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

I got this question from a reader (edited):

Dear Fr. Z,

I am a catholic from the Netherlands and I`m following youre blog for some time now. You must forgive me for my bat writing in English; I`m still Dutch.

I have some questions about valid hosts, wine and water. I think you are one of the few priest who can really give some practical answers to my questions; I`m a (part-time) sacristan and going to study for being priest in a few years; ...

Question one: about the validity (spelled correctly?) of the Body and Blood of Christ: when you`ve got some particals from, say, the Body and it`s contaminated with something (like dust from the floor), that causes you for not consuming it. What should there be done with it? Burning isn`t always a practical option. I have heard that you can pour an amound of water by the host or wine, that makes it invalid. Is that thrue and if it is, what are the guidlines for such practice? (By the way: if you want to burn a consacrated host, should it be done by a priest?)

My second question is about holy water. When there is no priest around and you are in need of holy water, are you permitted to pour normal water by it, so that it is still valid? Like: one part of holy water on three parts of normal water? Or does that only works on water from, for example, Lourdes?

Thanks for youre time and answers.

Thanks for the questions.  You English is better than my Dutch, so let’s stick to English.

Q 1)  If a Host that was dropped has something on it, say, some dust from the floor, the best approach is simply to consume it.  If for some reason you cannot, then the best approach it to put the Host in a small bowl or cup and then fill it with water.  Allow the Host a couple days to disolve in the water.  Then the water should be poured down the sacrarium, like a small sink with a tube that goes into the ground: every sacristry should have one.  Otherwise, it should be poured onto the ground.   For other sacred or consecrated things that must be disposed of, they should be burned.  It is best if the priest does this himself.  Again, if possible the remains should be put down the sacrarium or directly into the earth.

 

Q 2) "Extending" Holy Water is not a good idea.  I suppose a tiny amount of added water might extend Holy Water, if absolutely necessary, but I would avoid it.  The better approach is to plan ahead! Make sure Father blesses the Holy Water in sufficient quantities.  It helps to have everything prepared ahead of time before he comes: lay out the book and stole and, if he is using the old Rituale Romanum the blessed salt (or salt to be exorcized and blessed).  Have everything prepared so that when he arrives it is easy for him simply to take care of the blessing.  Any priest worth his exorcized salt will be happy to do these things, but sometimes some priests of the more progressive stripe will resist dealing with sacramentals.  By laying everything out, this sort of priest will have less to grouse about and will be more likely to do it.

I was alerted to this by a reader:

Controversial Episcopal bishop scheduled for Catholic book trade conference

Bishop Gene Robinson

St. Charles, IL, Apr 28, 2008 / 08:17 pm (CNA).- A group of Episcopalians has invited controversial Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson to speak during a major Catholic trade show for booksellers.  Though Robinson’s appearance is not directly sponsored by the trade show, he is listed in the show’s schedule of events.

Robinson is the Bishop of New Hampshire, and was ordained a bishop despite his leaving his wife to live in a homosexual relationship.  His elevation to the Episcopal Church’s leadership has inflamed controversy throughout the Anglican Communion, and furthered speculation that the unity of the communion could be ruptured by schism.

The Religious Booksellers Trade Exhibit (RBTE) is a major trade show for Catholic bookstores that has been held for 17 years.  It meets in St. Charles, Illinois and is open to other religious denominations, including the Episcopalians who invited Bishop Robinson.

Bob Byrns, the RBTE show’s organizer, said in a letter that the trade show was organized “simply for the purpose of bringing liturgical book and gift sellers and their vendors together under one roof to educate ourselves about our industry, and to offer a venue in which products would be displayed and purchased, while at the same time offering additional opportunities for networking, entertainment, and worship.”

Byrns said the show’s speakers and musical artists were recommended by the publishers and retailers.

“We attempt to balance the program to meet the needs of both our Catholic and Episcopal attendees, as well as folks from other denominations,” Byrns said.  [Yah…but… who needs this?  Really?]

Church Publishing Incorporated, the publishing arm of the Episcopal Church, had suggested that Bishop Robinson be invited to speak at an RBTE lunch.

“We told them that would not be possible,” Byrns said.  When the organization asked if Bishop Robinson could speak at the Episcopal Booksellers Association (EBA) dinner on Wednesday evening, Byrns said, “We told them that we would need to seek the approval of the EBA membership.”

According to Byrns, the EBA membership “overwhelmingly wished to extend an invitation to the Bishop, and so it happened.”

Bishop Robinson’s talk, titled “Charting the Course of the Anglican Communion,” is announced on the trade show’s web site in the RBTE schedule, which says that the talk is sponsored by Church Publishing Incorporated.  The bishop’s talk is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 28.

 

Huh?

During Pope Benedict’s US visit he spoke at an ecumenical service, and said:

But another, growing problem lies in the fact that "fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called ‘prophetic actions’ that are based" on a reading of Christianity "not always consonant" with that found in the Bible and in Christian tradition.

 

This is in from CNS:

Chinese orchestra to perform Mozart’s ‘Requiem’ for pope

By Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS)—China’s Philharmonic Orchestra was set to perform Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s "Requiem" in the Vatican for Pope Benedict XVI, reported Vatican Radio.

Currently on tour throughout Europe, the orchestra was offering the May 7 evening concert in the Paul VI hall "in honor" of the pope, who is an aficionado of Mozart and classical music.

Vatican Radio reported April 29 that the Shanghai Opera House Chorus was also scheduled to perform along with the Beijing-based, state-run orchestra. [Therefore a Communist Party based band is playing Mozart for the Holy Father.]

Vatican Radio said this "important concert in the Vatican" would show that "music is a language and precious means of dialogue between peoples and cultures."

Directed by Long Yu, the orchestra was founded in 2000 and has played numerous concerts around the world.

The orchestra played Mozart’s "Requiem" for the first time in 2006 in a Catholic church in Beijing to mark the 250th anniversary of Mozart’s birth.

 

Whaddya wanna bet they’re good?

I want them for the music for the next papal Mass in Washington!

As the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright continues to build, and we hear more of what he has to say about the foundations of his world view and that of the church where he was pastor, it would not be a bad idea to have a glance at Black Liberation Theology.  Black Liberation Theology is Wright’s framework, his lens.

While political figures are mentioned in the article below, I am posting this NOT for political reasons, but rather because I think this is a good, dense, brief over view of Black Liberation Theology.

Americans must try to know something about Black Liberation Theology right now.

