Wash the feet of one another. Servants not Priests. Gary Wills

The preoccupation with the apology is an unfortunate distraction from the theology involved. Will's theology is sound and Vatican II began to straighten that out until Ottaviani and Co. started to modify the documents. So this is nothing new. This is why Vatican II talked about "presider" rather than priest. The Body of Christ is really the church which is what Jesus meant when he said that the second commandment, Love your neighbor, is equal to the first, Love God with all your being. The harmful sacralization of presiders is a principal reason why there is so much error surrounding this office. At one time there were priests solely for the purpose of saying Mass, nothing else, so they could monetize the stipends. The fallacy that each Mass saves a thousand worlds is related to this. Nowadays a terrible practice of sending Nigerian and Indian priests here is an apt example. Worst of all because these men are needed to minister to their own people so many of whom are living in squalor. The idea for sending the priests here is to continue the Eucharist. The fact is that the community makes the Eucharist, not the priest. That terrible error allows millions in the missions to go without the Eucharist. It is not celibacy that prevents the Eucharist from happening. It is the fallacy of a regal priesthood. The priesthood and bishops are the creation of an Empire church. The hierarchy always got away with this faulty theology because of an uneducated and intimidated laity. Now that the guillotine cannot be used by the church as a weapon we see more clearly. The cover-up of sex abuse should have given us the definitive answer. The bishops and pope were more concerned about their reputation than the welfare of children. We do need officials in the church. But we need to center on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus which the Eucharist is. Not a symbol of power and domination. So stop calling the pope , bishops and priests "Father" because you have one Father in heaven as Jesus admonishes. Keep church officials responsible and remind them that they are servants not rulers. Then your scandals will be minimized http://www.taiw.org/Pages/default.aspx

Compromise by the White House on Contraception

Basically it seems to say that women who work for places that object can purchase their own coverage without cost. I do not see how anyone can object to this. As far as the Catholic church and contraception go it is an irony that what has been arguably the greatest health benefit of the modern era is opposed by an institution whose leaders are not arguably models of virtue. Any objective historian knows that the reason Paul VI was persuaded to go against the recommendation of his birth control commission was the apparent threat to infallibility of the church. The irony is that very few hold to infallibility in the church anymore. No wonder so many women are angry at a leadership who militates against their well being. These false religious liberty bishops have impinged on the basic liberty of women.

Today's Gospel Luke 4 14-21

The central theme of the ministry of Jesus is to free the captives. Francis of Assisi showed how deceptive the claim of spiritual poverty can be if one bathes in material comforts. Those who gazed upon Jesus condemned him as those monarchs in the church still do. The Vatican regales in splendor while millions lack basic necessities. The widespread practice in the church of sending Indian and African priests here and to other prosperous countries while most of their people are still captives living in squalor and domination is a living denial of Luke 4. Spiritual poverty and enlightenment are suspect when the physical aspects are not embraced. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB127968175399519301.html#slide/1

The New Evangelization

The new Catechesis is perhaps a euphemism for control or preserving the hierarchy/empire. Is the new evangelism going to give us homilies on “consubstantial with the Father” and the revelations of Sr. Faustina? Not far from advocating declaring Mary the Mediatrics of all graces. Again. Then maybe it is a question of who needs catechesis. Bernard of Clairvoux certainly needed catechesis because he advocated the killing of infidels as he along with the pope declared the remission of all sins for those warriors who on the way to Jerusalem plundered and ruined most of the towns they passed through. Or perhaps Athanasius of Alexandria who pranced around Egypt and Constantinople declaring that he had the right to be bishop of Alexandria. Or Augustine of Hippo as he advocated soldiers to force people to become Catholics while telling married people that it was a sin to enjoy marital love making. And what about the Fathers of the Church presiding over the massive adulteration of the Christian faith? Or perhaps Pius XII, and too many German Catholic bishops who kept silent about the massacre of the Jews. …..etc. Ah yes. The New Evangelization. Pretty soon it will be declared again that it is at least a venial sin to criticize a bishop and probably a mortal sin.

Is the Church of Dogma replacing the Church of the Way. Again

I guess now that the bishops want to return to preaching dogma rather than proclaiming the scripture, we may as well go back to talking about money all the time. Discipleship is in following the way of Jesus. Not explaining fine points of doctrine and what makes a sin venial or mortal and how the Trinity works. The truth is no one has the faintest idea of the Trinity tho it is touted as more important than the crucifixion. My my. Now that the bishops have profoundly catechized us in saying "and with your spirit" rather than "also with you", we can go back to ignoring scripture which we were forbidden to read at one time. Jesus made it very clear that his anointing was to set the captives free. Now the bishops pretend they are the captives because federal funding is not the way they want it. Yet the captives are still not free. In fact they are being abandoned more and more as the bishops pay Indian and African priests to come here while those priests leave serious captives in their own homelands. So the bishops remain in palaces as they maintain they want to catechize while "the poor do not have the gospel preached to them."

New Year Resolutions to "Set the Captives Free"

Do we challenge our resolutions enough so that we may aspire to a more excellent way? Certainly controlling our weight is admirable but how about those "Behind the Beautiful Forevers" who hardly have the option to gain weight as they endure searing sufferings as they wither away in an unforgiving place. And what kind of an obligation do we have to confront the innumerable Indian priests who minister among us while the women in their country suffer ignominiously at the hands of their male countrymen while too many Indian children languish in slime and deprivation! Surely, the bar should be raised on our aspirations and solutions must be offered in ethics as much as explanations? Is not this the most Christian use of resolutions? To set the captives free. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/your-money/deciding-how-to-slice-your-charitable-pie.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/opinion/how-many-slaves-work-for-you.html?hp&_r=0

Difficult for a rich person to enter heaven

That Catholics differ on social justice can be mainly traced to Augustine of Hippo. Augustine catered to the rich while trying to stay faithful to the gospel. Thus the rich did not have to sell all to get into heaven. They had to "expiate" their sins by alms giving, by bequeathing their estates to monasteries. This distinction made it ok to be rich contrary to the words of Jesus which stated that it would be very difficult for them to enter heaven. So even today the wealthy are persuaded that it is better to build 100 million dollar churches than to give to the poor. This is why Romero is ignored and empire builders are made saints. Augustine justified the rich while Jesus said it would be difficult for them to enter heaven. One could see how this translated in the Middle Ages to alms giving through indulgences which virtually purchased heaven. Thus the centuries continual courting and easing the conscience of the rich by the bishops. Cardinal Hayes ostracized the ambitious Spellman for getting to close to his rich friends. Cardinal Spellman knew the game well. Yet. largely ignored, is the action that Augustine asserted should accompany alms giving---forgiveness of enemies. How one was strongly held on to while the other practically forgotten suggests that the rich used the advice to justify holding on to their wealth. While using the artifice of Augustine to justify riches many today go to the extreme of saying that the poor deserve their misery because they are lazy. Dives never looked so good. Augustine and Ambrose owed their positions to rich Romans and they apparently never forgot it. Augustine's dalliance with Pinianus and Melania showed his willingness to ease the conscience of the rich. All of this does not mean that Augustine did not express concern for the poor in innumerable passages. What it says is that when it came to confronting the wealthy Augustine buckled. As he did when he consented to the use of force to compel Christians to enter the orthodox church. This is why wealthy, partisan bishops can continue without opposition in many quarters. Augustine made it easy for them.