24 November 2009

Just as Catholic as They Ever Were, or, Catholic Action Network and Its Effort to Undermine Support for Archbishop Carlson

The tears of joy at the departure of Archbishop Burke were real.

The tears of joy to welcome Archbishop Carlson, not so much.

Fellow Catholics in St. Louis, there is an organization called Catholic Action Network that has a branch of anti-Catholic Catholics operating in this Archdiocese. Their pet issues are typical fare of the post-christian, secular far-left: destruction of the institution of marriage, socialist economic policies that serve to increase the power of government, environmental whacko-ism, and, of course, destruction of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Among their host bodies is St. Cronan parish, which used to occasionally host their "women-led liturgies" until the heat was turned up. St. Cronan still provides support for CAN on its site (stomach their "core values" here, if you dare), as does St. Stanislaus Kostka formerly Catholic parish. Why DO those names keep coming up?

In case you're wondering, you don't find a lot about Eucharistic adoration, prayers for the Holy Father, or Fatima on their site.

Well, we all heard the squeals of glee when the change of leadership was effected in the Archdiocese of Saint Louis. Now, the (gay marriage?) honeymoon is decidedly over. CAN is joining forces with the whimsically-named "Show Me No Hate" group to call for a protest against Archbishop Carlson at the Cathedral on Sunday:


An Open Letter From Ed Reggi, Show Me No Hate

ST. LOUIS - Tim Townsend of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on November 11th broke the story how the St. Louis diocese funded an anti-gay marriage ballot measure in Maine.

The local Catholic money was used to pay for a ballot measure called, "Question 1," that asked Maine voters if they should take away the right of lesbians and gays to legally marry in their State. Unlike Proposition 8 in California, the right of marriage was already granted to same-sex couples by the Maine legislature and signed into law by Maine's (who is Catholic) Governor John Baldacci. This was a measure to take-away rights already granted.

Make no doubt, Saint Louis Archbishop Carlson, along with dozens of Catholic Bishops across the United States donated over $180,000 to the Maine campaign that erased Maine's new Marriage Equality law; furthermore, they donated the money during a time when the Catholic Church is cutting, slashing and closing down parishes.

It's time for St. Louis Catholics and non-Catholics; gay and straight community; to come together and peacefully tell the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, that there are better uses for the local $10,000 Catholic dollars.

Last November over 1400 St. Louisans stood on the steps of the Historic St. Louis Old Court House to show solidarity to all those affected in California after the passing of Proposition 8.

On Sunday November 29th from 11:30am to 1:30pm; in front of the St. Louis Cathedral Basilica steps, we are asking St. Louis again to stand for equality. We gather again in solidarity for those not only discriminated against in Maine - but we stand for religious tolerance and diversity in our community.

Sunday November 29th: there is no better date than the first day of Advent to rally for Equality. Sunday November 29th marks the first day of Advent, a time for Catholics and Christians to prepare or "make things holy," before the holiday. Advent literally translates to "coming" and we cannot think of any better time to "come-out" and "come-forward" as a community.

This rally is organized by: Catholic Action Network, Holy Families Committee and Show Me No Hate

No matter how few protesters show up, it will likely be reported as 1400. But no matter. CAN has reaffirmed its lack of Catholic identity, and its repudiation of Catholic teaching on marriage. How long can they engage in the false advertising that attempts to deceive people that they are Catholic? And how long can a Catholic parish openly support such a group, that foments contumely on their Archbishop?


Fenian said...

I wonder what the law (canon or civil) says about a group such as CAN co-opting the Catholic name.

I know that an Archbishop may strip a university of the Catholic name under canon law, but what about CAN? Could they be sued in civil court?

Jeff Geerling said...

Yikes! And this also is linked from St. Cronan's website: http://catholicactionnetwork.org/HF/canhf.html

Anonymous said...

The time has come to quit pussy-footing around and put these people in their place - that is to say: outside the Church. We will be here to welcome them back when (if ever) they decide to be truly Catholic instead of trying to re-make the Church into their own image and likeness.

