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

Perhaps the new GOP VP candidate, Sarah Palin (R-AK) will be available to explain to Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) when human life begins.

And I bet she knows what "gralloch" means, too!

Our friend Fr. Ray Blake over in Brighton has a wonderful photo:

I saw this in a sacristy over the summer, and was impressed! There is nothing quite like old time religion.

UPDATE: We now have the video!

Neil Cavuto of Fox News just interview the Archbishop of Denver, His Excellency Most Reverend Charles Chaput.  He spoke about Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s serious errors about the beginning of human life made last Sunday on Meet The Press.  He also clarified why pro-abortion Catholics are in serious error and should not receive Holy Communion.

Here is the audio.

Perhaps we can hunt up the video too.

I just got a wonderful Pelosi parody song from the Official WDTPRS Songwriter, Timothy the Parodist.

I am waiting for the final version and I’ll post it!

UPDATE from Timothy the Parodist:

Nancy singing I left my heart in San Francisco
 
Planned Parenthood contributes,
To my campaign each year,
NARAL, NOW and Move-On:
Agendas I hold dear,
Though raised a faithful Catholic,
Faith’s precepts I’ve forgotten,
I’m standing firm,
for abortion on demand!
 
I sold my soul in San Francisco,
Abortion mills? They’re fine by me!
I stand with Biden and Kissling;
Patristic proof-texting,
The bishops scowl and pull their hair,
I don’t care.
I still believe, that I am Catholic,
Though I put babies to the knife
I’m glad that Burke’s not here in San Francisco,
Or I’d be running for my life.

More to come!  Keep checking!

UPDATE

To the turn "Nancy With the Laughing Face" (Where’s the Nelson Riddle Orchestra when you really need them?)
 

She’s on TV each day now Mister,
Bending dogmatic truth that twisted sister,
She causes huge headaches,
Our Nancy, with the double face
 
She twists Augustine into a pretzel,
Causing more scandal than Johann Tetzel
Picture Cthulu in lace
That’s Nancy with the double face
 
Someone grab those bells and start ringing
I’ve the candle and book in tow
It’s “Lacrimosa” the monks are singing
“Anathema sit,” you know!
 
Archbishop, tell her “Stop! Desist!” Her
Logic is making my cortex blister,
She has become a disgrace,
That Nancy, with the double face!
 
Egan and Wuerl and Chaput all diss her,
All of those unborn children sure wouldn’t miss her
Believe me, they’ve got a case
With Nancy, of the double face

UPDATE:

I received the following from a reader:

Hello Fr. Z,
 
I like to write limericks, especially when people like Nancy Pelosi give me good material to work with!

Ode to Nancy

Senator Nancy Pelosi,
Has theology weak as Jello-si,
She quotes from Augustine
But must take a dustin’
From those who are in the know-si.
 
Nancy Pelosi’s the Speaker,
But her theology is really much weaker
Than she’d like to admit;
It’s giving her fits,
But it hasn’t made her much meeker.
 
Communion’s important, she’s announcing,
As the Church’s teaching she’s renouncing.
She wants to receive;
She says she believes.
But the Bishops gave her a trouncing.
 
We witness amazing contortion,
Not to mention doctrinal distortion,
When Nancy comes in
With her version of sin,
And her political stance on abortion.
 
“Abortion just might not be wrong
If the woman’s not too far along.”
Roe v. Wade preaching
Replaces Church teaching
As Nancy’s political song.
 
Abortion is wrong – she must know!
But with her record, it sure doesn’t show.
She’s Catholic, she said,
But her faith must be dead.
Nancy: you’ll reap what you sow.

 

Augustine died on 28 August 430.

Sometime before the early 8th century, Augustine’s remains were translated from N. Africa to Sardinia for fear of desecration. It is possible that St. Fulgentius of Ruspe took Augustine’s body to Sardinia. Fulgentius had run afoul of the Arian Vandal overlords in N. Africa and was driven out.

