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

One the most damaging "reforms" implemented after the Council, founded on the excuse of poor scholarship, false archeologizing, and the "spirit of the Council", is the so-called turned around altar for Mass "facing the people", versus populum.

This certainly was the opinion of the great liturgical scholar Klaus Gamber.  Prominent scholar/figures of the Liturgical Movement Louis Bouyer and Josef Jungmann turned their own ideas about on this issue, as a matter of fact.   That’s something that did get out in the press at the time.

Pope Benedict has been putting into action his plan to reinvigorate the identity of Holy Church, especially through a renewal of the liturgy under a hermeneutic of reform and continuity.  Part of this "Marshall Plan" as I term it, has included the momumental step of Summorum Pontificum, as well as the concrete gestures of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue only to people who are kneeling.

He has also placed the Cross at the center of the altar for celebrations of Holy Mass.  He is surely doing this in order to promote a deeper understanding of the true orientation of our focus during Mass and, consequently, an actual restoration of Mass ad orientem. 

Many priests are implement what the Holy Father has been working for, and they are collaborating.

Thus, am always pleased when I receive news that yet another parish is being restored to ad orientem worship, priest and people facing the Lord, the Cross, on the same side of the altar of Sacrifice, together in unity.

Fr. Rob Johansen has informed me that at his parish of St. Stanislaus he implemented a project of restoring the main altar of the church.

He is going to be introducing celebrations of Holy Mass ad orientem soon.

Here is what he wrote on his site Thrown Back.

The altars have been completed, and they will be officially "unveiled" this weekend.

As part of putting our newly restored altars in their rightfully prominent place, I will celebrate the Masses this weekend and the following weekend (The Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross) Ad Orientem. I have spent some time explaining and catechizing my parish about the use of ad orientem in the past few weeks. The re-introduction of this posture is something of a landmark here, as I’m pretty sure the high altar hasn’t been used for a public celebration of Mass in 30 years or more.

I’ll have photos up of the finished altars, as well as of our historic Ad Orientem liturgies, posted next week!

A question came by e-mail:

Dear Fr Z,
 
I am hoping you can help me with a question about vestments.  Is it permissible for priests praying the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to wear "novus ordo" vestments, i.e., Gothic style WITHOUT ORPHREYS?  Is this spelled out anywhere?
 
Our pastor has given permission for First Saturday EFM, to be said by retired priests we can line up, not himself.  I am on the committee to prepare for it and to gather what the parish does not presently have available.  We have some not-outrageous gothic novus ordo chasubles & stoles.  If they do NOT need to have an orphrey, we could obtain just the maniple, burse, and chalice veil.

First, I don’t think there is any such thing as a "Novus Ordo" vestment.  No special style of vestments is designated for the Novus Ordo.   I think they ought to be in good taste and, to my mind, in continuity with tradition.



These are not.

Be sure the the vestments are of good material, tasteful, in good repair.

I did check Trimeloni and, on p. 255, found the comment (#269) that the chasuble should be what the Italians call a pianeta "in forma romana"... that is to say, the Roman chasuble.  This form is sometimes called a "fiddleback", though it isn’t.  The Roman-form has specific proportions and a specific pattern of "orphreys".

And Trimeloni also says that the Roman pianeta shouldn’t have the "forma primitiva", by which I think is mean the "Gothic style".  It permits the more ample style of the pianeta we sometimes call this the taglio filipino:



Of course outside Rome and Italy fuller "Gothic" vestments were in use everywhere.

The vestment Trimeloni doesn’t like at all is the actual "fiddleback".

I am just digressing:

In a pinch, you can use any decent style of vestment, though the Roman Rite really prefers the Roman vestment.

In The Catholic Sentinel His Excellency Most Reverend Robert Vasa, Bishop of Baker, Oregon, has interesting comments in the wake of the erroneous remarks of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Meet The Press about the beginning of human life and the Church’s teachings on abortion.

You will recall that Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) asserted that the Catholic Church is somehow uncertain about when human life begins, citing, incredibly, St. Augustine’s 5th century understanding.
 

Modern look at abortion not same as St. Augustine’s

By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — It is not possible this week to write about things related to the Catholic Church without making special note of the comments of a high-ranking U.S. official regarding abortion. This official, drawing from the rich tradition of the teachings of Saint Augustine, implied that he would have permitted abortion up to three months after conception. [You will want to go here to review what Augustine’s actual thought on abortion was.] As has been well reported by others, Saint Augustine was working from the defective science of his day and he was trying to reconcile what he understood from science with the philosophical views of his day.  [And also was interpreting a LXX passage of Exodus.] It should be noted that Saint Augustine died in 430 AD.