I've been suffering these fools since the sixties. Enough!


P.S. Being nicey-nice hasn't worked. They just get worse.

Anonymous said...

I had the same q., Feinan, about CUF. They're another group that is giving the good "Catholic" name a black eye.

Long-Skirts said...

These men are not of good will and there can never be peace. All our Archbishop has to do is simply excommunicate! For these mens' sins "cry out to Heaven" and are murdering the souls of many an innocent child!


There can be no peace,
If not of good will.
There can be no race
For those who stand still.

Only she
Full of grace
Could share in the miracle
Without disgrace

To magnify
Her soul prepared
By God, her spirit -
Never ensnared.

“Blessed art thou…”
Gabriel hailed,
And at that moment
The enemy railed,

For he remembered,
The garden free,
‘Tween him and the woman

But who the woman?
God did not tell,
Then Mary’s “Fiat”
Shook the depths of Hell.

And Satan screamed
Turned on a wing
To offer some peace
And will good to a King.

“Yes, some peace.” Herod said,
“And good will…
I’ve a right to my reign,
If some Innocents I kill!”

Anonymous said...

That is fine if the Archdiocese wants to give money for a ballot measure. But their non-profit status needs to be taken away immediately. I don’t want them involved in any government politics. The Catholic religion mean nothing to me!

Kerry McCullen said...

You say, "Stomach their 'core values' here, if you dare" which leads you to--"Our mission at St. Cronan’s Parish is to create an atmosphere in which people of all ages and persuasions are called to worship and to build the living Church".

Since when was acceptance and spiritual growth a BAD thing? This blog is written with rhetoric, and is completely unfair. Most Catholics actually accept and believe in people. Please open your mind to accepting and loving as Jesus would have wanted you to. Please consider approving this post, to show all that you are open to being challenged.

Nothing but love,
Kerry McCullen

thetimman said...

Kerry, the entirety of the values statement, not your excerpt, is the issue. As you know, it is full of code language denoting support for women "priests", homosexual unions, open communion, clericalizing the laity, and disobedience of Church authority if the Spirit "moves" the people so.

Fine if you believe these things but such things are not Catholic.

I thank you for your statement that you have nothing but love. I don't hate anybody at St. Cronan. I pray that the parish embraces Catholic truth along side its strong social mission as they are not only not incompatible with each other, but they must be linked.

If only all on the left were so loving-- the Local Catolic Reporter calls me a fascist, yet decries Archbishop Carlson's donation to support marriage as hate speech. I call that high irony.

God bless you. Christ calls all to salvation, and it is offered through His Catholic Church.

Henry said...

Don't waste your breath, Kerry. He has indeed posted your comment, not to show any sort of Christian openness, but to pounce (and encourage others to pounce) on your rather silly notion that we ought to be Christ-like in our actions.

This blog's all about judging everyone who doesn't embrace a particularly narrow vision of what Catholicism is.

Show Me No Hate said...

Since you rarely post my comments these days Tinny, I doubt it will see the digital light of day but here I go:

I invite all your readers and yourself to come, meet us on Sunday at the steps of the Cathedral at 11:30am. Witness for yourself the peaceful Holy gathering that will take place.

Talk to us, one-on-one if you'd like. See that we are made up of families, children, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, and grandparents too. We are human just like you. We are loving people not hateful.

Witness the clergy that will be present on Sunday: Catholic sisters, deacons and yes Catholic Priests who stand with us NOT against their Mother Church but in support of her healing. Others will come to shame Archbishop Carlson for sending $10,000 to Maine, with an effort that didn't involve us Missouri Christians one bit. That money could of fed so many people here in St. Louis during this Thanksgiving holiday.

Maybe the Archbishop himself will stand with us at the steps of his Church, he along with many Catholics are invited to join our rally for religious tolerance and to the support of what Jesus did, heal the broken world.

Kerry McCullen said...