During the 8th century Augustine’s remains were in danger again, but this time by another gang of vandals called Arabs, who were swarming all over the Mediterranean as pirates and brigands.

Sometime between 710 and 730 King Liutprand of the Lombards translated Augustine a second time and, on some 11 October, had him interred in Pavia in the church of San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro.

It is thought that Liutprand had to pay a huge ransom the bones from some muslim thug. (Hard to believe, I know.)

Eventually, with the passage of time people simply forgot where the saints bones actually physically were in the church.

In the passage of the years, the church itself came to be controlled by two different Augustinian groups, the Canons Regular and the Hermits. Let’s just say their relations were strained and leave it at that. Then something happened that set off the war between them.

In 1695 a group of workman were excavating under the altar in the crypt of the church. They found a marble box containing human bones. The box apparently had some charcoal markings spelling the part of the word "Augustine", though those markings disappeared. Great chaos ensued.

The memory of just where the relics of Augustine were placed in the church had been lost through the passing of the years. Finding them again set off a rather unedifying battle for their control between the Augustinian Hermits and the Canons Regular.

Ultimately, Rome had to step in to resolve things. Pope Benedict XIII, a Dominican who changed his numbering from XIV to XIII so as to avoid counting an anti-pope, got involved personally. He was very interested in saints and canonized the huge number of 18!

This was also at the time when the future Pope Benedict XIV, Propsero Lambertini, published his fourth and final volume On the beatification of the servants of God and of the canonization of the blessed. Pope Lambertini would give us the legislation for the canonical processes of canonizations that has lasted with some few changes to today.

In any event, Benedict XIII sent a letter to the Bishop of Pavia telling him to get their act together and figure out the questions of authenticity and control. Additional studies were made under someone appointed by Benedict and by 19 September of 1729 things were wrapped up. Processions were held, solemn proclamations made about the authenticity of the relics, a great Te Deum was sung and there was a fireworks display, and anyone who decided to disagree and start the bickering again would be excommunicated.

Those were the days!

The next year under Pope Clement XII the Cardinal Secretary of State (and a patron of the Canons Regular) commissioned the carving of the large main altar with its reliefs, completed in 1738, and which you can see today in the church where Augustine’s tomb is even now.

His Excellency Most Rev.  William Murphy, Bishop of Rockville Centre, wrote in the Long Island Catholic about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) erroneous and scandalous remarks about the Church’s teaching on the beginning of human life made on Meet The Press.

You might recall Bishop Murphy’s excellent statement about Summorum Pontificum.

This week, the same mail brought me two letters. The first was from a parishioner asking me why my brother priests and I are not speaking out about those in public life who do not defend life but are instead “pro-choice” regarding abortion on demand. The second, critical of Church leadership on a number of issues, ended by wondering that the Church would try to “influence the election” by threatening to “excommunicate Catholics” who want to vote for Mr. Obama.

All too often — and once is too often — the Church is accused of being a “single issue” faith community concerning public issues. A glance at the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church as well as the U.S. bishops’ statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, puts that lie to rest. So let’s all agree that the Church and Church leadership are not guilty of being single issue.

What the Church does teach is the truth that the first and foremost issue is that of human life. It is the central issue of human living, and it is the most important measure of a healthy society. How we treat all human life, but especially vulnerable human life whether in the womb or at the last moments of earthly life, does determine whether or not we will have the moral vision to guide the choices we make in our families and communities, in our nation and the world.

We, United States bishops, address many issues, but we insist as the teachers of the Church that the priority task of every Catholic is to form one’s conscience correctly by attending to the teaching of the Church as an integral and necessary component in a well informed conscience. The Church teaches that “human life is sacred.” Following the clear teaching of Pope John Paul II, the U.S. bishops echoed his teaching saying that “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition of all others. Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed.”

