Liberal Irish priests whine about the new improved translation

Someone should hand these guys a handkerchief already.

From Father Z's blog, his comments in brackets.

Press Statement from ACP: Monday, March 28th
Press statement from the Association of Catholic Priests responding to our meeting with a Commission of the Episcopal Conference and their response to our submission, on the subject of the proposed new Liturgical Texts [The texts are not "proposed" now.  They are "approved".  The ACP is operating, perhaps, on the foundation of fantasy.]
The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) regrets the recent decision of the Irish Catholic Bishops, [And so they will make their regret public.] in response to a submission from the ACP, to press ahead with the implementation of the introduction of the new Mass texts as planned next November.
At a meeting in Maynooth on Monday, February 28th  a delegation from the ACP met the Episcopal Commission of Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development.  There were five members of the Bishop’s Conference and a number of others, including three women, present. ["including three women".... LOL!  Why make that point so pointedly?] The delegation from the ACP voiced the following concerns:
1. That the proposed texts [again with the "proposed", as if they can now be derailed.  Dream on.] are unsuitable and unacceptable in a number of respects:
(i) we believe that, as literal translations of the Latin, [No.  They are literal.  I work up "literal" translations all the time.  The new, corrected translation is not "literal".] they are too complex and too cumbersome.  [This is another way of saying that they think people in the pews - priests as well - are too stupid to use the new texts.] The guidelines state that they should be ‘comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation”. This is clearly not the case. [This is clearly not "clearly" the case.  Moreover, we can't know this before the new translations are implemented.]
(ii) we have reservations as to their theological veracity, for example at the very heart of the Eucharistic prayers, the new text states that Christ died ‘for many’ rather than ’for all.’ [This could be a) dumb or b) heresy.  I don't think you can say that something theologically doubtful is to be found in the Roman Canon without running the risk of being a heretic.  As far as "dumb" is concerned, perhaps I should correct myself and say uninformed.  I direct them to the Roman CatechismPart II, ch. 4 (264.7-265.14), not to mention the decision of Pope Benedict - the only one with the authority to approve translations of sacramental forms - that pro multis is to be translated properly.]
(iii) we fear that their introduction will damage the present fabric of worship in our parishes, dissuade people from active participation and introduce annoyance, discontent, resentment and possibly anger into the unifying ritual of the Mass [Certainly there have never been any liturgical abuses in those parishes.  Nor is there any concern over the other problems that have abounded in the Church in Ireland... because of priests.]
(iv)we fear [There's a good start.  I fear that the Chicago Cubs might meet the Cleveland Indians in the World Series, thus sparking the Apocalypse. ] that the continued use of sexist language with its use of ‘man’, men’ and ‘brothers’ as generic terms will alienate some women and men, and is a very unfortunate reversal in an area where some progress had been made. [Man, what a good head of steam they have worked up!]
2.  We believe that the process by which the texts have been drawn up is seriously flawed.  There was no consultation with either priests or people and this is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Church. [As dull as an Ambrosian Chant Credo... this again?  How would that "consultation" have taken place?] An instructive lesson the Church has learned in recent times is that decisions made by small groups and then visited on the Church as a whole without adequate consultation tend not to serve the good of the Church. [What small group is that?  What on earth does this mean?]
While the Association of Catholic Priests recognises the need for a new and improved translation of the liturgical texts, we believe that the proposed new texts are unsuitable and inadequate. Many priests will struggle with them and many people will regard them as unnecessary and unusable.  Consequently we believe it is unwise to proceed with them.
While the bishops listened to our concerns, we regret to say that, judging by their response, they failed to take on board what we said and did not furnish any reasons for not accepting the concerns that we raised with them. We do not regard this as an appropriate form of listening or dialogue.  [Do you suppose this group will eagerly defend the rights of Catholics who desire the older form of Mass according to Summorum Pontificum?]
We remain convinced that introducing the new texts next November will have serious repercussions for parishes. While some priests may welcome them, it is clear that others will resist them, while many, maybe the majority, will accept them with a sense of resignation and without enthusiasm. In such circumstances it is, we believe, unwise to introduce them. [And they have every intention to sow as much dissent and as many misgivings as possible.]
We will convene a meeting of our members on Thursday, June 2nd , at 2.30pm,  in the parish centre in Portlaoise to consider our response.  In the meantime we encourage our members to continue to discuss this matter with their pastoral councils, and indeed their parishioners generally.

Hmm, assuming that every layperson is dumb and needs to have the Mass dumbed down for them?  Complaining of "sexist" language that isn't even sexist?  Yada yada blah blah blah whine?  These priests have allied themselves with the Catholic left (who btw, sees their own Church as an unending nest of pedophilic vipers and sexist buffoons and therefore needs to be torn down and started anew), the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd who are singlehandedly responsible for the near collapse of the faith in the West, and it's annoying to hear their endless and buffoonish pontificating.