Personally, I welcome changes into my life. As time transcends, people change. When change occurs, we must adapt. In this case the change is how to respond to controversial social issues. I was born and raised Catholic and realized it was not compatible with my belief system. The Church didn't answer all of my questions, but that's just me.

However, if I did wish to continue my faith with Catholicism, I could only do so in a loving and open environment where people of all sorts were accepted.

I feel that Jesus was a divine man of inspiration that we should all strive to be like, and if he were here today I believe he would want Catholics, as well as people of all religions, to be more accepting, just as Jesus was on Earth.

Again, Only LOVE,
Kerry <3

Patrick Kinsale said...

Anonymous, you do seem to care what the Church says, otherwise you would not have posted your comment. the Church has the right and the responsibiliy to speak out on these issues, as it did with respect to slavery and civil rights. It also has the right not to be taxed. Our country's tax codes are right to respect the other-worldliness (and inherent superiority) of its churches.

Peggy said...

Can we just be clear that (according to the epitome of the V2 agenda) "all are indeed welcome" in the Roman Catholic faith. What people such as Kerry, Show Me.., and others do not understand is that it's a two-way street to God. God expects us to live up to the 10 commandments and fulfillment of the Law by Jesus. We are all called to holiness, chastity. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any one may do that. The Church has implemented the Christian faith as Jesus taught and the Holy Spirit has guided her over the centuries. If you want to be a Catholic, you must accept Catholic teaching. A final point, as Bp. Tobin explained to fiery, insane, Chris Matthews, it is the responsibility of the Church to witness the gospel and speak out about the law that is in conflict with natural law and the teachings of the Church.

Show Me No Hate said...

Thanks Timman for posting my comments, you are actually showing me less hate and more love by your actions.

Peggy can I just be clear (according to the United States Constitution Article One, Four and Six) I am guaranteed my rights of equality, religious freedom and the protection from your religious influential power that might strip my rights.

Catholic dogma, it's rules and moral teachings belong only in one place Peggy - the Catholic Church - period. The moment the Catholic Church forces, finances and uses its powers to change my Constitution, we are no longer a United States of America.

Lastly, who defines your definition of Natural Law? There is no such thing as Natural Law, especially as I sit here and type on a keyboard while my canine is curled up on a $100 heated fancy pet bed.

There is nothing Natural about humans typing away on keyboards and dogs sleeping inside an urban home with a complicated piece of technology for a bed. If I were to propose my examples above to someone of say 2000 years ago, they would find nothing natural about them.

Peggy, what makes you any different than the Taliban if you force me to follow your Gospel? Are you saying Christianity cannot coexist along Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists?

Does the Catholic Church demand no religious tolerance?

thetimman said...


I would like to take that comment on in detail, but I am mobile at the moment--holiday and all. I will try to get to this fri. or sat.

Peggy said...

SMNH: How are Christians different from Taliban? Um, how's about we aren't going to behead a homosexual? If the Church had no place in society outside its doors and its adherents, society would suffer greatly, including homosexuals. There'd be no sense of mercy or justice (even as you define it).

No one is making you be a Catholic or Christian or any kind of theist. But there have been since the founding of our nation and even before in the development of western civilization, certain nearly unanimously held beliefs about what is moral and what is not. The Old and New Testament were the bases for such common morality. Now, as a civil matter, you can be as homosexual as you want, but as a very small minority your group is wrong to ask the whole of society to turn morality from centuries and world religions on its head and conform to approval of or participation in your worldview. We can't avoid participating if all the civil forms are to become awkward when speaking of marriage, parents, etc. We can't protect our children if you put it in their faces.

Yeah. I made up natural law, Right. So much for the great thinkers of the prior eras of mankind.

