he sent a cease and desist letter indicates a reluctance to sue. People who intend to sue just file suit. People who are  reluctant to sue send cease and desist letters hoping that will bring about a resolution without the necessity of a law suit. Just ask David Jenkins, another Canadian blogger who was sued by his Anglican Bishop. Mr. Jenkins has stated that he would have preferred the courtesy of a cease and desist letter. Rather, his bishop, Bishop Michael Bird, brought a suit against him for $400,000 and an injunction to shut down his blog. The case was settled after about a year and at great expense to Mr. Jenkins. Father Rosica did not bring a lawsuit nor any injunctions to shut down Mr. Domet's blog. He sent a cease and desist letter. It is not my intention, however, to minimize the personal impact the letter had on Mr. Domet and his family. It would have been a threat to him. My interest here is more in the public reaction in which the letter was magnified into something more grandiose in an attempt to publicly demonize Father Rosica.

Mr. Domet circulated the letter to certain friends. He says that his first action, as a faithful Catholic, was to take it to the Church. However, he did not take it to his local Bishop who would have been the one with direct jurisdiction over the matter. Nor did he take it to Father Rosica's superiors at the Basilican order. Rather, he wrote to a personal contact he had in the office of the Secretariat of State at the Vatican. Mr. Domet has not revealed exactly who this private contact was. Mr. Domet states in an interview that the response was the contact's "personal advice" and not an official authority. So it would seem that he did not submit the matter to the proper Church authority, but rather wrote to a personal contact for advice. When the contact indicated that he would need Mr. Domet to answer some further questions and suggested that Mr. Domet might consider issuing an apology, Mr. Domet felt interrogated and responded no further to his contact. Mr. Domet indicates that the reason things went as far as they did was due to the lack of immediate intervention from the Vatican, stating "The fact is, intervention could have happened on the first or second day." We will never know, as Mr. Domet discontinued correspondence when he found that further investigation would be necessary and he would not receive an immediate response in his favor.

Very quickly, the letter was forwarded by an anonymous third party to Michael Voris at CMTV. Mr. Voris contacted Mr. Domet and they filmed an interview. Mr. Domet has meet Michael Voris and has previously defended him from criticism on his blog. The day after Mr. Domet received the letter, CMTV broke the story "Vatican Sues Blogger?" The story went public and now became a matter of the court of public opinion. That court seemed to be in favor of David Domet. Blogs were written, opinions were expressed and speculation was rampant. Questions were raised. Was Pope Francis aware of this? How could he not be? Then shame of Pope Francis. And if not aware, poor befuddled Pope Francis who is unaware of the stealth skullduggery going on behind his back at the Vatican. Campaigns were organized to flood the twitter account of Father Rosica and the emails of his superiors. People wanted Father Rosica fired from his post in the press office of the Vatican. Freedom of speech was invoked. A story began to emerge of a powerful Vatican attempting to silence faithful Catholic bloggers from exposing an attempt to overturn doctrine at the upcoming Synod. Father Rosica was described continually as a "Vatican Official", a "Papal Spokesman" and while it is true that he works in a certain capacity at the Vatican, his action against Mr. Domet was never initiated through that position but as a private citizen. Even so he was portrayed as a powerful man, a bully, who unfairly targeted the little guy, an obscure blogger. Yet, at one time Mr. Domet stated on his blog that he received more viewers to his blog a day than Father Rosica and Salt + Light received in a month and previously had felt no intimidation at all, that deterred him from the actions he took against Father Rosica in his blog. He felt no deterrent of intimidation in even disrespectful reference to Pope Francis, as well. Nor did he indicate fear of intimidation when he declared a relentless public pursuit of certain Church officials on his blog.

With the support of the internet, Mr. Domet determined that he would fight the good fight to the point of personal martyrdom if necessary. Indicating  that to give any concessions would then effectively silence him in regard to speaking out before the upcoming Synod. I do not see, however, that being unable to refer to Father Rosica would then impede discussing issues that arose from the Synod. Issues. statements and behavior can be exposed, examined, discussed and debated without resorting to personal comments about anyone.

Father Rosica then released a statement that he had not been acting in the capacity of a Vatican official, that he had not intended to sue Mr. Domet and that the case was now closed.

Well, it would seem that I have concentrated primarily on David Domet. What about Father Rosica? Father Rosica who has made heterodox and even heretical statements, according to some, is a danger to the faith and must be stopped? Father Rosica who has resorted to court action in the past? It might appear that I support Father Rosica, his actions and his views. Not necessarily. If Father Rosica publicly makes statements that are contrary to Church teaching then those statements should be addressed in a reasonable and balanced way. Those who address them can even confront strongly, firmly and candidly. But that is not what happened here. Domet posted his blogs advocating and demanding honestly and transparency from his subjects. His position is that he was justified in merely shining that light on the words and actions of others. In all fairness that same light of honesty and transparency should shine on his public words and actions as well. He brought the story into the court of public opinion. He and his supporters are the ones who framed this story in the way that it was framed. They are the ones who drove this story in the direction that it went with, in my opinion, no attempt to bring balance, but rather encouraging a frenzy of emotional reactions, speculation and exaggeration. What I do not support is the direction that this story took. I do not support the seemingly deliberate implication of Vatican involvement with no supporting facts to justify it. I do not support the public feeding frenzy that resulted. I do not support the sometimes gleeful public flogging of Father Rosica no matter how wrong people thought his actions were. I do not support when an atmosphere of fear and mistrust is created

There's battle lines being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...Paranoia strikes deep, into your lives it will creep. It starts when your always afraid, step out of line the men come and take you away

I found this direction to be unnecessarily damaging to the unity of the Body of Christ, deliberately damaging to the reputation of the Church and an attempt to cast doubt on the upcoming Synod.

Those who express themselves on the internet have the power to bring truth and clarity. They can bring the light of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. They can promote the teachings of the Church. They also have the power to open a Pandora's box and release a monster that can get out of control. So did something happen here that wasn't clear, that brought confusion rather than clarity? Do we need to stop, listen to the sounds and take a good look at what actually went down? Do we need to take a good hard look at ourselves and the monsters we can create?

That's what I plan to do in a series of upcoming posts.

That would just be my opinion. For what it's worth.

“Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness” Bl Mother Teresa

Surveying the Landscape

Ok. The Pew Survey. We do realize that out of 77 million American Catholics they only actually talked to 351 of us? Right? That was the sample size...351. Then they extrapolated and crunched some numbers that then are supposed to represent the thoughts and feelings of the American Catholic.

So when we say that 22% of American Catholics went to confession less times last year than they did the year before we do realize that there were less than 100 people that actually said that. So because of that we are then to infer that there has been a significant decline in the people going to confession and that then correlates directly to the attitudes of Pope Francis...right? Because that is what I hear has been inferred.

Did we find out if these were really practicing Catholics or Catholics because their mama done told them and had them baptized? Well according to the Mass attendence of that survey the ones attending Mass weekly were about 40%. So from a sampling of people of which 60% are Catholic pretty much at Christmas and Easter we can accurately say that Catholics are not going to confession as much as they used to and attribute that directly to Pope Francis. Because, of course, all other factors and reasons for this decline were eliminated. Did the survey ask them if they had car trouble once or twice? Did the survey ask how much less? We don't know any of those things for sure.

But what some people do seem to know for sure...it is definitely because Pope Francis is too relaxed in his leadership. That's for darn sure.