What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

Nominations for the 2008 Catholic Blog Awards has now ended.

Voting will begin at Noon CST on Monday, March 4, 2008.

It will be great to see who was nominated this year!

Here are a couple links to stories about China’s "one child policy".  I think you’ll find them… interesting… as the run-up to the Olympics races forward.

First, read through this piece from John Smeaton, director of the The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children:

one-child policy propaganda

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, has commented today on how Western media outlets are disseminating misinformation by the Chinese Communist regime allegedly implying that China might scrap or significantly relax its one-child, forced-abortion population control policy.

Reuters and the Guardian have today published reports analysing comments by Zhao Baige, Chinese’s population control minister, to a Beijing press conference. The headlines read "China could scrap its one-child policy" and "China considers ending one-child policy", even though nothing in the minister’s comments suggests such a move.

Anthony comments: "Experts know that the Chinese Communist regime makes misleading statements about human rights when the international spotlight is on China, such as now in the run-up to the Olympics. Such statements are intended for Western consumption only and specifically designed to mislead Westerners into wishful thinking that the regime’s crimes against humanity, such as the one-child policy, are coming to an end.

"The false claim by the Guardian’s Tania Branigan that the one-child policy’s ‘enforcement system is far less punitive than in the 80s and early 90s’ is one such example of how the Chinese regime has been successful in planting such misinformation into the Western media.

"After the Olympics, the Western media should conduct on-the-ground investigations into the one-child policy’s implementation, where they will discover the reality of continuing forced abortions rather than the myths the Communist regime has led them to believe," Anthony concludes.

Pictured is Hui Rong Mesrinejad, a refugee from the one-child policy (read more about her story here).

And from our friend the hermeneutical Fr. Finigan:

Western media falls for commie propaganda 

China’s "Population Control Minister" (shouldn’t that title itself put you on your guard just a little?) has been reported as indicating that China might scrap its one child policy. Since his actual comments said nothing of the sort, the spin doctors must have been working hard. See Anthony Ozimic’s comments: One-child policy misinformation being planted in Western media. See also John Smeaton’s post today on one-child policy propaganda.

As the late Dr John S. Aird, former senior China specialist at the U.S. Bureau for the Census (a world expert on China’s one-child policy), said five years ago:

"The Chinese family planning authorities are continuing their old trick of talking tough to their own people while giving a gentle image to the gullible foreigners. It is a clumsy, transparently obvious trick, but it still works as it has in the past. That is why the Chinese authorities still use it! When will the foreigners wise up?"

The Italian Il Giornale di Brescia has an article about the Holy Father’s upcoming 3rd encyclical.  Biretta tip to Papa Ratzinger Blog  o{]:¬)

The bullet points:

• Card. Bertone has confirmed that the encyclical will deal with "social" themes.
• The Pope is finishing it.
• He will deal with developing countries.
• Card. Bertone did not confirm when it would be released.
• Whereas the first two encyclicals were very much a product of Benedict’s relfection, this one has more input from Ponticifical Councils.
• The French La Croix speculates that deals with globalization.

IERI LA CONFERMA DEL CARDINAL BERTONE

Presto la terza enciclica di Benedetto XVI: sarà dedicata ai temi sociali

Arcangelo Paglialunga

CITTÀ DEL VATICANO - Le voci che circolavano da qualche tempo in Vaticano su una nuova enciclica del Papa, «di carattere sociale», hanno trovato conferma nelle parole del cardinal Bertone: il Santo Padre sta terminando la sua terza enciclica che sarà incentrata sui temi e problemi sociali internazionali con particolare riferimento ai Paesi in via di sviluppo. Il Segretario di Stato non ha però confermato le voci secondo cui l’enciclica sarà pubblicata entro marzo.
La terza enciclica si differenzia dalle due che l’hanno preceduta la «Deus Caritas est» e la «Spe Salvi», che recavano lo stilo del papa teologo che fonda il suo magistero sul richiamo alla fede e alle virtù teologali. Questa volta il tema è di carattere sociale. E se le prime due encicliche sono state frutto di studio personale, per la terza il Papa si è avvalso anche degli studi dei Pontifici Consigli impegnati in campo sociale.

Il giornale cattolico francese «La Croix» ha potuto anticipare che il tema centrale della nuova Enciclica riguarderà le problematiche della «mondializzazione», «un fenomeno che ha fatto passare il mondo dalla guerra fredda, dal suo superamento ai tempi nuovi del traffico dei prodotti, delle informazioni, agli scambi economici, ai flussi finanziari».