While homosexuality may have always occurred, it has not in any society been considered the norm, nor a morally appropriate way of life. This is not about hate, certainly not by Christians. [If you want to read about hatred and violence toward gays, read the gay guys at hillbuzz.com. Since they're not going along with the Obie-One agenda, they are villified by their lefty friends, called all kinds of anti-gay slurs with venom and hatred intended. Their conservative and Christian friends, even when in disagreement, are charitable toward them. They've seen a different world than they thought existed.]

I am sure Timman will do a far superior job in his response.

Happy TH-giving to you and all.

Show Me No Hate said...

Peggy, your words tell me that you don't think of yourself as "one who beheads the homosexual," but its clear you (and the Catholic Church) are okay to sharpen the blades.

I pointed to my American Articles of Law in the Constitution and you pointed to the Law of Old and New Testament. I pointed to a scientific modernist view of Natural Law and you pointed to a version of Natural Law based on traditions from 2,000 years ago.

Do you really want to talk about what was considered traditional and moral say 2,000 years ago? Even Timman cannot use that argument, because I know he doesn't support the stoning of outspoken children, or the raping of slaves. (All morally acceptable and natural during the time of Christ.)

Let's be clear Peggy, history shows bigots (even Christian ones) don't get a free pass. If this is not about hate then what is it? Protection of the morality? The protection of traditions?

Lasty, take a good look at what has been slowly revealed for the past 30 years Peggy. It seems the Catholic Church's leadership has lost any credibility on preaching morality. Just look at the recent Irish Catholic Church scandals and cover-ups.

Perhaps before you cast a strict morality stance on gay marriage, you should clean up your own flock.

Again, I say, "Keep your Catholic Dogma and Laws out of my American Constitution."

thetimman said...


Starting with constitutional law--

In the entire history of the English constitutional system, from the signing of the Magna Carta until 1776, and in the entire history of the U.S. government, both under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, sodomy was never a protected activity. Never, until the Lawrence case in the early 21st century. Sovereign states all had laws criminalizing sodomy when the framers drafted, and the states ratified, the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution overturn the laws of the sovereign states, which of course it would have had to in order to enshrine a "right" to what you call gay marriage.

To the extent that you view all rights as coming from the government instead of the Creator of man and nature puts you at odds with the very men who wrote, ratified and implemented the Constitution. To the extent that you think the federal government is primarily responsible for state police powers-- the historical moral decisions of law-- this just evidences that you are engaging in revisionist history. If so, enjoy yourself, because there can be no further rational discussion between us on this subject if you ignore: a) the words of the constitution itself; b) the intent of the framers informed by the historical reality of the time; and c)any appeal to the natural law.

When the U.S. Supreme Court declares a right to "gay marriage", and I believe it will very soon, it is simple power play, and will have no basis in law, constitutional or otherwise.

It is ironic that you are quick to dismiss natural law arguments, since the natural law and the divine law are the only possible sources of law that could trump the constitution that weighs definitively against your position.

There is no doubt that the divine law condemns sodomy. It is listed in scripture as a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. And we read even in the Old Testament of entire cities being destroyed for it.

Natural law is a much misunderstood concept to the modern mind, and a full exposition would take awhile and is best left to better men than me. However, in the case of sodomy, it flies in the plain fact of the natural state of man. Intercourse is for procreation, primarily, and secondarily for union of man and woman. I want to keep the discussion clean, but the anatomical witness is exhibit A.

Natural law is NOT a mere description of how people actually behave. It is more a description of how they were created to behave. If you won't tackle Aquinas, begin with C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, as he discusses antecedent concerns to the christian proposition. This is not, btw, in the discussion proper to christianity, as the natural law is outside of religion.

In the end, those so desperate to rationalize sodomy and those faux marriages that enshrine it as a god fall back on the truth that "Jesus loved everybody." You know what? He sure did. And he wants you to follow Him. Leave that lifestyle and find truth. When you do, you will find love.

thetimman said...


Re: your response to Peggy. I want to give you some slack, but your description of the history of morality in ancient history is neither relevant nor likely accurate. You fault Christians? Point to christian moral teaching, which would never support the items you list.