Here is a worthwhile article (dated 2 April 2008) from the website of the excellent Acton Institute by Anthony Bradley who is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis.

The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology by Anthony B. Bradley

What is Black Liberation Theology anyway? Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America discovered Trinity United Church of Christ. Understanding the background of the movement might give better clarity into Wright’s recent vitriolic preaching. A clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil-rights movement:

Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of ‘blackness.’ It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says ‘No’ to the encroachment of white oppression.

In the 1960s, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination particularly in urban areas.

The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is [this is important] a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except whites, of course). So in this sense, as Wright notes, "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression.

James Cone, the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology in his book A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), develops black theology as a system. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation—"a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology—i.e., one of victimization from white oppression.

One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus’ work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone’s context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ’s liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.

American white theology, which Cone never clearly defines, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation. Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society.

For black theologians, white Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-black—“blackness” stands for all victims of white oppression. "White theology," when formed in isolation from the black experience, becomes a theology of white oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against blacks. Cone argues that even those white theologians who try to connect theology to black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. [!] There is but one guiding principle of black theology: an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God’s liberating work in the world.

As such, black theology is a survival theology because it helps blacks navigate white dominance in American culture. In Cone’s view, whites consider blacks animals, outside of the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs—as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness. Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power. God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence. In Cone’s understanding, truth is not objective but subjective [!] —a personal experience of the Ultimate in the midst of degradation.

The echoes of Cone’s theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain’t never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not main stream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright’s generation are burdened by Cone’s categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim." [So, there is a natural connection between the struggle of classe and the struggle of race.]

Black Liberation Theology as Marxist Victimology

Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters’ book Losing the Race, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one’s identity—for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people." It is a subconscious, culturally inherited affirmation that life for blacks in America has been in the past and will be in the future a life of being victimized by the oppression of whites. In today’s terms, it is the conviction that, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act, conditions for blacks have not substantially changed. As Wright intimates, for example, scores of black men regularly get passed over by cab drivers.

Reducing black identity to "victimhood" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! With my graduate school debt my net worth is literally negative $52,659.

The overall result, says McWhorter, is that "the remnants of discrimination hold an obsessive indignant fascination that allows only passing acknowledgement of any signs of progress." Jeremiah Wright, infused with victimology, wielded self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies Hilary Clinton’s world of "rich white people." The perpetual creation of a racial identity born out of self-loathing and anxiety often spends more time inventing reasons to cry racism than working toward changing social mores, and often inhibits movement toward reconciliation and positive mobility.

McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: [1] First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. [Thus, different standards are needed for education, etc.] Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

[2] Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.

[3] Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism"—a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?

For Black Liberation theologians, Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. "Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity," says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999).  [Thus, Rev. Wright will say that questioning his positions (black liberation theology, victim theology) is really an attack on the "Black Church".]

Many black theologians believe that both racism and socio-economic oppression continue to augment the fragmentation between whites and blacks. Historically speaking, it makes sense that black theologians would struggle with conceptualizing social justice and the problem of evil as it relates to the history of colonialism and slavery in the Americas.

Is Black Liberation Theology helping? Wright’s liberation theology has stirred up resentment, backlash, Obama defections, separatism, white guilt, caricature, and offense. Preaching to a congregation of middle-class blacks about their victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation

One of the pillars of Obama’s home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America’s economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."  [At this point we should be mindful of the examination of Liberation Theology by the CDF under Joseph Card. Ratzinger.]

In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx’s chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the ‘ruling material force of society’ and the ‘ruling intellectual’ force." Marx’s thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

For Cone, integrating Marx into black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers"—a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination—which, for black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of blacks by whites. America has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama’s attendance at Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama’s campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and to seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else’s responsibility in a free society.

Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. His Ph.D. dissertation is titled, "Victimology in Black Liberation Theology." This article was originally published on the newsletter of the Glen Beck Program. Watch Bradley’s guest appearance on Beck’s CNN Headline News show here.

 

The apostolic visit of Pope Benedict XVI sparked off more debate about what bishops ought to do in the face of self-professed Catholic politicians who in a public manner act and speak contrary to the Church’s teachings and practices.  Should they be permitted to receive Holy Communion?  Clearly, in most circumstances, the answer is "no", and they should be so instructed.

This came to the fore when certain famously pro-abortion Catholic politicians received Holy Communion at Pope Benedict’s Masses in Washington D.C. and New York City.  They received and subsequently the bishops of Washington and New York remained publicly silent, though they may have acted privately.  The silence, however, drove Robert D. Novak to write a piece in the Washington Post taking Archbp. Wuerl and Card. Egan to task. 

Subsequently, Card. Egan, the same day as Novak’s op-ed appeared, issued a very good press release.

We hear Novak’s article and Card. Egan’s press release and my comments.

The blogosphere was full of discussion of these controversial events, and WDTPRS also also involved.

However, one commenter raised the memory of how St. Ambrose of Milan (+397) "faced down", as it were, the Emperor Theodosius and denied him Holy Communion until he should do public penance. 

So, we drill into the question of whether that famous scene is an apt parallel for today’s controversy about bishops and pro-abortion politicians.  To help we we enlist an ancient biographer of St. Ambrose, Paulinus of Milan, as well as two modern book, Boniface Ramsey’s Ambrose, and JHWG Liebeschuetz’s Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches.

Also, I have a question via my voicemail from a reader/listener about the color of cassocks worn by servers at Papal Masses.

http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/08_04_29.mp3

 

Many times on WDTPRS people have recounted their first experiences of attending a TLM, either first ever or first in a long time.  Very often they relate how hard it was for them to follow what was going on.  They were disoriented by the differences.  They felt self-conscious because they didn’t know what to do, and it was obvious.

The Angelus Press, publishing arm for the SSPX, has put out a very nice, very helpful little booklet designed precisely For the Visitor at Mass. 

The booklet is 40 some pages, on paper, printed in color, and very economical.  The colors are bright and engaging, despite the less than high quality, no doubt to keep the price very low.  The Angelus Press website has packs of 25 for $75.

The text was from The Queen’s Work by Fr. Richard Ginder, in 1940, but it has been adapted.  The intended reader, back in 1940, was obviously  a non-Catholic, for many things of common knowledge for Catholics are explained. 

