Catholic feminists in England are red-faced after publishing an article “full of heresy and feminist jargon”—without realizing that the article was a hoax perpetrated by Joanna Bogle, This Rock’s newest contributor. The Catholic Women’s Network published in its journal Network an article purportedly written by “Carmel Lenehan” from Western Australia. The parody was inspired, says Bogle, by an earlier edition of Network, which included a rewriting of the creation story in Genesis: “The Earth was as yet incomplete when on the sixth day God created Woman . . .”
Bogle said, “I had a good laugh about all this, but afterwards I thought that anybody could write this sort of stuff. So I did. For some reason I seemed to hear it all in an Australian accent, so I got a friend in Western Australia to send in my spoof.” Bogle described a fictitious “Circle Weekend” of CWN women in Australia: “We began with a foot massage and then, in a circle, we each in turn spoke, saying ‘I matter. I affirm self. What I am, I have a right to be. . . . The loving and caring in me reached out to you, and you, and you.’ It was really moving. Over avocado salads, we shared music. And there was talk about the Church and the way it/he oppresses us.”
“I thought the feminists would never fall for this,” Bogle said, “but they did—hook, line, and sinker.”
Just when you thought the world was safe from medieval heresies, the Catharists stage a comeback. Larry Nolte (Beggar King home page, www.anet-stl.com/~nosmo) sent us a snippet from the Cathar Web site aimed specifically at Catholics:
“You are a Concerned Roman Catholic. . . . The Second Vatican Council appeared to many to provide a renewed emphasis on some elements of Christian beliefs much stressed in the New Testament and the life of the early Church. Yet it has become clear to many that, like the new Russia, old authoritarian habits in the Church of Rome die hard or, in reality, don’t die at all. Facts are facts. Since it became a creature of the State, ruled by the Prince of this world, the Church of Rome has followed a consistent course of action throughout the centuries. When in a position of strength, it crushes its critics with all the worldly might at its disposal. When in a position of weakness, it pleads for toleration and ‘freedom of religion.’
“There is not one instance where it can be convincingly argued that the Roman Church has departed from unscriptural, un-Christian, anti-democratic teachings. At no time is it recorded that the laity—within the context of a free debate—have effected a change in papal policy. Not once. Such reform as did take place from time to time was influenced by the example of good Christians who remained as an ever-present reminder of the way the Church was and ought to be. This until their virtual extermination at the hands of the ‘Holy Inquisition.’”
“Good Christians” is the misnomer by which the new Catharists prefer to designate themselves. Although clearly a “revival” group, this new crop of Catharists lays claim to the history of the medieval heretics, also known as Albigensians. Like many churches without a history, they insist that their ilk has survived in secret enclaves since early times—in this case, since the Edict of Milan, after which the Catholic Church, they say, literally went to the Devil. “Much of the Catharist Web site is devoted to trashing the Catholic Church, using the usual shopworn charge: The heretics were the real Christians, and the Church has hidden the truth about them.
Historically, Catharism taught dualism: two creative forces, one good and one evil. Catharist beliefs have much in common with Manichaeanism. Catharists have only one sacrament, called consolamentum, and they reject baptism and Eucharist. They have a special hatred for the cross as a symbol. Because they view matter as evil, they forbid marriage (although fornication is okay). All in all, not what would pass for “good Christians” in the common understanding.
Confusion in the Catholic Church in the United States causes problems for anti-Catholics, too. Bill Jackson, of Christians Evangelizing Catholics, writes bemusedly in his newsletter, C.E.C. Journal, about Call to Action and Common Ground: “In all this we see a struggle between Rome’s authority and American democracy. How far will the Catholic Church go to placate restless Americans, who . . . favor most of the social issues the Vatican hates?”
Noting the divisions in American Catholicism, Jackson adds: “It is important for Christians to know some of what is going on, because these confusions affect the Catholic friend you are witnessing to. Because the voices defining ‘what Rome really teaches’ are so utterly diverse, your Catholic friend can come up with strange theology, which he sincerely thinks is Roman Catholicism.” Such uncertainty offers a golden opportunity to lead Catholics “out of the darkness of Rome to the glorious light of Christ.”
There is no surer sign that modern dissidence is inspired by the Father of Lies than this admission that anti-Catholics rejoice in it.
The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia reports that Mount Athos, the ancient seat of Eastern monasticism, is threatened by feminist activists and government bureaucracy. The monasteries there may be visited by special permit only—and women are never allowed. Greek women’s groups and European Union regulations demand a change in the monks’ centuries-old way of life. Jacques Santer, the president of the European Commission, recently visited the enclosure. The monks appealed to him to protect their traditional refuge.
Having difficulty of another kind with the European Union is the editor of Midnight Call, Arno Froese: He disapproves of the flag, a blue field with twelve stars.
“For worshipers of Mary, blue is the color of Mary,” he says. “The European flag bears a crown of twelve stars on a blue background. The European flag bears the message: Mary is the mistress of Europe.”
Gee, does that mean that the original U. S. flag, with its circle of thirteen stars on a blue ground, was also a nefarious Catholic plot? (Maybe the stars represented the twelve apostles plus Mary?) Froese says that “Roman Catholic doctrine . . . is in complete contradiction to the teaching of the Bible.” Maybe he should read Where We Got the Bible.
This Rock contributing editor Mark P. Shea reports that the newest family member arrived in fine style—at Easter time, with the Hale-Bopp comet blazing in the heavens. The celestial portent actually gave him pause, he says—he kept glancing nervously outside, looking for turbaned men on camels.