In order to give a fair treatment of Augustine’s view I turn to an entry by John C. Bauerschmidt, Abortion, in Augustine Through The Ages: An Encyclopedia. He writes:  [Hmmm… looks familiar…. yes, I believe I posted that!  Excellent choice, Eccellenza!  See the link I provide above.]

“Abortion: Augustine, in common with most other ecclesiastical writers of his period, vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion. Procreation was one of the goods of marriage; abortion figured as a means, along with drugs which cause sterility, of frustrating this good. It lay along a continuum which included infanticide as an instance of ‘lustful cruelty’ or ‘cruel lust.’ Augustine called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child an ‘evil work:’ a reference to either abortion or contraception or both.”

According to a spokesperson, [See, again, this page.] the public official’s “views on when life begins were informed by 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.’” (Saint Augustine, On Exodus 21.22) Clearly Augustine believed, according to the science of his day, that the “body” of a pre-born child “lacked sensation” and from this he concluded that the child likewise lacked a human soul. Since the creature in the womb of its mother seemed to lack both sensation and soul, at least until the 40th day after conception, he had questions about the full humanity of the child. If Augustine had access to ultrasound images or if he had seen the film, “Silent Scream,” he would have had no doubt about whether the child “lacked sensation.”  [Well said.]

Precisely because of the lack of scientific precision, Augustine distinguished between a vivified and unvivified fetus, (a fetus before or after ensoulment). Since he could not conceive of an ensouled person without sensation, he concluded that the abortion of a “pre-vivifed” fetus, while a grave evil, could not be considered, in the strict moral sense, a murder. [But that is not the end of the story of Augustine’s thought, as that abovemention and cited article on abortion explains.]

I certainly commend the public official for going to Saint Augustine, a great theologian and philosopher, for views on morality but Augustine’s views need to be read and adopted in context. It is highly disingenuous, deceptive and intellectually dishonest to take this ecclesial sound bite from 1,500 years ago and treat it as if it is the last definitive word on the subject. [Note the reference to a 1500 year old sound bite.] This is particularly true since Augustine himself “vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion” despite the unavailability of accurate scientific information. Furthermore, according to Bauerschmidt, Augustine also called the use of means to avoid the birth of a child “evil work.” It would appear that the public official conveniently missed that part and thus does not allow Saint Augustine to form any part of her understanding of the evil of either abortion or contraception while boasting that this is precisely what she has done.

The spokesperson also attempted to further blur the concerns about the public official’s stand on abortion by indicating that the public official “has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace.” I, too, could commend the pubic official for “working with the Catholic Church” on these issues but if the views on these issues are formed by the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are quite current, why does the public official seemingly work so hard to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church, as they are currently stated, regarding abortion and contraception? [A good question.  Also, I don’t think there is a true moral equivalence between the sanctity of human life, that is the right to be born, and, say, working to feed and clothe the homeless.  The one is more important and fundamental than the other.]

If I were to think a bit more critically I would be inclined to conclude that the public official accepts the views of the Church which agree with her view and rejects those views which do not. [Given that this has been going on for years, I think we have to conclude the same, until other evidence presents itself.  I don’t think that would be rash judgment.] In other words, she is not formed by either Augustine or the Catholic Church on any of these social or moral issues, but simply happens to agree on some points. This then would have nothing to do with any true conviction about the goodness, beauty or truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rather pure political expediency.  [Is this one of the strongest statements we have seen from a bishop to date?]

The spokesperson’s statement also implies that, as has often been posited by politicians of one stripe or another, because they hold and support properly Catholic views on the social issues of race, poverty, justice and peace that they should not be held accountable for their rejection of the Catholic teachings on the more direct life issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research. This is an inappropriate and unjust application of the U.S. Bishops statements concerning a “consistent ethic of life.” This consistent ethic is sometimes interpreted to mean that life issues as divergent as capital punishment and abortion, or assisted suicide and the loss of life in the war in Iraq, are equivalent. [Right!  There is no moral equivalence.] Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly in each of these instances, regrettably, a human life is at stake but the difference is that only in the case of abortion or assisted suicide do we deal with the direct and intentional taking of the life of a completely innocent person.