Ma non è detto che ciò abbia portato tranquillità e benessere a tutti: non pochi Paesi sono restati nella povertà, anzi hanno visto aggravate le loro difficoltà.
Non per nulla Benedetto XVI disse in un recente discorso: «Non si può certo affermare che la mondializzazione sia sinonimo di ordine mondiale… E i conflitti per la supremazia economica e la dominazione sulle risorse energetiche, idriche e delle materie prime, rendono difficile l’impegno di coloro che si sforzano di costruire un mondo più giusto e solidale».

Il Papa ha detto ancora: «C’è bisogno di una speranza più grande, che permette di preferire il bene comune di tutti al lusso di un piccolo numero ed alla miseria di tanti».

Facile intuire che Benedetto XVI accanto ai temi nuovi, come la difesa dell’ambiente, il riscaldamento del pianeta, affronterà temi sociali ed umani anche quelli relativi al lavoro con i suoi diritti e doveri.

Non si può dimenticare quanto affermò, suscitando svariati commenti: «È ormai evidente che solo adottando uno stile sobrio di vita accompagnato da un impegno serio per una giusta distribuzione delle ricchezze sarà possibile instaurare un ordine di sviluppo giusto e durevole».

Possono bastare per ora queste osservazioni per giustificare l’attesa di un documento che si inserisce nel solco dei grandi documenti sociali coi quali la Chiesa ha accompagnato la vita e la storia sociale dell’umanità.

Oggi il problema è la «mondializzazione». Su tutti i documenti il richiamo al rispetto totale della persona umana, della vita, della famiglia. Il nuovo documento di Benedetto XVI sarà certamente di grande importanza sul piano della dottrina e su quello delle proposte al mondo.

From Fox News:

Chaldean Archbishop Kidnapped in Northern Iraq

Friday , February 29, 2008

AP

BAGHDAD —  Gunmen on Friday kidnapped Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, police and the church said.

The gunmen also killed three people who were with Rahho, 65, at the time of the kidnapping, which occurred after he ended a Mass in a nearby church, said Iraqi Brig. Gen. Khalid Abdul-Sattar, a spokesman for the Ninevah province police.

An aide to Iraq’s Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, leader of the church, said he did not know who was behind the kidnapping.

"We pray for his release as soon as possible," said Archbishop Andreos Abouna. "This act of abduction against a Christian clergy member will increase our fears and worries about the situation of Christians in Iraq."

Last year’s International Religious Freedom Report from the U.S. State Department noted that Chaldean Catholics comprise a tiny minority of the Iraqi population, but are the largest group among the less than 1 million Christians in Iraq.

Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Iraqi Christians have been targeted by Islamic extremists who label them "crusaders" loyal to U.S. troops.

Churches, priests and business owned by Christians have been attacked by Islamic militants and many have fled the country.

Last June, Pope Benedict XVI expressed deep concern about the plight of Christians caught in the deadly sectarian crossfire in Iraq and pressed U.S. President George W. Bush in a meeting to keep their safety in mind.

"Particularly in Iraq, Christian families and communities are feeling increasing pressure from insecurity, aggression and a sense of abandonment," Benedict said at the time.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged last fall to protect and support the Christian minority.

Here are shots of the pages from the 2005 Martyrologium Romanum concerning 29 February and Leap Year.

You can click these for large images.

You will have noticed the word The word bissextus.  The mighty Lewis & Short says that bisextus, is "an intercalary day; so called, since the 24th of February = VI. Cal. Mart., was doubled". 

In the Roman calendar the sixth day before the Kalends, or Calends, of March (24 February, counting back from the beginning of March) occurred twice in a leap year.  So, bisextus (from bis "twice" and sextus "sixth") "the sixth day for the second time".

Just to expand this a little, again we look at the Martyrologium Romanum for 24 and 25 February.

On 24 February we have the sixth day before the Kalends of March.



On 25 February, we have this:



"The fifth day before the Kalends of March; or on leap year: the sixth day before the Kalends of March".

Looked at this way, the real "leap day" for the ancient Romans was at 24/25 February, not the 29th!

Remember, the Romans made their dates by counting forward to fixed points, the Kalends (1st day of a month), the Nones, (the 5th or 7th, depending on the month) and the Ides (the 13th or 15th depending on the month).  There is a little verse to help us remember how this works:

In March, July, October, May
The Ides fall on the fifteenth day
The Nones the seventh; all besides
Have two days less for Nones and Ides.