There is an introductory section on what Holy Mass is and what people saw in the church.  I especially enjoyed seeing explanations such as:"You may have noticed when you were coming into the church that the people, on entering, dipped their fingers into a font of water and traced the sign of the cross on themselves."  Non-Catholics might be puzzled about this, but given the lousy state of catechism over the last few decades I think there may be many Catholics who neither do this nor understand what it is.  Other examples: "Visible in the center of the altar is either a large veiled vessel or a curtained door…", "You wil also notice a rail which separates the sanctuary (where the altar is located) from the rest of the church)....", "Since the primary purpose of the liturgy is to give honor to God it is not necessary that the faithful understand totally the Latin…."  There are other interesting examples intended for non-Catholics, but useful today for many Catholics who have never experienced what was entirely normal for so long before the reforms.

Then each section of Mass is explored and explained, with photos.  The priests actions are printed in red, which is a nice tough!   Easy to understand background is provided.  For example, in the section for the Introit, "He goes to the right and reads the Introit, a verse from the Psalms or Old Testament, then the doxology (a shortprayer in honor of the Holy Trinity), and then the verse again.  The Intriot varies with the feast of the liturgical season and is meant to exemplfy the character of the Mass for the day."

There are many photos to exemplify the actions of the Mass, taken at a church in Kansas City, MO.  I hope in a new edition some of the photos might be improved.  There are a few focus problems.  But all in all the photos are well chosen to show what is going on at Mass.

I think a new comer to such a Holy Mass, of various ages (maybe not the very young) could use this book for the first few visits.  Also, it could help an old veteran learn phrases and bits of information for their own explanations to others about the differences between the older and newer forms of Mass. 

On the back of this booklet is a blank space for "contact Information, and also with the following text:

Unless the pastor indicates otherwise, this booklet is ideal as a keepsake of your assitance at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  It is advisable that anyone consistently using this visitor’s booklet purchase a 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal.  

They are talking about their own beautifully bound hand missal which I reviewed here. 

I very much like that note on the back.  It lets people be at ease about taking it, without feeling wrong or furtive.  Also, the contact information space is helpful.  The first time I ever was in a Catholic Church, not knowing who to contact to ask questions, I left my name and number with someone and, thank God, got a return call.  This space and text on the back is inviting. 

Never underestimate the power of an invitation.

"But Father! but Father!", a few of you are probably gasping.  "Are you suggesting that this is a good book when it is published by those schismatics?  I thought we couldn’t have anything to do with Lefebvrites!"

First, of all, leaving aside the term "schism", if a book is good, it’s good.  This is a great little tool.  There is nothing polemical in it at all.  Even in the introductory section, where there might have been some shots fired there are only helpful explanations. 

Second, it is certainly permissible to buy books from a non-Catholic publisher, so long as they are decent.  Why shouldn’t one be able to purchase them from a publisher which is Catholic, even though the unity of the group with Rome is not perfect?  Also, if it is permissible when attending a Mass of the SSPX (provided that the motives are proper – and I do not recommend Communion unless your circumstances are such that it is appropriate) to make a small contribution at offertory time, why could not one buy a book?  Catholics can engaged a non-Catholic construction firm to build a church, so why can’t we purchase books from a publisher of Catholic books to build the faith, even if the publisher’s associations are not in perfect unity?  Also, I cannot think of any similar book printed by any group in more perfect and manifest union with Rome.  Were there something similar or better, I would have to give that greater consideration.  In the meantime, this is a wonderful tool.

Third, it seems to me that the attitude of "embargo" against any Angelus Press products, simply because of the association of the SSPX, is really contrary to the spirit in which our Holy Father Pope Benedict has given us Summorum Pontificum.  Someday, I hope, there will be more perfect, manifest unity. In that case, we should desire that the Angelus Press be sound and strong, for it will then be truly helpful in a much wider context.  I act in that hope.

I think that parishes where the TLM is celebrated could use this useful and inviting little booklet.  Perhaps pastors of parishes might contact Angelus Press to see if they can get samples.  I think they will be favorably impressed.

As some of you WDTPRSers might remember, I am a fan of the Don Camillo books and movies.

So I was delighted to see that our friends at Rorate posted a really nice entry on the author Giovanni Guareschi.  I didn’t know it, but this is Guareschi’s centenary

I just decided to port over here the entry at Rorate, but be sure to click over there and visit them, and tell ‘em Fr. Z sent you.  They do good job in a good cause!   This was a great entry with very good introductory observations about faith and reason, etc.

My emphases.

‘I will not die even if they kill me’

One of the most significant Italian writers of the 20th Century – and certainly one of the most underrated – was Giovanni Guareschi, better known as "Giovannino" Guareschi, born on May 1, 1908, 100 years ago.

Few contemporary European writers had so much authentic Catholic sensibility embedded in their works as Guareschi, whose masterpiece was the series of works, the Mondo Piccolo (Little World), in which the great struggle of his and of our age – the war between Faith and Reason (Logos), on one side, and Socialist barbarianism and relativism, of either "left" or "right", on the other, with many indifferent or lukewarm spectators in the middle – played itself out in a small village in the Italian countryside.

Don Camillo Tarocci, a parish priest in a village of Emilia, was the literary expression of that Church which would not yield, the Church of Pius IX, of Pius X, of Pius XI, of Pius XII - but also the Church of Humanae Vitae, of Evangelium Vitae, of Summorum Pontificum. A Church which is the ardent bearer of all the goods of Civilization, and Reason, and Morals, both in the real world, and in the Little World of Don Camillo.

Giovannino Guareschi, a proud son of the Church, described himself and his world in his introduction to the seventh edition of "Mondo Piccolo: Don Camillo", first released in 1948:

_______________________________

My life began on the 1st of May 1908, and between one thing and another, it still goes on.

When I was born my mother had been teaching in the elementary school for nine years and she continued to teach until the end of 1949. In recognition of her work, the parish priest of the village presented her with an alarm clock in the name of all the people, and after fifty years of teaching in schools where there was no electric light or water but, in compensation, an abundant supply of cockroaches, flies, and mosquitoes, my mother now passes her time waiting for the government to consider her request for a pension and listening to the tick-tock of the alarm clock given her by the village.

At the time when I was born, my father was interested in all kinds of machines, from harvesters to gramophones, and he possessed an enormous moustache, very similar to the one I wear under my nose. He still has the splendid moustache, but for some time he has not been interested in much of anything, and he passes his time reading the newspapers. He also reads what I write, but he does not like my way of writing and thinking.
...
For reasons entirely beyond my control, the war broke out and one day in 1942 I went on a terrible bout of drinking because my brother was lost in Russia and I couldn’t find anything about him. That night I went up and down the streets of Milan shouting things which filled several sheets of legal-sized paper – as I found out the next day when I was arrested by the political police. Then a lot of people worried about me and they finally got me released. However, the political police wanted me out of circulation and so had me called into the army, and on the 9th of September 1943, with the fall of Fascism, I was taken prisoner again, this time at Alessandria, in Northern Italy, by the Germans. Since I did not want to work for the Germans, I was sent to a Polish concentration camp. I was in various concentration camps until April 1945, when my camp was taken over by the English and after five months I was sent back to Italy.