Also a non sequitur is your citation of the abuse scandals. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether gay marriage is a right. These acts were repugnant to the moral law, and the Church condemns them. In heavy irony, they were overwhelmingly homosexual acts. Aren't they the type of sexual expression deserving of legal protection? Or is it the age thing? At what age does abuse become sexual equal rights?

Show Me No Hate said...

Timman, with all due respect rape, has NOTHING to do with sex. Child molestation has nothing to do with sex. Furthermore, homosexuality has nothing to do with rape nor children. I am offended you even suggest anything otherwise.

Ask any rape victim or counselor and you will find it has nothing to do with anything sexual. What the Catholic Church has been found guilt of is hiding and protecting child rapists. I think that is a great argument to bring up when the Catholic Church is preaching morality. Your logic is not only insulting but flawed when you compare the recent Catholic Child Abuse scandals in Ireland to anything like marriage equality. To compare the two only shows great ignorance about rape.

Marriage Equality is about legal protection for two adults obtaining a civil marriage license. It has nothing to do with priests molesting children. A person who forces themselves onto anyone is not seeking equal protection, although the Old Testament you used earlier could indeed protect the rapist. I read C.S. Lewis and find his friend Tolkien's work to be of a higher caliber without all the Catholic propaganda.

P.S. I read Hebrew fluently, my Torah (your Old Testament) describes a completely different version of Sodom & Gomorrah. It had nothing to do about homosexuality. (Talk about Catholic revisionist of scripture.)

Peggy said...

I won't say more than observe that criticism of the Church always comes down to the abuse scandals. I thought male-to-male relations are what SMNH wants to have endorsed? I am now confused.

I've got to go sharpen my blades now. Dang. SMNH found me out.

just wondering said...

dear SMNH, when are you going to show the Archbishop no hate, or the Catholic Church no hate or is showing no hate only for those who disagree with you. are we the only ones who are supposed to show you no hate, or are you supposed to show us no hate too? please clarify your mantra. also a $100 heated dog bed, if sold, could have fed alot of people in st. louis this Thanksgiving.

StGuyFawkes said...

Dear Tinman and fellow bloggers,

Since Sr. Weezy and Fr. Marek Bojangles fell into conflict with Archbishop Burke two wonderfully ripe old nouns have returned to public discourse. I refer to "contumely", and its cousin "contumacy." They are vocabulary words to be cherished.

For those who intend to use them in daily speech here is a little lesson in proper usage.

"Contumely" means any old arrogant, insolent dash of insults of the type Southerners like to use when they were charging themselves up for a duel. (See Wm. Faulkner's descriptions of his fellow southerners in his essays on Civil Rights).

"Contumacy" while having the same root as "contumely", has a formal definition in law. It refers to a refusal to follow a court order in civil or canon law.

So, "contumacy" is an act of technical and legal contempt.

"Contumely" is everyday contempt of the kind that gets you cut up in a bar.

Know the difference!

Here are some useful sentences to remember proper usage.

1.) "The Local Catholic Reporter exercises contumely when it insulted the bishop this week."

2.)"Sr. Lears was not guilty of contumacy until she swallowed the hosts. Oh, she gave them back! Well, well it certainly was a bit of contumely for her to accept them, don't you think?"

3.)"Fr. Marek Bojangles exercises contumacy each day he ascends the altar and contumely each day he speaks to the press."

4.)"Tinman, would it be a act of contumacy or contumely if I refered to the pretend pastor of St. Stanislaus as Fr. Bodacious BMW?"

5.) "Don't you think the topic of "Contumely v.s. Contumacy" would make a good subject for a poem by Longskirts?"

6.) "When Tinman wrote, 'how long can a Catholic parish openly support such a group, that foments contumely on their Archbishop?' did he mean to say 'contumacy'?"

7. "Or, could it be that with St. Cronan's where the issue is whether to use contumacy, or contumely you can never go wrong?
It's one of the rare place where one kind of contempt always involves the other."

End of lesson