Again, the Romans counted forward, rather than backward, like we do.  We today think in terms of the first day of the month, and then the 2nd day from the 1st, and the 3rd from the first: our reference point is backward.  The Romans counted forward to their days.  and they also counted inclusively, counting the days themselves rather then the days remaining until the Kalends, Nones or Ides.  Thus,

29 February = pridie Kalendas Martii – the day before the Kalends of March (which was the 1st day of the ancient Roman year for centuries!)
1 March = Kalendis martii – the Kalends of March
2 March = sexto Nonas martii – the sixth day before the Nones of March (which is 7 March)
3 March = quinto Nonas martii – the fifth day before the Nones of March
4 March = quarto Nonas martii – the fourth day before the Nones of March
5 March = tertio Nonas martii – the third day before the Nones of March
6 March = pridie Nonas martii – the day before the Nones of March
7 March = Nonis martii – the Nones of March

The Romans had abbreviations for dating.  For example: a.d. for ante diem = "days before" and prid. for pridie, "the day before".

It is possible that the month February is named for a thong of goatskin called a februa from the verb februo ("to purify, expiate").  On 15 February the ancient Romans had a festival called the Lupercalia. Lupercalia is from the name of the Lupercal ("she wolf") cave on the Palatine Hill, sacred to the Lycean Pan.  The Lupercal was recently rediscovered, btw., on October 2007, between the Temple of Apollo Palatinus and the Basilica of Santa Anastasia (where the Station of the 1st Mass of Christmas is).  They are still searching for the entrance to the grotto, but they got photos of the inside with a remote device.  Very cool stuff.

The Lupercalia were observed from 13-15 February.  It was a festival for purification of the city from bad spirits and to promote fertility.  At the beginning, two male goats and a dog were ritually slaughtered.  Then two patrician men who belongeds to special priestly colleges, smeared with  the blood wiped from the blade of the knife with wool soaked in milk.  They then had to laugh (which would be my first reaction, I can tell you).  After a feast, the two patricians, or luperci, cut thongs, februa, from the skins of the animals and put the bloody skins of the goats around their loins.  They then had to run around the walls encircling the Palatine Hill, striking the people who lined their course with the thongs.  This februatio was especially beneficial for girls and women, apparently, in promoting fertility.

It will be no surprise that these ancient rites were ended by Pope Gelasius (+496) of the Gelasian Sacramentary fame.  Gelasius even had fight with a senator named Andromachus who wanted to keep it going, telling him that if we wanted the Lupercalia to continue, then Andromachus should be the one to run nude around the Palatine with only a bloody goatskin around his waist.

But I digress…

I was rooting around over at In the Light of the Law and found an interesting bit of information.

The CDF has issued a response to questions about the use of the proper form for conferring the all important sacrament of baptism.

In short, in the Diocese of Brisbane, Australia, some priests at a parish church in performed thousands of invalid baptisms.  They were changing the Trinitarian baptismal form to things like "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier’, or ‘I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer’".

How stupid is that?

Remember: we have to get baptism right!  Without baptism, you can’t receive the other sacraments.

The entry at the aforementioned canon law blog provides some background.  

Take a look at  In the Light of the Law

The rules on baptism are meant to be followed

When, back on 2 December 2004, I blogged about "Brisbane’s Bad Baptisms", I got an unusual number of nasty notes from folks who (assuming they agreed with my point that baptism in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier was invalid, and many did not agree), nevertheless took umbrage at my conclusion that those undergoing such rituals were not, in fact, any kind of Christian (pace the archbishop there), and that such persons, to be Christian, let alone Catholic, needed to be absolutely (not conditionally, pace 1983 CIC 869.1) baptized anew. "It wasn’t their fault they were baptized invalidly," wrote one unhappy reader, "how can you deny them the grace of God because of something they didn’t do?" Like, you know, I decide who gets God’s grace and who doesn’t.

Today, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced its ruling that any ‘baptism’ attempted "in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier" (or, to take another silly variation, "in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer") is invalid, and that persons who received such ‘baptisms’ . . . "have, in reality, not been baptised [and must] . . . be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of non-baptised."

I won’t say that it feels good being shown right by an "authentic doctrinal declaration" from CDF, but it sure beats being shown wrong.

Anyway, sacraments are pretty tough things, designed by Christ to be administered even by fallen people. But sacraments have rules, instilled by the Lord, that must be followed. When his rules aren’t followed, real people miss out. So let’s get these folks baptized as Christ directed, and get back about the task of spreading his Good News as Jesus would have it spread.