The platform of the Democratic Party for this election year was adopted at the first day of the convention in Denver. Here is how it reads on this issue: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care [Does the Democrat Party consider abortion to be "health care"?] and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”

The day before, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on Meet the Press by Mr. Tom Brokaw on this issue. She responded as a Catholic defending the unequivocally pro-abortion position of her party. As a Catholic she said she had studied the issue and then suggested that the doctors of the Church have not been able to make the definition that life begins at conception and then suggesting that it is only in the past 50 years or so that the teaching of the Church has stated that human life begins at conception. She adds, “And Senator — St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”

Within 24 hours, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops through Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the USCCB Pro-Life Committee, with Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Doctrine Committee, issued a statement refuting Ms. Pelosi’s incorrect statements about Church teaching. They said “procured abortion” is a “grave … moral evil … the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.” Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver each added their own comments reinforcing the constant and unambiguous teaching of the Church on abortion, a teaching that is morally binding on the consciences of all Catholics. Such teaching has been constant in the Church because it corresponds to an undeniable and indisputable fact: the direct procuring of an abortion is the destruction of innocent human life. While the Church as early as the Didache of the first century has always maintained this, it is a truth that binds not just Catholics. It binds any and everyone whose conscience has been informed by right reason. Only if you can justify the direct killing of innocent human life — and how that can be done is beyond my ability to understand — can you even countenance the evil of the abortion of the innocent child in the womb.

My aim is not in any way to discredit anyone. Speaker Pelosi, however, objectively misstated the Catholic Church’s teaching and claimed as fact things that are not. I am sure she is a fine person and I know she is a woman of talent. The platform of the Democratic Party stands or falls on its own words, although it has eliminated the word “rare” as one of their goals about abortion and it continues to propagate the false idea that more contraception leads to fewer abortions. The fact is exactly the opposite, as Pope Paul VI correctly foresaw.

May I close by urging one and all to read the U.S. bishops’ statement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. In addition, I am happy to inform you that on Sunday, September 28, the diocese is sponsoring an afternoon on this document to be held from noon to 4 p.m. at St. John the Baptist Diocesan High School, West Islip. Bishop Lori will be the keynote speaker. It promises to be a stimulating and informative day for all who can participate.

WDTPRS kudos to Bishop Murphy.

I got a nice note via from a seminarian (edited):

Hi Father

Ive just started as a seminarian in , to begin training for the _.  In all the negativity that surrounds many seminaries nowadays, i thought id send you this little nugget. 

We newbies only arrived last week, and the place is brilliant, brilliant brilliant. 

This is shown by two examples.  First we had a lecture on liturgical practices, and the formation priest who was giving the lecture at one point said "Basically, when it comes to it, its simple, say the black, do the red!" 

Then, just now, i was in my first lesson of our introduction to theology classes, and about 5 minutes in, our teacher gets a pen, says "Now, this concept is key to what we are studying, and to how we will look at the Catechism" and writes in big letters across the board "HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY" and then proceeded to go in depth as to how important this term is when looking at the Council and at the Catechism.

My colleagues and I are extremely happy to be here!

Thanks for a kind reader, I learned of this story from CNA.  I present it to those of who who think that traveling a distance to Mass is sooo haaarrrrd:

Young African woman crawls 2.5 miles to attend Sunday Mass

Olivia (Photo courtesy of AVAN)

Valencia, Aug 28, 2008 / 01:42 am (CNA).- The Little Sisters of the Abandoned Elderly in Chissano (Mozambique) took into their home this week a 25 year-old African young girl named Olivia, who despite not being baptized at the time and not having any legs, crawled 2.5 miles every Sunday to attend Mass.

According to the AVAN news agency, the nuns said that one day, they saw “something moving on the ground far away,” and when they drew near they saw, “to our surprise, that it was a young woman.”

“We were able to talk to her through a lady who was walking by and who translated into Portuguese what she was saying to us” in her dialect, they said.

The sisters said that although “the sand from the road burned the palms of her hands during the hottest times of the year,” the young woman crawled to Mass, “giving witness of perseverance and heroic faith.”