The period I spent in prison was the most intensely active of my life. In fact I had to do everything to stay alive and succeeded almost completely by dedicating myself to a precise programme which is summarized in my slogan ‘I will not die even if they kill me’.
...

A few months ago the leader of the Italian Communists, Mr. Palmiro Togliatti, made a speech in which he lost his temper and called the Milanese journalist who invented the character with the triple nostrils ‘a triple idiot’. The threefold idiot is me and this was for me the most prized recognition of my work as a political journalist. The man with three nostrils is now famous in Italy, and it was I who created him. I must admit that I am proud because to succeed in characterizing a Communist with a stroke of the pen (that is, putting under the nose three, instead of two, nostrils) is not a bad idea, and it worked very well.

And why should I be modest? The other things that I wrote and drew during the days before the election [of 1948, in which the Italian Communist Party was unexpectedly defeated] also worked very well; to prove it I have in my attic a sack full of newspaper clippings which malign me; whoever wants to know more can come and read them.

The stories in The Little World of Don Camillo were very successful in Italy, and this book, which collects the first series of these stories, is already in its seventh edition. Many people people have written long articles on The Little World of Don Camillo and many people have written me letters about this or that story, and so now I am a little confused, and I would find myself rather embarrassed if I had to make any judgement of The Little World of Don Camillo. The background of these stories is my home, Parma, the Emilian Plain along the Po where political passion often reaches a disturbing intensity, and yet these people are attractive and hospitable and generous and have a highly developed sense of humor. It must be the sun, a terrible sun which beats on their brains during the summer, or perhaps it is the fog, a heavy fog which oppresses them during the winter.

The people in these stories are true to life and the stories are so true that more that once, after I had written a story, the thing actually happened and one read it in the news.

In fact the truth surpasses the imagination. I once wrote a story about the Communist, Peppone, who was annoyed during a political meeting by an airplane which threw down pamphlets of the opposition. Peppone took up a machine-gun, but he could not bring himself to fire on the plane. When I wrote this I said to myself, ‘This is too fantastic.’ Some months later, at Spilimbergo [Northern Italy], not only did the Communists fire on an airplane that distributed anti-Communist pamphlets, but they shot it down.

I have nothing more to say about The Little World of Don Camillo. You can’t expect that, after a poor fellow has written a book, he should also understand it.

I am 5 feet 10 inches high and I have written eight books in all. I have also done a movie which is called People Like This, now being distributed throughout Italy. Many people like the movie; others do not like it. As far as I am concerned, the movie leaves me indifferent. Many things in life me indifferent now, but that is not my fault. It is the fault of the war. The war destroyed a lot of things we had within us. We have seen too many dead and too many living. In addition to 5 feet 10 inches, I have all my hair.

 

In the UK, The Telegraph has published something rather interesting: 

Short list to succeed Cardinal Murphy O’Connor

By Tim Walker
Last Updated: 2:13am BST 28/04/2008

The candidates to succeed Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor as Archbishop of Westminster have been whittled down to three.

Mandrake hears that the names on the official list – the terna – are Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop Peter Smith and Bishop Arthur Roche.

"It will disappoint those who were hoping for someone outside of the current crop of bishops," whispers my man at Archbishop’s House.
advertisement

"Benedict XVI is not, however, obliged to pick one of the names that Archbishop Faustino Munoz, the Papal Nuncio, submits to him so we will have to wait and see."

Traditionalists had hoped that the next archbishop would have been chosen, like Basil Hume, from outside the episcopacy of England and Wales and Mandrake understands that George Pell, the Australian cardinal, had been lobbying the Pope for such a move.

This led to speculation that either Abbot Hugh Gilbert, of Pluscarden Abbey in Scotland, or Fr Aidan Nichols, a Dominican Friar, were in the frame.

The Most Rev Nichols, the Archbishop of Birmingham, considered the favourite, is supported by Lord Alton, while the Rt Rev Roche, the Bishop of Leeds, is backed by John Gummer, the Catholic convert MP.

The Most Rev Smith, the Archbishop of Cardiff, won admirers with his lobbying of parliament over legislation on euthanasia and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Cardinal Murphy O’Connor is expected to stand down early next year.

WDTPRS is duty bound to respond.

First, we say…. LIES!  Everyone knows … or at least hopes, that the next Archbishop of Westminster will be His Hermeneuticalness.

Second, shame on the one who, if this is true reporting, revealed the names on the terna.  The terna is a matter of Pontifical Secret and violating it can be punished with censures including excommunication.

Third, the Supreme Pontiff can pick whom it pleases him to pick for the See of Westminister.  He is not bound to take a name from the terna.

Here is the Declaration on Relations with Rome issued by the traditional group called the Transapline Redemptorists.  My emphases and comments:

Declaration
On Relations with Rome

Made In Honour of
Our Lady of Good Counsel
April 2008


We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in reforms which issued from it.

That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of the sanctification of souls in the spirit of Saint Alphonsus under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.

That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church.

But now we must ask ourselves if a glimmer of light has not begun to show through the clouds of confusion that for many years have darkened the sky of eternal Rome. [poetic] For we now have a Pontiff, a successor of Peter, ready to allow us to adhere fully to this timeless tradition of the Church and its complete expression in Catholic life without apparent compromise. He seems ready to "let us do the experiment of Tradition" as Archbishop Lefebvre asked so many years ago.

This glimmer of light has manifested itself above all in recent months in the courage with which the successor of Peter stood up against opposition from many quarters in promulgating his letter motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum". [So, the MP is exerting another kind of gravitational pull.] As far as Roman diplomacy could allow, the Supreme Pontiff declared the vindication of all those who for years had been fighting to keep the traditional Mass, since "it was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, always permitted."1 Moreover, Article 3 of Summorum Pontificum foresees the erection of communities like our own that would "permanently" use the Missal of 1962 – it is an invitation to be in recognised communion with the Holy Father while remaining simply as we are. [Probably.]

If, however, Benedict XVI has shown himself ready to allow the "experiment of Tradition" to be done in communion with him and with his blessing, what are we to make of the storm of abuses and confusion that reigns in the universal Church? [A good question.]

If these troubled waters [We have moved from storm imagery, which obscures light, to the effects of the storm, which are high seas and dangerous water.] are the very setting for the most important Papal motu proprio letter of the past years, then this document ought to be understood as a call for change. These forty years of crisis, the empty convents, the abandoned presbyteries, the empty churches and the sad state of Catholic education has finally awakened the realisation at the highest level of the Church that we are in a period of crisis. This realisation has produced a visible change in the will of Rome: no longer are the orientations of the 1960’s and 70’s to be imposed with the uncaring absolutism [That’s for sure!] of "that period with all its hopes and its confusion." Rome is ready to admit that "omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of the blame…" Rome is ready to ask pardon [Well… that might be overstating what is going on just a little, but okay.] for the "arbitrary deformations of the liturgy (that) caused deep pain…"2

Will we require more than one apology? The Pope wishes to see traditional Catholic life flourish once again in the bosom of the Church, and he has given approval to all the means that will allow this to happen: not only the Mass, but the sacraments, the ritual, the breviary, etc. But it is the Holy Ghost that is at work, [We also sincerely pray that that is the case and I think we can be confident that it is.] guiding the successor of Peter even beyond what he himself may intend, [Hmm… here is where they sound just a little snootier than perhaps they ought to be.] for it will be through the restoration in practice of the traditional life of the Church that will be asphyxiated slowly but surely the modernist theological poison that still circulates in the bloodstream of the Church. [They have shifted metaphors.]

Henceforth, the combat for the Faith finds itself on an extended front: we are called to play a humble part [though the tone of this declaration doesn’t sound especially humble, in my opinion, if these guys are ready to roll up their sleeves and work, then I welcome them, rejoice and point to them as great examples!] in the revival of traditional Catholic practice in the universal Church for a new generation that no longer cares for the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, [good insight] but thirsts for the solid Catholicism that is inseparably joined with the Mass of all time. [I think, to be fair, they are also thirsting for Catholicism that is joined also to the Novus Ordo.  Many young people are fervent Catholics even though they have never attended a TLM.] This is the way the Church has arisen phoenix-like [another metaphor shift] from all challenges she has faced in the past: by a resurgence of life in traditional Catholic practice, the doctrinal aberrations that caused decadence are shown [They just can’t resist the polemic language, it seems.] for what they are. These are arguments that all can understand: not the intricate subtleties of the modernist mind, but the new spring shoots of the tree whence comes life.  [another metaphor]

The ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council remain to be clarified, this is certain. [without question] But far from denying the bi-millennial tradition of the Church, the Roman authorities seem ever more acutely aware of the need to reconcile the Second Vatican Council with tradition. How exactly to do so remains the poignant question of our day. [YES!] It is a question that will not be solved easily nor soon – this we can gather from the manner in which the Church has dealt with problematic declarations of councils in the past. But another lesson from these past problems is that false doctrines die out over time, [They seem to have moved from "ambiguity" to "false doctrine".  As I read it, they are not directly saying that the teachings of the Council are "false doctrines".  They are merely saying that history shows that "false doctrine" die off over time.] as their fruits are sterile. The Holy Ghost will show where the truth lies, because it is He who guides and gives life. Hence, it is sufficient for us to ask what Archbishop Lefebvre asked: Laissez-nous faire l’expérience de la tradition, ("let us do the experiment of Tradition") and for the rest, the answer shall soon be clear, for by their fruits we shall know them.

Can ambiguities and the confusion and false interpretations [This is better: ambiguities and false interpretations.  Very good.] to which they give rise be the justification to stop us from accepting visible communion with Rome? [This is the BIG QUESTION!] As long as interpretations in contradiction to the tradition of the Church are not imposed upon us, these problems do not have to be an obstacle to union. [I wonder what those would be.  About the only thing that comes to mind might be the issue of religious liberty, but I cannot see how that would be something that could be "imposed".  Nor, do I think, could, or would, a specific interpretation of the Council on religious libery be "imposed".  So, maybe this statement is just a tad too defensive?  I am not privy to the discussions they have been involved with.] We must simply remain free to preach the perennial doctrines of the Church, while trying to reconcile what can be reconciled "in a positive line of study and communication with the Holy See."3

Ah, but could not these offers from Rome be a "trap"? [So many on the traditionalist side see bad will in all that Rome does, so this is a fair question to raise, considering the visibility of this groups actions.] In answering this, we ought to reflect upon the extent of the liturgical reform granted and willed by the Pope. He reintroduced not only the Mass, but also the sacraments, the ritual, the pontifical, the breviary, etc. If all this were only a scheme to trick the traditionalist communities, this extension would be very dangerous for the progressivists and would ultimately run contrary to their intentions, for it makes possible the return of the entire mindset and life associated with the traditional Mass. We cannot believe that it is a trick, but a sincere attempt on the part of the Sovereign Pontiff to aright a wrong and to remedy the situation of the Church. [good!]

Given this situation where we have at least the appearance of Rome’s willingness to accept us as we are, there are certain matters of Faith that will not allow us to remain inactive. It is a fundamental principle of the Church and of the Faith that in the person of the successor of Peter is to be found the lasting principle and the visible foundation of the double unity of Faith and communion.4 It is "in his person" that this unity is found, not in the Vatican bureaucracy. This is why we feel particularly touched by the personal intervention of the Pope in our favor. [!]

Also, there is the visibility of the Church that urges us. During these long years of crisis our position – we feel – has not harmed the visibility of the Church [One might argue that their separation weakened those who tried to stay in clearer unity.  But be that as it may, that is hopefully in the past.  The present and future need our focus.] because there were visible problems to account for the apparent visible break in unity. We in tradition were the object of visible injustice and of visible abuses of power. [Yes, sure.  But I myself, and many others I know, have also been terribly mistreated by those in power and yet did not separate from clear unity, though sometimes in very dark hours that seemed a viable thing to do.] But now that the successor of Peter has diplomatically apologised and has extended his hands to us, welcoming us simply as we are, what further visible justification will we find to refuse communion with him? We cannot expect him to solve all of the problems in the Church first, [right!] for the Pontiff sadly finds himself deprived of much of the control we would have associated with the Pontiffs of ages past. He rules now more by diplomacy than by monarchical authority. Nor can we ask the Pontiff to change the course of the bark of Peter too rapidly – a rapid movement of the rudder could sweep even more souls off the ship’s deck and into the sea. And after all, this is his prudential judgment to make, not ours.  [This is a point many traditional type forget.  They want the Pope to impose, command, micro-manage.  They don’t take into account that in order to reform or implement a plan, you have to have people to do it for you.  Attempting something and failing can produces horrific setbacks and make the situation een worse.  This is why Summorum Pontificum was an amazing event in the life of the Church: against strong opposition Pope Benedict promulgated it because a) it was the right thing to do, b) he judged that the time was right c) there were just enough people in key places to make this work and d) skipping a generation, younger people were not burdened with spirit of V2 baggage.]

