Pope Benedict XVI has performed the traditional Easter baptism of adults, but the tradition is not well known. When adults enter into the Church, it is traditional to do all the baptisms on Easter Saturday (infants are baptized soon after birth). The pope will perform a number of baptisms as any priest is called upon to do.
But this Easter, the pope has stood apart, performing a baptism that any priest could perform, but that the pope has taken onto himself to do. It was a surprise -- a well-known Muslim has abandoned Allah for Christ.
In the eyes of many Muslims, that is a crime punishable by death, and it would not be a surprise if the priest who performed the ceremony might be targeted as well. That is a risk any Catholic priest would be willing to take. It is clearly a risk the pope was not going ask anyone else to take.
John Oakley's column in the National Post relates carbon offsets to indulgences. I think he's on to something, but I think his analogy is off. Carbon offsets are less like indulgences and more like tithes paid to the Church of Green.
Can the Roman Catholic Church ignore the presence of ordained women priests? Actually she can, since the ordinations were illegitimate. And not because the people who secretly received the Sacrament of Orders were women. The problem with this sort of subterfuge is that the subterfuge is itself reason enough to declare the entire exercise invalid.
A carnival of thoughtful Catholic bloggers.
The incoming primate of the Church of Ireland, Bishop Alan Harper, had delivered some very controversial comments. Unlike his fellow Anglicans in America, though, he is not suggesting that Jesus is an optional concept or agitating for openly homosexual clergy.
Instead, he said it is well past time for England to move past the ban on Catholics ascending to the British throne. Note that the law, the Act of Settlement from 1701, bans Catholics specifically. It does not require that the monarch be Anglican. He or she could be a Buddhist, a Muslim, an agnostic, or a Scientologist -- just not Catholic. Bishop Harper correctly suggests that the circumstances that gave birth to this law have long since faded into history. The implications of such a change are quite interesting, and I think Bishop Harper knew exactly what those implications were before he made his statements.
Go visit Kicking Over My Traces for the 96th edition of the Catholic Carnival.
The 95th Edition of the Catholic Carnival is up at phatcatholic apologetics.
Michael Richards, the actor who played Kramer on Seinfeld, has been in the news because he was caught on video angrily hurling racist insults at a heckler during a stand-up comedy performance. Of course, he has already embarked on the apology circuit. People have been debating about the quality and sincerity of his apology, and it got me thinking on the actual difference between being apologetic and being contrite.
Catholic Carnival #94 is up.
Is Katharine Jefferts Schori, recently invested in the position of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in the US), up to dealing with such subtle theological questions facing her faithful such as irenicism?
Irenicism? Until I started this piece, I had never heard of the word. The worrisome thing is that I wonder whether Jefferts Schori has ever heard of the word either.
Father Raymond Gravel, a controversial Roman Catholic priest in Quebec, is running for Bloc Quebecois.
To me, the fact that this guy is still a priest is more newsworthy than the fact that he's running for elected office.
Update: Maybe this makes sense after all.
Update: Or maybe Gravel is just a liar.
Tolerance is not a good thing, in of itself. It is good only if it leads to more good, or avoids evil. Pope Benedict XVI ought to know that.
A guilt-ridden Catholic accuses the Church of hypocrisy in how a Catholic hospital handles a needle exchange program. I don't think the accusation stands up to scrutiny.
Let me start off by admitting I have not read The Da Vinci Code, and I probably won't anytime soon. I have less intention of going to see the movie.
I have a strange feeling I've seen it already.
The Church of England is taking it upon itself to apologize for the role the United Kingdom played in the Iraq War. We often see examples of the State interfering in sphere's rightly controlled by the Church. Here is a much rarer example of the Church getting mixed up in purely State matters.
Word is that the Pope is about to sign off on a document that will ban homosexuals from the priesthood, and identify homosexuals already serving and removing them.
How long before a homosexual priest in Canada decides to sue for his job?
There are extensive archives arranged by month and by category.