The young woman received baptismal preparation from a catechist, who periodically visited her at home.  After she was recently baptized, one of the benefactors of the sisters donated a wheel chair for Olivia.

I received a question via e-mail:

Father,
Recently we have been trying to introduce the Tridentine Mass to my parish, and fortunately we now have a new priest who is open to tradition. We have yet to overcome several obstacles, including sending our priest to be properly trained, but I am confident our efforts will be realized. I have offered to serve Mass in the Tridentine form and I have ordered the necessary literature and training information. My problem is I have looked online and have had no success in finding instructions on what garb I am to wear. I assume a cassock and surplice, but I was wondering if you could inform me of any rules regarding dress and also a quality site to order from online. These questions may seem very obvious, but my parish is currently very uninformed about most aspects pertaining to the Tridentine form. On a separate note: I am an avid reader of your blog and I truly enjoy your posts.
Thank you for your time.

 

In a pinch, anything decent would serve, so to speak.  If necessity strikes, wear your "Sunday Best".

However, the traditional garb would be, as you surmise, cassock of some color, black might be best depending on what the priest wants for his servers, and white unadorned surplice of some style.

Here are some of my PODCAzTs during which I talk about St. Augustine

067 08-07-29 St. Augustine on Martha, active v. contemplative lives; don Camillo (part II)
047 07-10-25 Augustine on how to pray; how to treat newcomers at the older Mass
045 07-09-28 Augustine on pastors; my Motu Proprio sermon in England; chapel veils
042 07-08-10 St. Augustine on St. Lawrence and how to be a Christian
039 07-07-27 St. Augustine on Christ the Mediator; “for all” or “for many”?
036 07-06-24 St. Augustine on John the Baptist; Ut queant laxis
033 07-06-03 Augustine on loving “too late”; the Trinity; leaving Roma
030 07-05-19 Augustine on Peter & John; singing a Tridentine Requiem; St. Peter Celestine V
028 07-05-17 Augustine on the Ascension; Card. Castrillion on the Motu Proprio
026 07-05-12 Augustine on the Alleluia; Catholic pro-abortion politicians & Communion
018 07-04-15 Augustine to the newly baptized
015 07-04-04 Augustine – Christ is Vine and Life
014 07-04-02 St. Augustine on the Lord’s Passion
011 07-03-27 Augustine – Christ’s voice in our voices, ours in His
007 07-03-18 St. Augustine on John 8
006 07-03-12 St. Augustine on the woman at the well 
004 07-03-06 Augustine’s en. ps. 140

Just a reminder:

054 08-04-29 Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion; St. Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius

026 07-05-12 Augustine on the Alleluia; Catholic pro-abortion politicians & Communion

 

I have some precious relics in the chapel of the Sabine Farm. 

This excellent piece is from George Weigel in Newsweek:

The Democrats and the Abortion Wars

Are Obama and Pelosi dodging the life-and-death question?

George Weigel
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 8:38 PM ET Aug 25, 2008

A few years ago, Richard Doerflinger, a pro-life Roman Catholic intellectual with decades of experience in the trenches of America’s culture wars, was invited to debate the moral and legal status of the human embryo before a large class of Harvard undergraduates. During the course of the discussion, Doerflinger’s Harvard faculty interlocutor drew a timeline of human biological development on the blackboard: conception, implantation, brain waves, viability, birth and so forth. His challenge to Doerflinger was to defend, in a nonarbitrary way and without reference to religious principles, the notion that society should recognize moral value and legal rights at any particular point along that line. If here, why here? If there, why there?

After the class, as the conversation continued with a few students and the professor, Doerflinger took a piece of chalk and extended the timeline to the end of the blackboard, where he wrote "Tenure." The students laughed, and got the message. The only point along that continuum that wouldn’t be arbitrary was the starting point—conception.  [Excellent.]

Perhaps Doerflinger should send his extended timeline to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.  [What about it would they understand?]