Here is the CDF statement:

REPLY FROM DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH ON BAPTISMAL FORMULAE

VATICAN CITY, 29 FEB 2008 (VIS) – Made public today were the responses of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to two questions concerning the validity of Baptism conferred with certain non-standard formulae.

The first question is: "Is a Baptism valid if conferred with the words ‘I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier’, or ‘I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer’"?

The second question is: "Must people baptised with those formulae be baptised ‘in forma absoluta’?"

The responses are: "To the first question, negative; to the second question, affirmative".

Benedict XVI, during his recent audience with Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved these responses, which were adopted at the ordinary session of the congregation, and ordered their publication. The text of the responses bears the signatures of Cardinal Levada and of Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B., secretary of the dicastery.

An attached note explains that the responses "concern the validity of Baptism conferred with two English-language formulae within the ambit of the Catholic Church. ... Clearly, the question does not concern English but the formula itself, which could also be expressed in another language".

"Baptism conferred in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", the note continues, "obeys Jesus’ command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew. ... The baptismal formula must be an adequate expression of Trinitarian faith, approximate formulae are unacceptable.

"Variations to the baptismal formula – using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons – as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology", being an attempt "to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names. Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity".

"The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constitutes an authentic doctrinal declaration, which has wide-ranging canonical and pastoral effects. Indeed, the reply implicitly affirms that people who have been baptised, or who will in the future be baptised, with the formulae in question have, in reality, not been baptised. Hence, they must them be treated for all canonical and pastoral purposes with the same juridical criteria as people whom the Code of Canon Law places in the general category of ‘non- baptised’".

There is a lot of snow here at the Sabine Farm right now.

It is getting pretty deep in places, especially for the hungry birds.

 

Sabine Snow Removal requires more than a shovel. 

The chickadees don’t seem overly put off by all the noise and activity, however.

 

As John Sonnen reports at his place, today is the birthday of of Pope Paul III, born in 1468.

That would make him, and other people born on leap year day, "Leaplings".

It is also the birth of the infamous Consilium.

At the beginning of its work the Consilium’s very existence was in question. 

However, it was eventally settled.

In the book which has H.E. Piero Marini’s name on the cover (but which I think was ghost written for him), A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, there are interesting pages about the origins of the Consilium.  Here is an excerpt:

The institution of the Consilium was finally "settled" with letters on February 29 and March 2.  February 29 was the date on which the Secretariate of State sent a letter addressed to Cardinals Lercaro, Larraona, and Gregorio Pietro Agagianian, prefect of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide:

I have the the honor of communicating to Your Eminence, in keeping with the directives of Pope Paul VI, the responsibilities of the Consilium for the Carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy, of which Your Eminence is PResident.  They are as follows:

a. to suggest the names of the persons charged with forming study groups for the revision of rites and liturgical books;

b. to oversee and coordinate the work of the study groups;

c. to prepare carefully an instruction explaining the practical application of the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam and clearly outling the competence of the territorial ecclesiastical authorities, pending the reform of rites and liturgical books;

d. to apply, according to the letter and the spirit of the Council, the Constitution it approved, by responding to the proposals of the conferences of bishops and to questions that arise involving the correct application of the Constitution.

Appeals of decisions of the Consilium as well as the solution of particularly sensitive nd grave or completely new problems will be referred by the Consilium to the pope.

... [T]he February 29 letter did place the Consilium at the head of the reform.  In fact, it was the Consilium’s legal charter and would later be reffered to often in times of controversy and conflict with the Congregation for Rites.  Therefore it marked a most important step in the life of the Consilium.  this letter sent to Cardinal Larcaro concerning the Consilium’s competencies also appointed him president.

Thus was born the Consilium, set up to carry out what the Council asked for regarding reform of the liturgy.

The Consilium by far outstripped its competency, but Pope Paul backed it, even to the point of stripping the Congregation for Rites of much of its power.

Part of the purpose of the members of the Consilium was precisely to diminish the Congregation, and the rest of the Curia, and used certain liturgical questions as their weapons.  For example, the issue of the vernacular was as much about shifting power to conferences of bishops (whom the Consilium wanted to have final approval of translations) as it was about "active participation".  More so, if you read between the lines in The Book With Marini’s Name On It.  The same goes for the other huge points of war between the Consilium and the Curia, such as concelebration and Communion under both species.

If you can get a used copy of The Book With Marini’s Name On It, that would be best.  Or get it from a library. 

It is like reading a fascinating autopsy.