Can we choose to remain where we are under these circumstances? We have argued for years now of our "state of necessity" and of the resulting supplied jurisdiction that the Church supplies to us. [Which I consider to be a very bad position to argue from, but … this is not my declaration.] But can we continue to argue this when ordinary jurisdiction is offered to us without any compromise in the Faith? Can we choose freely to remain in this irregular canonical situation where we are? In other words, can a state of necessity be the object of a choice without moral fault? Clearly not And on the other hand: are the authorities ready to accord us regular faculties? If the answer to this second question is affirmative, then we are no longer in the same case of necessity!  [This is a major step in the right direction.  I really admire this.]

All these serious considerations, dear friends, move us to go and see what Rome has to say. Let not our contacts with Rome be understood as meaning that we will break off our friendship with the Society of Saint Pius X and the other traditionalist organisations around the world. On the contrary, we positively want with all our hearts to remain in contact, sharing all that we may learn with Bishop Fellay and the other heads of traditional orders for the good of tradition as a whole.  [Excellent! These are men after my own heart.  They don’t want to cut their ties, but they want a regular situation in manifest union with the Pontiff.  Again, my admiration increases.]

Only time will tell if the moment has come for an agreement with Rome. Prudence requires of us to proceed slowly and cautiously, reflecting well at each step of the discussions. In this, we will rely on the continued support and advice of our traditionalist friends. Our agreement must be founded upon the fundamental principles of the Church and the safeguarding of the Faith.

While asking for your prayers for this matter, we place ourselves under the patronage and protection of our Mother of Perpetual Succour, She ‘who by Herself has crushed all the heresies in the whole world’ qui cunctas haereses interemit. May She, whom St Alphonsus ever invoked as the Mother of Good Counsel, teach us to be "wise as serpents and simple as doves"5, while showing us how to "generously open our hearts to make room for everything that the Faith itself allows."6

In the octave of Our Lady of Good Counsel
28 April, 2008

Fr Michael Mary, C.SS.R.
Fr Anthony Mary, C.SS.R.



1 Benedict XVI, Letter accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
2 ibid
3 Archbishop Lefebvre, Protocol of May 5th, 1988
4 Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus, DS. 3051
5 Matt 10:16
6 Benedict XVI, op. cit.

Very impressive, folks. 

There were passages in the declaration where perhaps the tone was a little high handed.  However, they have an rather special audience and they know that audience well.  They have to tailor this to their readers, which include that traditionalist audience as well as certain key readers in the roman Curia… and blogosphere.

All these readers, Curia and traditionalist communites alike would do very well to pay attention to the conservative Catholic press and especially the blogosphere, which could play an important role in this.

I met some of these men in Rome when they came to stay in our house last year. I was impressed then by their friendly and open conversation (once they figured our I was not an enemy).  I am positively impressed now by their position and the willingness to express it publicly.

I repeat my sense of admiration for what these men are willing to undertake and I pray, and ask you all to pray, for a positive outcome.

I got a nice note from a reader:

Father Zuhlsdorf,

 

This evening I had the honor of attending the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite at Seton Hall University celebrated by Father Grimm. I took about 150 pictures of the event, which I have uploaded to a Photobucket album, the link I will post below. I thought this would be much easier than attaching all those files to an email, but if another method is better for you let me know and I’ll get you the files some other way. I give you full permission to use these pictures on the WDTPRS. I am far from a professional photographer and many of the pictures from my 5mp Sony point and shoot came out blurry, though I am surprised how many came out pretty well. Also feel free to edit the pictures in anyway necessary to improve their appearance.

 

In attendance were over 50 students, a great many of them seminarians. In his homily Father Grimm stressed the importance of Catholic traditions, stating that the Extraordinary Form is the same Mass of countless saints including Padre Pio and Elizabeth Ann Seton. After Mass students whom never experienced the Extraordinary Form were greatly impressed by the beauty and reverence of the Mass, remarking that they would like to see the Extraordinary Form celebrated on campus more often.

 

I thank you for your support in helping to publicize and promote the Extraordinary Form at Seton Hall.

Here is a sample.
 

I kind reader sent some images from the Holy Mass celebrated with the 1962 Missale Romanum according to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum at Franciscan University in Steubenville.

Nice!

I am sure the students were very pleased!

I have posted this before, but it seemed appropriate to repost it today, the anniversary of the death of St. Gianna Molla in great year of 1962.  It is her feast day today.  This is one of the saints of our time whom I would like to see included in an updated version of the traditional Roman calendar, which could stand some touching up, frankly.

In 2005 I wrote a piece in the Catholic Online Forum on the 2nd miracle through the intercession of St. Gianna. 

I reproduce it here, somewhat edited, on her feast day.  The account of this miracle gave me shivers.  I had to share it.  Recently we heard news about a possible miracle for Ven. John Henry Newman and the process for the miracle at the Congregation (here and especially here).  Sometimes we don’t get many details about what these miracles are all about.

You perhaps can fall into wondering, "Was it really all that unusual?

You decide.

Here is my original post.  I wrote this when I was pretty much thinking only in Italian, so if it sounds odd here and there, that is why:

Since I have just recently finished over 100 hours of training at the Congregation for Causes of Saints concerning the history, theology and juridial dimensions of causes of beatification and canonization (investigating the life, heroic virtues, martyrdom, reputation of holiness, reputation of martyrdom, miracles, etc.), I figured I should put some of that training to use and occasionally produce some of it here with some comments that might be of use to others. After all, what training I get isn’t just for me: it has to be for the whole Church or it is worth only the cost of the parchment.

We had the chance to learn from and question the officials of the Congregation, the experts who collaborate with it, and the physicians and historians who are experts consultants. We had lectures from the Prefect, Secretary and Under-Secretary, the Promotor of the Faith (so-called "Devil’s Advocate" is a misnomer, really) and the Relator General. We had tours of the archives and attended the proceedings of the opening of a cause in the Roman phase. Abundant materials were provided and we were, naturally, allowed then to be thoroughly tested on them.

Going into the course I was not sure what to expect, but I brought a certain measure of sceptism about some things I had heard (mostly due to faulty and insufficient information, I see now). I heard stories of lives and of miracles which left me nearly with my jaw on the table as I listened and saw the documentation.

This was a privilege which for the rest of my priesthood will affect how I can help other people understand things about the life of grace in a way I could not before.

Ad ramos...

Concerning the second of the two miracles worked by God through St. Gianna:

In mid November 1999 a Brazilian woman named Elisabete Comparini Arcolino discovered she was pregnant for the fourth time. An echogram on 30 Nov. showed that the developing child was within a small sac only .8 cm in length and 2.3 cm in diameter. The doctor said that it was doubtful that with such a beginning for the gestation that child would come to term. On 9 December a echo showed the embryo a 1.0 cm in length but also a huge increase in coagulation of blood (blood loss), measuring 5.2×3.5 cm. On 19 Dec they found the beating heart of the child, but also a deterioration of the placenta in the lower region of the uterus. A pessimistic prognosis was given. The doctor following the case, Dr. Nadia Bicego Vieitez de Almeida, who had handled Elisabete’s previous pregnancies, said that with the great loss of blood Elisebete would probably spontaneously abort or they would have to do the procedure sooner or later.

Contrary to expectations, the child’s heart kept beating and the pregnancy continued.

On 11 February 2000 Elisabete realized there was a serious problem and went to the hospital. The echo showed that the gestational sack’s membrane had broken at 16 weeks of gestation and, while the fetus was alive, there was now a total absence of amniotic fluid. The radiologist testified that there was no amniotic liquid to protect the child from exposure to the outside world and from the external pressure of the uterus itself. This meant that both the child and mother were in serious danger of infection, etc. Dr. Bicego recommended termination of the pregnancy. Elisabete was put on a regime of super hydration, 4 l. of phleboclysis (intravenous injection of an isotonic solution of dextrose or other substances) per day. On 15 Feb a new echo showed that there was no significant increase in the volume of amniotic fluid and the volume was insufficient to bring the pregnancy to term.

At this point, 15 Feb, the prognosis for the child was precisely zero. Two studies, one in Sao Paolo and one in San Francisco had looked at viability of pregnancies with a ruptured membrane at between 22-26 weeks, many more weeks after the case of Elisabete and her child. In the studies in every case examined every fetus was spontaneously aborted within 60 days of the rupture. In virtually all cases, a fetus of 16 weeks would abort with a few days.

Dr. Bicega and other doctors told Elisabete that they had to do an abortion to save her life, and gave her some time to make the decision. But Elisabete, as she testified, knew in her heart that she could not do that and that she must try to bring the child to term. When the doctor came for the decision, Elisabete’s husband Carlos Cesar requested that a priest come. He called the parish priest of San Sebastiano, Fr. Ovidio Jose Alves di Andrade. Dr. Bicega said she would return again in 15 minutes with the documents for their signature approving the abortion.

Present at the time Dr. Bicega came was a friend of Elisabete, named Isabel, who heard the exchange about the abortion. Isabel went to the hospital chapel to pray to Mary to help bring some clarity to the situation. There Isabel spent some time in prayer. When she was finshed and got up to leave, she saw pass by the door the diocesan Bishop Diogenes Silva Matthes who had come to the hospital to visit another person. Bp. Silva had been celebrant of the wedding of Elisabete and Carlos Cesar at San Sebastiano where they worked as catechists. Isabel told the bishop what was going on and he went to Elisabete’s room and there learned the whole story. The bishop said, “Betinha, we will pray and God will help us” and he asked Dr. Bicega to wait a while longer. Then the bishop left.

Shortly after the bishop left Fr. Ovidio arrived. He began to give Elisabete the sacrament of anointing. At that point the bishop returned. He had brought with him a biography of Bl. Gianna Beretta Molla. He said to Elisabete: “Do what Blessed Gianna did, and, if necessary, give your life for the child. I was praying at home and I said to the Blessed in prayer, ‘Now has arrived the opportunity for you to be canonized. Intercede before the Lord for the grace of a miracle and save the life of this little child.”

Elisabete had known about Bl. Gianna and how she died and how the first miracle for her cause was for a woman who had terrible complications from a caesarian section. After knowing about Bl. Gianna, Elisabete herself, in her third pregnancy and after two previous caesarian sections, had decided to give birth normally despite the problems that entailed. At that time the same Bishop Silva had given her a holy card of Bl. Gianna. Elisabete was terribly afraid but she asked Bl. Gianna for help and gave birth to a child weighing over 5kg.

Therefore, this time, reinforced by past experience and the help of Bl. Gianna and the same bishop, Elisabete told Dr. Bicega she would try to carry the child to term, so long at the child’s heart continued to beat. Various doctors at the hospital expressed their opinion that this was madness. However, Dr. Bicega later testified about that time: “But I, I don’t know if it was by intuition, through my own lack of courage, or if I was drawn by Elisabete’s faith which seemed to have no limit, decided to wait and see what happened.” Elisabete would later testify that for her: “Jesus’ greatest miracle was to change the doctor’s heart. She had been unmovable in her determination to perform abortions, but one day she said to me, ‘Your faith had made me think a great deal. Even I have faith now and so let’s wait for the death of the fetus”.

Elisabete left the hospital and went to the home of Carlos Cesar’s aunt, Janete Arcolino, who was a nurse. Dr. Bicego lent them the sonar machine so that they could monitor the heart beat of the child and told them to check her temperature and blood pressure every six hours. They continued the super hydration treatments and eventually began a cortisone treatment to prevent problems with the child’s lungs.

In the meantime, Fr. Ovidio testified later, the whole community was continuing to invoke Bl. Gianna, continuously asking for a miracle. The parish had been very pro-life and every month there was special blessing for women who were with child. Also involved in the prayers to Bl. Gianna was a community of Carmelite sisters who in turn had communicated the request to other convents in Brazil. For her part, Elisabete had a very hard time of things. Despite her faith in God and her past experience, there were times when she was terribly afraid she was going to die with her child. She felt herself sometimes quite abandoned by God and alone. She was worried about what would happen with her other three children if she died.

Dr. Bicega followed the pregnancy closely and noted that during the whole time there was no accumulation of amniotic fluid. If Elisabete gained any, as soon as she would move to get up to go to the bathroom, she would again lose it all.

When they had reached the 32nd week and when the baby weighed 1.80k, they decided for a caesarian section delivery, effected on 31 May 2000. The newborn daughter, Gianna, was in good shape with the exception of the left foot which was twisted, probably because of compression with the uterus.

The problems did not cease there. They found that Elisabete had a wound within a uterine muscle to which the placenta had adhered, thus remaining in place. She had a serious hemorrhage and her lungs collapsed and wound up in intensive care for three days. As part of her treatment Dr. Bicega wanted to interdict her cycle with a kind of false menopause, which would result also in Elisabete not being able to lactate, but Elisabete said she did want to do that.

The newborn was sent home on 17 June weighing 1.960kg. Later a surgical operation and therapy corrected the twisted foot. In July 2001 a pediatrician Dr. Maria Engracia Ribeiro examined the child completely and found her to be perfectly normal and healthy, intelligent and lively, with the strong personality. Another check on 17 January 2002 found no problems in any of the child’s development, with no immune or respiratory problems and was, for her age, in perfect health.

The case of the asserted miracle was studied by the “Consulta Medica” of the Congregation for Causes of Saints on 10 April 2003 who determined that despite the severe prognosis for the fetus and the mother as the result of the total loss of amniotic fluid at the 16th week, and despite medical treatment inadequate for such a grave situation, the positive outcome of the pregnancy and health of mother and child were unexplainable in medical terms. The decree super miraculo was promulgated by the Congregation in the presence of Pope John Paul II on 20 December 2003. Since Gianna Beretta Molla had been beatified on 24 April 1994, her canonization was celebrated on 16 May 2004.

I would put to you several points to consider, any of which might serve as a starting point for comments below:

1. Saints are presented to us by Holy Mother Church for “the two I’s”: imitation and intercession.
2. As all Christians are called to imitate Christ, we also must experience self-emptying and the Cross, abandonment to providence and self-donation. We must be willing to lose everything.
3. We are not alone: the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant are closely knit, interwoven in charity. We on earth must intercede for each other and believe and ask for the intercession of the saints.
4. God makes use of the weak to demonstrate His might and love.
5. If we do not believe in miracles, we do not ask for them. If we do not ask for them, they will not be granted.
6. Our life of faith is noticed by non-believers and they are not unaffected.
7. What a difference a bishop can make.
8. How often do you invoke the help of the saints and holy angels?
9. God’s ways are not our ways.
10. No one is too small to be an occasion of grace for others.

Whereas Card. Egan of New York has issued a press statement taking to task former NYC mayor R. Guiliani (R-NY) for receiving Communion at the Holy Father’s Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, this is from the WaPo.

For Pro-Choice Politicians, a Pass With the Pope

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, April 28, 2008; A15

In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question? The answer is no. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington. [Did you notice that "by the archbishops" and not "to"? ]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received Communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did former mayor Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, invited them. [Were they really invited to receive?  Surely a prominent seat suggests something.  This is a realy why I think row by row Communion, though orderly, is a bad idea.] Given choice seats, they took Communion as a matter of course.

Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicians should be deprived of Communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. The effect was to dull the pope’s messages of faith, obligation and compassion. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he talked of "authority" and "obedience"—acknowledging that "these are not easy words to speak nowadays." They surely are not for four former presidential candidates and two princes of the church, representing Catholics who defy their faith’s doctrine on abortion.  [OUCH]

Benedict’s position was unequivocal when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Asked in 2004 whether Kerry, as the Democratic presidential nominee, should be allowed to take Communion, he replied, "The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."  [Remember how another prince of the Church, Card. McCarrick watered down Papa Ratzinger’s letter for USCCB consumption?]

Ratzinger’s demeanor necessarily has changed with his elevation from doctrinal enforcer [there’s that word] to global pastor, but he has not altered his position. When the pope arrived in Brazil a year ago, he declared: "The killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going into Communion in the body of Christ."

Benedict did not reiterate that position in Washington and New York, because a pope traveling abroad is influenced by the stance of local church authorities. American bishops are [unfortunately] divided. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis leads those who believe pro-choice politicians cannot receive Communion. Cardinal [speaking of His Eminence…]Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl’s predecessor as archbishop of Washington, took the opposite position. Blessed with charm and political finesse, McCarrick was not about to clash with his archdiocese’s most famous parishioners.

Wuerl is considered less political than McCarrick, but he is hardly less averse to colliding with powerful laymen. He could have simply not invited the pro-choice politicians to a Mass where there was no room for the vast majority of Catholics who wanted to attend. The five pro-choice Catholics took Communion from the hand of Archbishop Pietro Sambi, [OUCH – and not true, at least in the case of Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)] the pope’s representative to the United States as apostolic delegate.

In New York, Giuliani receiving Communion was even more remarkable. Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who attend Mass regularly, the former mayor says he goes to church only "occasionally," usually for holidays or funerals. Abortion aside, Giuliani’s third marriage would make him ineligible for Communion because his second marriage was not annulled [er um… declared null] by the church. But Cardinal Egan is no more apt than Cardinal McCarrick was to offend the powerful, and Giuliani was invited to the Mass.  [So it seems that His Eminence’s hand may have been forced today?]

There are devout pro-life Catholics who oppose rejection of any worshiper at the Communion rail but believe bishops should publicly manifest disapproval of Catholic pro-choice politicians. The bishops of Washington and New York do not. During the Mass at which Wuerl was installed as archbishop of Washington in 2006, he shook hands with Kerry and Kennedy, seated side by side.

At Yankee Stadium, Benedict spoke of the "inalienable dignity and rights" of "the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother’s womb." In parishes across the country, the faithful hear their priests echo the Holy Father’s words. Those professions ring hollow when pro-choice politicians are honored as they were during the pope’s visit.

 

UPDATE: 1 May 23:29 UTC:

At the bottom of his column in today’s Post, Robert Novak states: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043003251.html

 

My April 28 column erred in saying that Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the apostolic delegate, was the priest who gave Communion to pro-choice politicians during the recent papal Mass in Washington.

This is just in from the Archdiocese of New York!  Super WDTPRS kudos to a super alert fast friend for alerting me so swiftly!

Statement of Cardinal Egan

April 28, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008

The following is a statement issued by Edward Cardinal Egan:

“ The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.

This raises the huge question.

What about other bishops who have prominent Catholics in their communion lines?

This may be a reaction to the piece by Robert Novak in the WaPo today!