Throughout this lengthy campaign, the Democratic Party has worked hard to present itself as the party of intellect, competence and moral seriousness. Yet it’s off to a very rocky start in addressing the substance of the abortion issue—which remains, 35 years after Roe v. Wade, one of the most volatile in our public life. Talk this week by Democratic leaders about lowering the incidence of abortion in America will rightly be welcomed by pro-life Democrats, including the large number of pro-life African-American Democrats. But the recent public record has to make committed pro-lifers of both parties wonder just how serious the Democratic leadership is about engaging the abortion debate.

At the Aug. 16 "Civil Forum on the Presidency" at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., Sen. Barack Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama quickly changed the subject to when life begins, and then demurred: "... whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade." Why, though? An embryology text widely used in American medical schools, "The Developing Human," is not so reticent about the science involved: "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatazoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell—a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." [Good!] That is the science. It’s quite specific, and understanding the science here is surely not above the "pay grade" of a president who will be making public-policy decisions based on that science.

As for theology, there are, obviously, theological disagreements on the moral question of abortion. But while a president is not a theological referee, a president ought to have some grasp of the basic philosophical issues that have been vigorously debated in the abortion wars over the past several decades; these, after all, are the issues that should inform public policy. For decades now, pro-life advocates have been arguing, on the basis of reason informed by science, that nothing human was ever anything other than human, and that nothing not human will ever become human. These are things we can know prior to our theological convictions (or lack thereof). Does Senator Obama disagree with these claims?  [Good question!]

There are also serious questions of political theory and governance at stake in the abortion wars. Pro-lifers have long argued that allowing the government to declare an entire class of human creatures—the unborn—outside the protection of the law is a danger for everyone (wherever they may be located on the Doerflinger timeline). Does Senator Obama agree that the abortion debate involves that first principle of justice which teaches that innocent life is inviolable and that the equal protection of the laws must extend to everyone, regardless of condition? Justice Byron White—President John F. Kennedy’s sole appointment to the Supreme Court—described Roe v. Wade as an exercise in "raw judicial power." Does Senator Obama agree with Justice White that the Supreme Court overreached its authority in Roe v. Wade?

At Saddleback, Senator Obama expressed his "respect" for the views of consistent pro-lifers because their conviction that "life begins at conception … is a core issue of faith" for those voters. This, however, is another dodge. [Indeed it is.] Yes, for some pro-lifers, obedience to religious authority is the source of their conviction. Yet to suggest, as Obama did, that the pro-life position rests on private (and thus inherently undebatable) religious intuitions is to have missed virtually the entirety of the substantive pro-life argument since 1973. [And there is that ugly issue again: religion is pushed into the realm of the "private".  This is what we must resist.] Pro-lifers of both parties—some of them agnostic and atheists—have made genuinely public arguments, based on scientific knowledge, reason and democratic political theory. Judging from the evidence to date, the Democratic candidate for president has yet to engage those arguments seriously.

Then there are the multiple confusions of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. [Who raised "giving scandal" to a new level.] In her "Meet the Press" appearance Aug. 24, Pelosi was asked by Tom Brokaw whether she agreed with Senator Obama’s statements on abortion at Saddleback. Pelosi, declaring herself an "ardent, practicing Catholic," told Brokaw that "this is an issue that I have studied for a long time"—and then got herself into a deep muddle, in which she seemed to confuse St. Augustine with St. Thomas Aquinas (neither of whom, in any case, knew anything about modern embryology); misrepresented the settled (and scientifically informed) judgment of the Catholic Church on when life begins by declaring it an open question, and concluded by suggesting that none of this really makes a difference, because what the scientists, theologians, and philosophers say "... shouldn’t have an impact on a the woman’s right to choose." The Speaker then misrepresented the legal impact of Roe v. Wade, arguing that the Supreme Court hadn’t created a right to "abortion on demand"—which will come as news to those on both sides of the ongoing debates over partial-birth abortion and other late-term abortion procedures, parental- and spousal-notifications laws and regulatory oversight of abortion clinics.