Newsflash guys, it's not your decision, and the decision has been made.  I suggest you spend more time catechizing your parishes than whining and moaning like little girls.

For once I kinda sorta agree with the HuffPo

Let's get real. Is this bikini any different from all the other age-inappropriate clothing out there? Is this bikini going to make our daughters want to grow up and have big boobs? Is this bikini going to give them a terrible complex that they have Smarties-on-a-plate, instead of big jugs, excuse the English expressions?
Girls will think about this stuff irrespective of this bikini; we all did when we were girls.
With all due respect to the journalistic expertise of the NBC Today Show staff and their guest experts, not one person mentioned how dressing our daughters in provocative clothing is an open invitation to sexual predation.
Sexual predators are the culprits in our society, not string bikinis.

Yes, this item does open little girls up to exploitation by sexual predators, so you're right there.  But, sexual predators would be a threat regardless of what the kid wore; this thing just makes it worse.  The even bigger problem is that selling such things to little girls teaches them that they're body and sexuality are more important than their character, and that's just plain vile.

Pax Christi.

Abercrombie's push up bikini for 7-year-old girls

From the "absolutely disgusting" files comes this piece of garage.

I must say, Abercrombie & Fitch has gone too far this time.  For years we've been putting up with their pornographic ads and use of underage models in horrendously sexualized posters, but now they want to sell THIS to girls as young as seven?  Why is this even allowed?

Though really, it's not Abercrombie & Fitch's fault, it's ours.  Our wholesale turning away from God and morality has led us to buy ever more and more crap like this, and sexualize our children.  Feminists didn't help by selling girls the idea that promiscuity and "sexual empowerment" were all fine and dandy.  It's little wonder we have so many cases of teenage pregnancies; when we divorce sexuality from it's unitive and procreative purposes and sell it as a leisure activity, we create demand for more and more sexual crap like this, which companies looking to make a profit are all too happy to sell us.

The only cure for this societal ill is Jesus Christ and His Church.  It's time for this generation to turn back to God and seek His forgiveness for our sins.  It's the only thing that can save us now.

Pax Christi.

AmP: LGBT-funded poll falsely claims that most Catholics support same-sex marriage

From the "what the heck are they thinking" files comes this courtesy of Thomas Peters.

You can read his evisceration of this pro-homosexual canard over at the posted link.

Pax Christi, and pray for the conversion of these poor souls.

Washington Examiner: Jihadis who fought U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan now enjoy American support in Libya

Courtesy of The Washington Examiner.

Evidence is emerging that United States forces are waging war in Libya on behalf of rebels whose ranks include jihadis who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebel forces in the fighting around Adjabiya, went to Afghanistan in 2002 to fight against the "foreign invasion" -- that is, U.S. troops who invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the September 11 attacks.  The Telegraph says al-Hasidi told an Italian newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore, that he was captured in 2002 in Peshawar, Pakistan.  "He was later handed over to the U.S., and then held in Libya before being released in 2008," the Telegraph reports.  Al-Hasidi also told the Italian paper he recruited about 25 Libyan men to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq.

I wonder how the "Commander-in-Chief" will get himself out of THIS one?

Should Obama be impeaced over Libya?

Has Obama comitted "high crimes and treason", and if he has, should he be impeached?

Let's take a look at the situation in Libya (and for Pete's sake, don't bring up Iraq; that has nothing to do with the current situation).  Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the power to declare war solely to Congress.  The only time that the president may use military force without a formal declaration of war is when Congress authorizes said use of force via a joint resolution, in line with the War Powers Act (a good example of this would be the Korean War). 

To my knowledge, there has been neither.  There has been no formal declaration of war against Libya, and from what I've seen Congress has not authorized the president to use military force in line with the War Powers Act, and yes, even using military force to enforce a UN resolution requires an act of Congress according to the laws of the United States.

It's clear to me that President Obama has attacked a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress, in violation of the United States Constitution and the War Powers Act.  If that does not constitute "high crimes and treason" I don't know what does.  In light of this clear violation of our laws, I believe Congress should and must introduce articles of impeachment against President Obama and remove him from office.

More Debasement of Marriage: "McWeddings"

From out of Hong Kong comes this latest insult to the sanctity of marriage.

Imagine receiving a wedding invitation where the typical menu options of salmon, chicken, or beef are replaced with Filet-o-Fish, Chicken McNuggets, or a classic Big Mac.

If McDonald's catered nuptials are your idea of a dream wedding, you might want to consider a trip to Hong Kong, where the international chain has launched its first company licensed McWeddings.

No, actually, they're not my idea of a dream wedding; a reverent, holy Nuptial Mass is.

This whole thing strikes me as another ridiculous marketing gimmick by a major corporation.  Producing sexually explicit or disgusting ads is one thing, but using marriage, something that should be treated with absolute dignity and respect, to push your products is an insult.  I won't be buying from McDonalds anytime soon.