A person may work very admirably to alleviate poverty but this does not justify ignoring the greatest poverty which is the one which fails to recognize the value of life. A person may work very admirably to promote social justice but this does not justify turning a blind eye to the greatest injustice openly operative in our society which is the unjust deprivation of the pre-born of their most basic constitutional right, the right to life.

Here is an interesting opinion piece from The Times.

This is a fascinating bit of writing with provocative insights.  Not the usual blather I have been scanning.

My emphases and comments.

September 5, 2008

Sarah Palin: it’s go west, towards the future of conservatism

Her thrilling convention speech showed that the Governor of Alaska is a force to reckoned with. But she might be more than that

Now we know, thanks to her triumphant debut at the Republican convention on Wednesday, that Mrs Palin not only slaughters her prey. She impales its head on a stick and parades it around for her followers to jeer at. For half an hour she eviscerated Mr Obama in that hall and did it all without dropping her sweet schoolmarm smile, as if she were handing out chocolates at the end of a history lesson.  [Nicely done.  He moves from images of Lord of the Flies to Little House On The Prairie.]

There’s a powerful danger in the sheer thrill that has followed her astonishing performance that we could get carried away with John McCain’s running-mate. Some of the coverage has a hyperbolic tone to it. Not since Paris handed that apple to Aphrodite has a man’s selection of a woman had such implications for the future of our civilisation.  [The seemingly endless Trojan War stared with that little gesture.  But what we must remember is that both sides were hosed by the gods in that tale.  It made no difference to whom he would have given the golden apple: either way someone was going to exact vengeance.]

So let’s stipulate one obvious and important piece of wisdom about US elections. The choice of a vice-presidential candidate rarely makes much of a difference. The pundit class waxes historical in the excitement of the moment but usually the vice-presidential choices go back to playing second banana. However mawkishly we dwell on the mortality of the presidential contenders, it is they who determine the voters’ decision.

This one, to be fair, could be different. For at least the next few weeks the press will follow Mrs Palin’s present and dig deeper into her past, still hoping for some morsel of stupidity or evidence of cupidity to doom her. But in the end, barring such a discovery, this is still an Obama-McCain contest.

But let me try to explain why Mrs Palin, whatever impact she might have in November, may be a figure of real consequence in our lives.

It’s partly about what she represents and partly about what she has already done, but mostly about where she and her ilk [Not flattering.] might take the Republicans – and possibly America.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls again and again into the old trap of underestimating politicians whom they don’t understand. From Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to George Bush and Mrs Palin, they do it every time. [Puts her in amazing company, including two of the greatest figures of the 20th century.] Because these characters talk a bit funny and have ridiculously antiquated views about faith, family and nation, because they haven’t spent time bending the knee to the intellectual metropolitan elites, they can’t be taken seriously.  [Launched like a jovian bolt from on high.  You can hear the writer’s attitude swell with his own depth of insight even as he glances down from the clouds.]

So the general expectation was that Mrs Palin would stumble on to the stage in high heels, clutching her sprawling, slightly odd family (five children! how weird), mispronounce the name of the Russian Prime Minister, mutter a few platitudes about God, and disappear for ever to a deafening chorus of sniggers.  [A well-written description of the attitude of the lefty East coast elite.]

No one paid much attention to the fact that she had been elected governor of a state. Or that she got to that office not because, unlike some politicians I could mention, her husband had been there before her, [meaning Mrs. Clinton, of course] or because she bleated continuously about glass ceilings, [well said] but by challenging the entrenched interests in her own party and beating them. In almost two years as Governor she has cleaned out the Augean stables of Alaskan Government. You don’t win a statewide election and enjoy approval ratings of more than 80 per cent without real political talent. [Indeed.  This is obvious.  So why aren’t more people on the left and in the media getting this point?]

Never mind all that. She didn’t have a passport! [How un-cosmopolitan!] She was a former beauty queen!  [She must be vapid!] It was so axiomatic that she was a disaster that I was told by lots of savvy men – with deliciously unconscious sexism – that the real problem was what the choice said about Mr McCain and his judgment: cynical, irresponsible, clueless. It was as if Mrs Palin wasn’t really a human being at all, but an article of Mr McCain’s clothing that showed his poor taste, like wearing brown shoes with a charcoal suit.  [This guy can write!]

