Over at Politics Daily, Dave Gibson tries to unravel, with as straight a face as he can manage, the sorry tale of Father Thomas Euteneuer, the charismatic leader of Human Life International whose fall from grace has been rapid and spectacular. Father Tom's side gig as roving exorcist apparently got the better of him. When he admitted as much, a good-sized web war erupted between those who are pretty much done with him and those willing to overlook a lapse or two (or more? We may know soon.) It didn't help much that Father Tom devoted much of his energy to pretty hard-knuckled handling of any he deemed insufficiently faithful, including Gibson, a good friend to this house and, most memorably, Sean Hannity. Really.
The devil made him ... never mind
The latest from america
In “a note of accompaniment” to the final document, the pope made clear that Catholic bishops throughout the world are to lead their churches in building a synodal and missionary church in the 21st century.
Sam Sawyer, S.J., editor-in-chief of America Media, returns to “Preach” to discuss his Advent homily series, designed to be more cohesive than the usual week-to-week, stand-alone Sunday homilies that preachers typically prepare.
Experienced foster parents often say two things: Foster care reveals things that are true of every parenting relationship. And fostering is intensely, inherently pro-life work that should be much more vigorously supported and promoted by the Catholic Church.
“What I’d like to see is the breaking down of this notion that there are the professional Christians—who are the priests, the bishops, the religious and many lay people—and the recognition that we’re all part of this together.”
Interestingly, I knew Fr. Tom 25 or more years ago, back from before he was ordained, and watched with dismay as he rose among the ranks.
For an academic discussion on the sting (both pro and con) try Public Discourse:
"In Defense of Live Action"
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2538
(pro)
"Why lying is always wrong"
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2547
(con)
PS - the fight for life is a certainly Catholic matter - it is not just internal matters/scandal/fighting that we should look at.
Oh...I found one: the recent expose on Planned Parenthood and their assistance to sex traffickers and facilitation of abortion at all costs.
Perhaps only scandals involving political opponents are of interest this blog?
Do you have German blood? This is what is called "schadenfreude". Not a very christian thing to have reeking from your post.You could ask the editors to pull it from the site and I am sure that Brett and Beth will not complain.
I saw this live and thought that Fr Tom both truly felt what he was saying and did not have a clue about Christianity(clever me!).It is sad. Now he will go off to some monastery and do some meaningless penances and feel even more guilt ,then reach a critical mass of that before speaking a lot about grace and well in the end he will have learned the wisdom of Pope John Paul the first. The late Pope said that we have "reduced the encounter with Christ to a set of rules". Fr Tom had his moralist script ready ,but somebody on the level of Hannity can only pretend to be a "bravo raggazzo" for so long.
I hope that Fr Tom has a good spiritual director and one that can help him find Christ in a more human way this time.
As for PP videos, you could even discuss the ethics of deception to counter a moral evil - i.e. no need to agree with the tactics. It is simply the radio silence that is deafening.
The point is that David Gibson and Kevin Clarke are also a "gatekeepers of righteousness," in their own way - we all are due to the nature of sin and pride and the distortions they produce.
Maybe he can enter into a herd of swine instead!
Considering that all of the Catholic blogosphere is commenting on the Live Action sting on Planned Parenthood, one would think that your focus on scandal would include this interesting story and it's connection to the Church's pro-life agenda.
At least get the story correct. Media Matters has provided a comphrensive examination of the debacle (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102040026).
Now if you'll excuse me there's some Gramsci I've been meaning to read before I call it a night.
PP's sins are totally irrelevant to discussions about the repeated, global instances of the church's dishonesty and abuse of authority, misused to protect sexual predators wearing Roman collars who stand on altars every day and utter the words of consecration. Why does this depravity, dishonesty, and blasphemy not upset you? Why the kneejerk defense of every ''conservative'' Catholic priest who turns out to be just one more wolf in sheep's clothing? When it comes to the sins of priests like Weakland, you instantly jump on the condemnatory bandwagon, yet bristle when the truth about people like this priest comes out.
I do not watch these televison shows, and did not watch this video. Television is almost totally uncivilized these days, and most likely this show lived up that lack of standards. However, the fact that the show may represent the lowest common denoninator in broadcasting does not explain why you consistently feel the need to 1) attack the messengers 2) defend the guilty if they are ''conservative'' and 3) try to create totally irrelevant comparisons, such as the one to PP.
Perhaps "refreshing" was a bad choice of word, but I didn't see anything in the article that said that the act was not consensual; in the current climate we all assume a breach of fiduciary duty and victimhood, but I don't see my comment offensive merely because I made an assumption in the other direction.
And as I have made clear throughout my postings here, I think defendants get short shrift in all of these cases. If the policy of America is that comments shall comply with the mental assumptions of the editorial staff, or if there is clear and compelling evidence that makes my assumption untenable, then I apologize. Otherwise, I request that you put my post back, and let the readers have at me.
Wouldn't we all do well to try to remember: charity first, then truth?
"Second feature of Peter Canisius: In order to convert people and there were millions to convert in his day, to convert people from error to the truth, it is not enough to preach to them, you must first practice charity towards them. In other words, you will win over those who have been mislead by error only if you practice charity. Charity first and then, proclaim the truth.
John Hardon SJ
When the Roses Speak, I Pay Attention
''As long as we are able to
be extravagant we will be
hugely and damply
extravagant. Then we will drop
foil by foil to the ground. This
is our unalterable task, and we do it
joyfully.''
And they went on. ''Listen,
the heart-shackles, are not, as you think,
death, illness, pain,
unrequited hope, not loneliness, but
lassitude, rue, vainglory, fear, anxiety,
selfishness.''
Their fragrance all the while rising
from their blind bodies, making me
spin with joy.
And here's another line.
God, once he is in your heart,
is everywhere-
so even here
among the weeds
and the brisk trees.
I heard it parroted about the Philadelphia "bloodbath" to use Rocco's phrase.
I think it's really tedious that we continue posts from the same ideologues who don't want to deal with the issue here, viz. a criminal action by a highly ranked clergy member taking advantage of his position.
I think the contemporary theologian, George Jones, puts it succinctly:
“So don`t dispair when burdens fall around. You got to bear a cross if you want to wear a crown.— ” ( http://www.lucylyrics.com/if-you-want-to-wear-a-crown-lyrics-george-jones.html)