Democrats who had hoped to persuade a good number of evangelicals and Catholics to return to their traditional 20th-century political home in November 2008 cannot be very encouraged by such intellectual disarray on the part of their party’s senior federal official. For more than three decades, the abortion license created by the high court in Roe v. Wade has been an important factor in determining American voting behavior—in more than a few instances, the decisive factor. Yet, judging by her performance on "Meet The Press" (which seemed to surprise the usually unflappable Tom Brokaw), the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives is as ill-informed on the scientific and legal facts involved in the abortion debate as she is of the teaching of the Catholic Church. [Well said!]  Speaker Pelosi is, like most "ardent, practicing" Catholics, a great admirer of the late Pope John Paul II. Was John Paul wrong, one wants to ask Speaker Pelosi, when he wrote in the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae [The Gospel of Life] that "abortion … always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being"? Was he wrong when he further stated that this moral truth could be known by reason, and was thus a matter of grave concern to public policy?  [I think we can guess her answer.]

However far they may be below the pay grade of a pope, pro-life advocates deserve the respect of having their arguments taken seriously. Given the opportunity to do just that at Saddleback, Barack Obama opted for rhetorical finesse over substantive engagement; [Pay attention:] that choice may have done fatal damage to his capacity to peel evangelical and Catholic swing voters away from the now-tattered Republican coalition. Given a nationally televised opportunity to repair some of that damage, Nancy Pelosi, seemingly bereft of coherent ideas, could only fall back on the mantra of "choice." Appeals to Joe Biden’s being a Catholic kid from hardscrabble Scranton, Pa., will not likely persuade many committed pro-life voters that the water is once again safe in the Democratic Party; Biden’s NARAL ratings may not be as glowing as Obama’s, but no serious pro-lifer thinks of the senator from Delaware as a pro-life legislator.

The talking points developed for Democratic leaders appearing on the pre-convention talk shows stressed the economy, housing, jobs, and other "middle-class" issues. This suggests that Democratic strategists are discounting the life issues as major factors in 2008. Those strategists have been surprised before; they may be surprised again. In any case, the country deserves something more serious than what it has been given by the Democratic leadership on what has been, and remains, one of the defining issues of our time.

Well written!

A reader alerted my to this wonderful news from Denver:
   

Tridentine [oops] Masses at the cathedral to commemorate anniversaries

By Roxanne King

Two anniversaries related to the Tridentine Mass, the Latin-language liturgy that was used before Vatican II, will be observed with special liturgies at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception on Sept. 14 and Nov. 9.

Everyone is invited to the Masses, which are to be said in Latin. [I like that.  We need to use "say" Mass and "read" Mass and "hear" Mass more often.]

Last year, Pope Benedict XVI released the apostolic letter “Summorum Pontificum,” which expanded use of the Tridentine liturgy. The first anniversary of that directive will be Sept. 14, the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. The anniversary will be observed at 3 p.m. that day with a solemn high Mass said by Father James Jackson, a cleric of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

...

“The second Mass is in thanksgiving to Archbishop (Charles) Chaput, the chancery, and the faithful of the Archdiocese of Denver,” said Father Jackson, expressing gratitude for the archdiocese’s hospitality to the Tridentine Mass community.  [Thank heavens!  The people get it.  TLM communities out there need to express gratitude and support with prayers to priests and bishops!  Instead of being the group about whom the bishop winces when he hears about it, become the group he looks forward to visting or reading about.]

That Mass, set for 2:15 p.m. Nov. 9, will be a solemn high pontifical Mass, which can only be said by a bishop. Denver Auxiliary Bishop James Conley will be the main celebrant of the Mass, assisted by clergy of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

...