The Diocese of Sioux Falls (in South Dakota) is following the lead of the Holy Father in gearing up for the third millennium. Its three-year preparation kicks off August 8–10 with “Journey to Holiness . . . Jubilee 2000,” a celebration expected to draw 6,000 Catholic educators, youth ministers, religious, lay leaders, and faithful. More than fifty-five workshops and one hundred exhibits are scheduled, as well as concerts. Among the nice touches: Day care will be provided for families with small children, and there will be opportunities for daily Mass, reconciliation, Eucharistic adoration, and morning prayer. Bishop Robert Carlson deserves praise for offering this event.
An issue of Catholic Update, Liguori Publications’ monthly bulletin insert, recently addressed the topic of “inclusive language.” Professor Ronald D. Witherup, S.S., did his best to sell linguistic surgery by exploring the “myths surrounding this issue.”
If only he had. Instead, he parroted the feminist line: “[W]ords like mankind and forefathers have come to be seen as too restrictive. For many, they represent a patriarchal system in which men have dominated women unjustly. Many people of goodwill say such words exclude the perspective of women and are thus offensive to many.”
Note the waffling language: “have come to be seen” (by whom?), “many” (how many?), “people of goodwill” (are those who don’t object to standard English not “people of goodwill”?).
After framing his argument in terms of verbal abuse and painting inclusive-language activists as sweetly reasonable, Witherup depicts opponents as snarling nastily, “Much ado about nothing, this inclusive language nonsense!” Witherup has listened too much to elitist, disaffected Catholic nuns—and too little to Catholic women in the pews, who don’t give a second thought to the “oppressive” language of Scripture and liturgy. For proof, see Joanna Bogle’s article in this issue.
Good news for multimedia fans: You can listen to WEWN (Mother Angelica’s short-wave radio station) through your computer while surfing the Web. Just go to the EWTN home page (www.ewtn.com) and click on “radio” then “listen.” You’ll receive the signal through your computer speakers. If you don’t already have Real Audio (a plug-in required to hear sound files), you can download it from the EWTN page. Your system needs a Pentium chip or better with a high-speed modem connection (at least 28.8). There is something touching about a computer reciting the rosary.
The world premiere of The Conquistador was given by the San Diego Opera in March. The libretto tells the story of a convert from Judaism who, in the New World, is persecuted for his old faith.
The opera company published “An Historical Note,” which said that “[i]n the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church treated the Bible as its own sacred text, and individuals were not allowed to own a Bible.” This, of course, is false, as shown by the many vernacular versions of the Bible produced in the years before and during the Reformation. These versions were for private, not liturgical reading, and they were owned largely by laymen.
Another error: “[T]he open practice of Judaism was forbidden by the Inquisition.” No, it wasn’t. Jews who retained the Jewish faith and who didn’t pretend to be Catholics were permitted to practice Judaism, but Jews who converted to Catholicism while secretly retaining their old faith were subject to the Inquisition’s penalties, the theory being that such pretended converts, who “converted” solely to achieve political or economic advantage, were a threat to the state.
Is a healthy dissent possible, even desirable? That question arose when we heard of Eutopia, A Journal of Orthodox Catholic Dissent. What on earth is “orthodox dissent”? we wondered. With such names on the board of advisors as Rod Dreher and Donna Steichen, we could scarcely imagine the journal as a mouthpiece for flaky feminist nuns or priests in Ralph Lauren ties.
Not to worry: The “dissent” in the title is from the culture: “The mission of Eutopia is to discuss the major moral and legal issues besetting our society today in light of Church teaching,” writes executive editor Richard L. Kent. “There has never been a time where a voice of traditional, orthodox Catholic teachings on the law and society has been more needed: and never a time when those teachings have been less clearly stated in American culture.”
Eutopia can be reached at 2579 John Milton Drive, Suite 105, Herndon, Virginia 20171, or through GuelphPres@aol.com.
A giant yawn must have greeted this issue of Update. A Roper poll commissioned by Catholic World Report found that 69 percent of American Catholics reject “inclusive language” for the Bible and liturgical texts. Only 21 percent prefer such translations. There was no significant difference between men and women on the question. “The preference for standard English was most pronounced among regular churchgoers and Catholics who supported Church teachings on controversial issues such as abortion and the ordination of women; it was weakest among Catholics who disagree with those teachings, and do not regularly attend Mass,” says the Catholic World Report press release.
Remember the “nun bun” (“Dragnet,” February 1997)? The party is over for the Nashville, Tennessee, coffee shop owner who reaped a publicity bonanza from a cinnamon roll said to resemble Mother Teresa.
Bob Bernstein had displayed the now-famous pastry at Bongo Java since December—and marketed T-shirts and other souvenirs through a site on the World Wide Web. He received a letter from a lawyer representing Mother Teresa, asking him to stop using her name. He did, but he continued to sell the image under the name “nun bun.” Despite his offer to donate 15 percent of the merchandising to the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa was not satisfied. “I have always refused permission for the use of my likeness for commercial ventures,” she wrote to Bernstein, asking him to “understand and respect my wish.” Bernstein has promised that he will do so.
On the Internet there is a chat room for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most non-JWs are tolerated, but not all, at least not those presumed to be apostate JWs. A Catholic was banned from the chat room because it was determined by the JWs that, since he knew his Bible, he had to be an apostate from the Watchtower since cradle Catholics do not know the Bible.