So here’s why she matters.  [Let’s get down to business.]

First of all she offers an opportunity for an ailing Republican party to reconnect with ordinary Americans. She’s conservative, but her conservatism is not that of the intolerant, uncomprehending white male sort that has so hurt the party in recent years. She is much closer to a model of the lives of ordinary Americans – working mother, plainspoken everywoman juggling home and office – than any Republican leader in memory.  [I think he is spot on.]

The contrast with Mr Obama is especially powerful. The very fact that Mrs Palin didn’t go to elite schools but succeeded nonetheless – the very ordinariness with which she so piquantly jabbed Mr Obama on Wednesday – is what will make her so appealing to Americans. And as a pro-life conservative she debunks in one swoop the enduring myth that all women subscribe to the obligatory nostrums of radical feminism.  [Yes.]

But there’s more to it than that.

The Republicans have decided that they are not going to make the mistake Hillary Clinton made and run against the effervescent Mr Obama on the premise of experience.  [Right!  The experience argument didn’t work for past incumbents Ford, Carter, Bush 41.]

Experience hasn’t got Americans into a very comfortable place. They want change. Before he signed up to some of the less attractive Republican attitudes this year, Mr McCain’s career had embodied that change – the anti-establishment candidate running against his own party. Now he is joined by a woman who, in her short career, has done the same thing. [He seems to be siding with the sort of change that McCain, rather than Obama or the morphed McCain, represents.]

Democrats think that Mr McCain, with the social conservative Mrs Palin, will launch an old-fashioned culture war at them, [I think that is probably the case.  The culture war just became hotter again.] using her appealing manner to drive a populist assault on the familiar Republican issues of God, guns and gays. [That is a reduction of the real issues of the unavoidable, and now necessary, culture war, to a punchline.]

Perhaps this Manichean interpretation [In other words, dichotomous conflict of an force of good and a force of evil.  But to whom is he referring?  The two sides of the culture war?  The Dems v the GOP?  Are those effectively the same sides?] will prove true. But I suspect that it misses the real appeal of the Republican team. The opportunity for McCain-Palin is not reaction, but reform – a reform rooted in a distant conservatism that could be due for a comeback [Refer back to the old McCain who has now made a comeback versus the weaker, less-effective updated McCain who lost his appeal by caving in… as the writer points out above.]

Hailing from Arizona and Alaska, the Republican ticket has a chance to rekindle a western conservatism different from the old Yankee paternalist sort or the Bible Belt version. [Interesting: He seems to have a sort of respect for Western version, and disdain for the East and the South.  But didn’t he also use words above like "ilk" and "danger"?] They like their guns out there (some still kill their own food) and they are pro-life and deeply pro-America, of course. [And those are bad things?] But at a time of grave challenges, the themes of economic freedom and opportunity, the resistance to the idea that government holds all the answers, could resonate with voters. [Again, I get the sense that the writer is trying to remain on his olympian perch while regarding those little people below who have so short-sightedly divided into various deeply flawed camps.  But has he taken a side?  I think so.  He just doesn’t want us to see that he walks the earth with us.]

This is an election, as the Democrats have realised all along, about an America on the cusp of change. With the moose-hunting, establishment-taunting Mrs Palin at his side, Mr McCain might represent a bigger change than the one that his opponents are offering. [What is his message: "And a bigger danger?"]

I know Alaska is very much in the public eye right now, but here is a different angle.

I received a notice by e-mail about photos from Summorum Pontificum Alaska:

With special thanks to Archbishop Roger L. Schwietz, OMI, the Dominican Friars of Holy Family Cathedral and Fr. Armand Nigro, S.J. who offered the Requiem Mass for Anita Kimberley Syren, r.i.p. August 7, 2008.

Entrance.

Fr. Vincent Kelber, O.P., chants the epistle.

Dies Irae.

Sermon, Fr. Armand Nigro, S.J.

Offertory

UPDATE 15:49 GMT 5 Sept:

American Papist has a fascinating observation:

AmP reader Desiderius asks:

"Note the Abp’s message was printed simultaneously in The Tidings (Los Angeles), obviously [well, reasonably – AmP] a coordinated effort. Might one conclude this suffices as Cardinal Mahony’s response to Nancy Pelosi?"

This has been a public service announcement.

And now back to our regular post:
___________________

From His Excellency Most Reverend George H. Niederauer, Archbishop of San Francisco, the ordinary of the place where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has domicile.

My emphases and comments.

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer addresses recent comments made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

By Most Rev. George H. Niederauer

September 5, 2008

Following is a statement by San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer in response to recent comments on abortion, Catholic teaching on the beginning of life, and other life issues made by U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This statement by Archbishop Niederauer was published in the Sept. 5, 2008 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Last month, in two televised interviews and a subsequent statement released through her office, Nancy Pelosi, [He names her. Not all bishops did.] Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a Catholic residing in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, [and Washington DC] made remarks that are in serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church about abortion. [solid] It is my responsibility as Archbishop of San Francisco to teach clearly what Christ in his Church teaches about faith and morals, and to oppose erroneous, misleading and confusing positions when they are advanced.  [Good for him!]

In his statement about Speaker Pelosi’s remarks, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., [the other bishop involved] expressed the response of many bishops when he said, "We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops." In addition to Archbishop Wuerl, several other bishops have already appropriately and helpfully pointed out the errors in the Speaker’s remarks. Nevertheless, it is my particular duty to address them as well. Let me acknowledge even as I do so that Speaker Pelosi is a gifted, dedicated and accomplished public servant, and that she has stated often her love for her faith and for the Catholic Church. The Speaker has been supportive of legislation that helped to implement some [some] of the social teachings of the Church. However, her recent remarks are opposed to Church teaching.

[Here comes the necessary boilerplate.  Still, repetita iuvant.] In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law." ( 2270 – 71 ) The Catechism then quotes the Didache ( also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles ) , the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." In 2004 the bishops of the United States, in their statement, "Catholics in Political Life," said: "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will."

On the television program "Meet the Press," [therefore, scandal on a grand scale] on Sunday, August 24, 2008, Speaker Pelosi spoke of herself and the bishops of her Church in these words: "So there’s some areas where we’re in agreement and some areas where we’re not, and one being a woman’s right to choose, and the other being stem cell research." In April of this year, in a teleconference with Catholic News Service and other media she made a similar remark: "I have a sort of serenity about the issue. I come from a family who doesn’t share my position on pro – choice. The Church sees it another way, and I respect that."

The bishops at the Second Vatican Council declared that, as Catholics, we believe what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals, for to hear the voice of the Church on those matters is to hear the voice of Christ himself. ( Lumen Gentium, No. 25; Mysterium Ecclesiae, No. 2 ) [Let’s mention GS 51] Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects it from error. We believe that the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, is the successor of Peter, the Rock on whom Jesus Christ has built his Church, and is not just another man who is entitled to his opinions on faith. We believe that we are called to trust the Spirit to guide the Church, so we do not pick and choose among her teachings. Mr. Tom Brokaw, the moderator of "Meet the Press," asked Speaker Pelosi, "When does life begin?" She responded: "We don’t know. The point is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose." Later: "I don’t think anyone can tell you when life begins, when human life begins." Mr. Brokaw: "The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it begins at the point of conception." Speaker Pelosi: "I understand. And this is maybe fifty years or something like that."

Speaker Pelosi’s remarks called forth many responses, from Catholics in the pews as well as from bishops. [Not just from the pews, Your Excellency.] As a result, on Tuesday, August 26th, two days after "Meet the Press" had aired, the Speaker’s office issued a statement on her behalf. It contained this sentence: "While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe[sic] to that view." That statement suggests that morality can be decided by poll, by numbers. If ninety percent of Catholics subscribe to the view that human life begins at conception, does that makes Church teaching truer than if only seventy percent or fifty percent agree?

Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling. [Well said.] For instance, in 1861, as the Civil War began, a majority of the residents of Massachusetts opposed slavery, a majority of the residents of South Carolina approved of slavery, and in Missouri people were sharply divided on the issue. Does that mean that, in 1861, slavery was immoral in Massachusetts, moral in South Carolina, and something of a moral "wash" in Missouri? Sound moral teaching demands much more good sense than that.  [Good!  Good arguement.  This could be useful in light of the same-sex marriage controversy as well.]

Since August 24th many Catholics have written me letters and sent me e – mails in which they expressed their dismay and concern about the Speaker’s remarks. Very often they moved on to a question that caused much discussion during the 2004 campaign: Is it necessary to deny Holy Communion to some Catholics in public life because of their public support for abortion on demand? [Yes.  This is the unavoidable question.]  I want to address that question in the light of the 2004 statement of the U.S. bishops, [Uh oh…]  "Catholics in Political Life," and their 2006 statement on preparing to receive Christ worthily in the Eucharist, "Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper." Both statements can be found on the bishops’ website, usccb.org, and they lead the reader to conclude that this is a sensitive and complicated question, [even, perhaps, "nuanced"?] and does not lend itself to sound bites, headlines or slogans.

In their 2006 document, "Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper," the bishops begin by reminding Catholics that "the celebration of the Mass is the center of the life of the Church." The Eucharist joins each of us to the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, unites us with the Risen Christ, and unites us with one another in Christ. Each reception of Holy Communion looks forward to our union with Christ forever in heaven. [okay…]

The very first generation of Christians saw the need to examine one’s conscience regarding one’s worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. Writing around 57 A.D., St. Paul told the Corinthians, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup." ( 1Cor. 11;27 – 28 ) Of course we are never fully worthy to eat the bread and drink the cup, as we exclaim at each Mass before we receive Holy Communion: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." However, the unity nourished and expressed in Holy Communion can be broken by serious sin, hence our self – examination enables us to acknowledge whether we have committed such a sin, and to seek out the Sacrament of Reconciliation before eating the bread and drinking the cup.  [okay….]

The practice of the Church is to accept this conscientious self – appraisal of each person ["conscientious self"?] ( Canon 912 ). Thus, in this matter the state of the person’s awareness of his or her situation is of fundamental importance. [But… in the situation of very public figures, at the focus point of this controversy, we know that adequate instruction has been applied…. right? ] As the bishops say most forcefully in the 2006 document, " we should be cautious when making judgments about whether or not someone else should receive Holy Communion."

Nevertheless, the bishops go on to say: "If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain." Why is this repudiation of Church teaching such a serious matter? The bishops respond: "To give selective assent to the teachings of the Church deprives us of her life – giving message, but also seriously endangers our communion with her."

This teaching of the bishops does not violate the separation of church and state. [Good.] That separation does not require a division between faith and public action, between moral principles and political choices. Believers and religious groups may practice their faith and act on their values in public life, and have done so throughout the history of this country. In his or her conscience, properly formed, a Catholic should recognize that making legal an evil action, such as abortion, is itself wrong.  [Ergo…. ?]

What of Catholics who find themselves questioning the teachings of the Church, or experiencing uncertainties and questions about them?  [Your Excellency.. what of those who know them and explicitly deny them on world-wide television?] The bishops answer, "Some Catholics may not fully understand the Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings on certain issues.  [Who "fully understands" mysterious things?  What we can understand fully enough are the clear teachings of the Church, repeated in many ways in many ages, especially the present.]They may have certain questions and even uncertainties. In situations of honest [honest] doubt and confusion, they are welcome to partake of Holy Communion, as long as they are striving to understand what the Church professes and to resolve confusion and doubt."  [How many times do people need to be instructed or informed before we say, "Okay, you are either invincibly ignorant or simply dissenting."]

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and my predecessor as Archbishop here in San Francisco, wrote in 2004: [Here it comes.  One wonders about the … no… let that pass…] "No bishop is eager to forbid members of his flock from receiving the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who invites us into communion with Himself and his Body, the Church, as grace and salvation." In that same year, the U.S. bishops acknowledged that pastoral sensitivity, and they endorsed the following approach to this question of denying Holy Communion: "Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times." From that statement I conclude that it is my responsibility as Archbishop to discern and decide, prayerfully, how best to approach this question as it may arise in the Archdiocese of San Francisco.  [With respect… you didn’t need that to know what your responsibility is.]

I regret the necessity of addressing these issues in so public a forum, but the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable. Speaker Pelosi has often said how highly she values her Catholic faith, and how much it is a source of joy for her. Accordingly, as her pastor, I am writing to invite her into a conversation with me about these matters. It is my obligation to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace. 

After all that… has His Excellency decided not to decide?

Maybe he is taking an overdue necessary step? 

I sincerely hope the dialogue goes well. 

Better late than never.

How did the dialogue go in years past?

During this conversation, will he solicit from her assent to Church teaching?

We know Archbishop Burke, as clear and bold as he is, also tried to talk personally to people.

Let us hope new ground can be covered.

In the meantime, people "in the pews" will watch where this goes and pray.