The priest stressed that the two Tridentine Masses are being celebrated at the cathedral to honor the two anniversaries and to accommodate more people than his parish church can hold, and in no way point to the addition of the Tridentine liturgy to the cathedral’s standard Mass schedule.

“We do not envision any regular celebration of the extraordinary form at the cathedral,” Father Jackson said. “But we would hope that perhaps on the 10th anniversary [nine years from now?] to come back and do it again.”  [Well… that’s not very ambitious.]

Anniversary Tridentine Masses

When: 3 p.m. Sept. 14 and 2:15 p.m. Nov. 9
Where: Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Colfax Avenue and Logan Street
Information: call 303-703-8538 or visit www.olmcfssp.org online

The MSM is finally noticing that Speaker Nancy Pelosi fell into a theological outhouse where she has, so far, remained now for days.

Here is an AP story with my emphases and comments.

Pelosi gets unwanted lesson in Catholic theology

By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer Thu Aug 28, 3:12 AM ET

Politics can be treacherous. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked on even riskier ground in a recent TV interview when she attempted a theological defense of her support for abortion rights.

Roman Catholic bishops consider her arguments on St. Augustine and free will so far out of line with church teaching that they have issued a steady stream of statements to correct her.

The latest came Wednesday from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik, who said Pelosi, D-Calif., "stepped out of her political role and completely misrepresented the teaching of the Catholic Church in regard to abortion."

It has been a harsh week of rebuke for the Democratic congresswoman, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

Cardinals and archbishops in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York and Denver are among those who have criticized her remarks. Archbishop George Niederauer, in Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco, will take up the issue in the Sept. 5 edition of the archdiocesan newspaper, his spokesman said.

Sunday, on NBC’s "Meet the Press" program, Pelosi said "doctors of the church" have not been able to define when life begins.

She also cited the role of individual conscience. "God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions," she said.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said in a statement defending her remarks that she "fully appreciates the sanctity of family" and based her views on conception on the "views of Saint Augustine, who said, ‘The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.‘"

But whether or not parishioners choose to accept it, the theology on the procedure is clear. From its earliest days, Christianity has considered abortion evil.

"This teaching has remained unchanged and remains unchangeable," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

The Rev. Douglas Milewski, a Seton Hall University theologian who specializes in Augustine, said Pelosi seems to be confusing church teaching on abortion with the theological debate over when a fetus receives a soul.

"Saint Augustine wondered about the stages of human development before birth, how this related to the question of ensoulment and what it meant for life in the Kingdom of God," Milewski said.

Questions about ensoulment related to determining penalties under church law for early and later abortions, not deciding whether the procedure is permissible, according to the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

Augustine was "quite clear on the immorality of abortion as evil violence, destructive of the very fabric of human bonds and society," Milewski said.

Regarding individual decision-making, the church teaches that Catholics are obliged to use their conscience in considering moral issues. However, that doesn’t mean parishioners can pick and choose what to believe and still be in line with the church.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a theologian at Boston College, said conscience must be formed by Catholic teaching and philosophical insights. "It’s not just a personal opinion that you came up with randomly," she said.

Catholic theologians today overwhelmingly consider debate over the morality of abortion settled. Thinkers and activists who attempt to challenge the theology are often considered on the fringes of church life.

However, there is a rigorous debate over how the teaching should guide voters and public officials. Are Catholics required to choose the candidate who opposes abortion? Or can they back a politician based on his or her policies on reducing, not outlawing, the procedure?

The U.S. bishops addressed this question in their election-year public policy guide, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."

They said that voting for a candidate specifically because he or she supports "an intrinsic evil" such as abortion amounts to "formal cooperation in grave evil."

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for "truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences," according to the document.

It is a complex discussion. The Rev. Thomas Reese, [Why do people still contact this guy?!?] senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, has some advice for candidates who seek to join the debate: Stick to politics — and support programs that truly help reduce the number of abortions.

"It is a big mistake," Reese said, "for politicians to talk theology." [What if they get it right?  ]

I got this from a reader: