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

The American Papist has been keeping and undated list of US Bishops who have issued statements about remarks made by Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Meet The Press. 

Speaker Pelosi effectively said that the Church does say when human life begins and, even if we knew, it shouldn’t make a difference in the free choice of abortion.

We need some unity amongst bloggers to keep us all up to date on what is going on.  We need to educate people about the issues.

Speaker Pelosi made scandalous statements on a grand scale, on one of the most important TV interview programs in the world.  The consequences must be public.

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi’s comments so far:

   1.      Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
   2.      Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
   3.      Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
   4.      Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website…
   5.      Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
   6.      Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
   7.      Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi’s claims
   8.      Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh
   9.      Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
  10.      Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice …
  11.     Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
  12.      Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
  13.      Bishop Edward Slatter of Tulsa adds himself to the list
  14.      Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB’s efforts
  15.      Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
  16.      Bishop James Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
  17.      Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
  18.      Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
  19.      Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi’s statement
  20.      Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
  21.      Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
  22.      Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
  23.      Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, N C responds to the misrepresentation
  24.      Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
  25.      Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I’ve read
  26.      Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"

I am getting strange and even hysterical e-mail from quite a few people about VP candidate Sarah Palin being an "apostate Catholic". 

"BUT FATHER! BUT FATHERFATHERFATHER! WHY aren’t YOU paying ATTENTION to THIS???!?".

Some e-mail is reasonable and mature.  Some includes lots of SHOUTING and UNDERLINING. 

Tip for the future:  If you write e-mail like that to me, I delete it, mostly unread.

However, about Sarah Palin as "apostate", ...

To my knowledge Gov. Palin was baptized in the Catholic Church, but her parents left the Catholic Church for some Protestant sect when she was around 12 years old.

I don’t hold twelve-year-old children accountable for the actions of their parents.

Would that be even slightly rational?

I understand she attends a non-denominational Christian church of some sort.

"Apostasy" is accomplished by a formal act, not by being taken away from the Church as a child and then growing up in a Christian sect. 

I wish she were a Catholic!  I wish everyone were Catholic!  But she’s not, and it seems not to be her fault.

Some who are Catholic really aren’t… and in the case of some politicians that is their fault.

Until it is revealed that Gov. Palin has made some sort of formal act of apostasy from the Catholic Church or done something anti-Catholic, I think you ought to breathe deeply and regularly, trying breathing into a paper bag, and maintain some control.

And stop shouting at me about it. 

Following on various entries concerning ad orientem worship, and my request that people post their experiences of Holy Mass celebrated ad orientem.... Fr. John Trigilio now posts this, about implementing ad orientem worship in his parish.

My emphases and comments.

Tonight was the maiden voyage, so to speak, and the comments after Mass were overwhelmingly POSITIVE. In fact, not one complaint and only compliments on the REVERENCE of the Mass, which is accentuated, I believe, by celebrating AD ORIENTEM. I also preached on PROPER FRATERNAL CORRECTION which means people MUST speak to me PRIVATELY IN PERSON if they have any complaints, problems, questions or issues we can discuss them confidentially and charitably. I told them if they choose to whisper behind people’s backs and gossip, then they need to go to confession. Gossip is a sin and the Catechism spells out three bad fruits of gossip: rash judgment, calumny (slander) and detraction. Too many of my colleagues are afraid of celebrating AD ORIENTEM because of gossip and the infamous rumor mill. [I suppose that is true in many cases.]  Best to be out in the open with the people and they with their pastor. I told my people I am more than happy to explain the liturgical and theological reasons for what we do as Roman Catholics, including all legitimate options. BTW, people loved the analogy of the airplane pilot and the bus driver. [Good tip for for priests.] Are they turning their backs on the passengers OR are they facing the same direction as everyone else in the hope of arriving at the same destination?

Thank you Fr. Trigilio for your confident work to deepen the participation of your people at Holy Mass.  You are playing your part in the Benedictine "Marshall Plan".

UPDATE:

This is from Fr. Trigilio’s site The Black Biretta

FROM THE PASTOR:

Another aspect of our human life is the work we do in sacred worship. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is also called the Sacred Liturgy. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has set the stage for a renewal and renaissance of Catholic worship. This was the intention and objective of the Council Fathers at Vatican II. As mentioned before, we will be learning and using some Latin for common parts of the Mass on one weekend a month. The first Sunday (and evening before) in Marysville and the last Sunday (and evening before) in Duncannon, we will be using the Kyrie (Greek: Lord Have Mercy), Gloria (Latin: Glory to God), Sanctus (Latin: Holy, Holy), Pater Noster (Latin: Our Father), and Agnus Dei (Latin: Lamb of God). They are found in #862-869 of the large Music Issue of Today’s Missal. ‘Catholic’ comes from the Greek word katholikos which means ‘universal’ One obvious and poignant way to demonstrate the universality of our church is to use a universal language as well as our own vernacular.

If you watch the TV Mass on EWTN, you will be familiar with these. Even though only once a month, we will become more comfortable and familiar with our rich patrimony. Eastern Orthodox Americans speak fluent English yet use plenty of Greek in their weekly worship just as Jewish Americans use Hebrew in theirs. Latin is the official and traditional language of the Roman Catholic Church and coexists with the vernacular.

Once a month we will also utilize one of the options afforded the celebrant. Every priest is allowed to celebrate Mass facing the people (versus populum) or facing the Tabernacle (versus apsidem). I will do the latter once a month so you can appreciate and experience one of our beautiful customs going back to antiquity. Originally, all priests had to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy AD ORIENTEM, i.e., facing east. Churches were literally built so that the priest AND congregation both faced EAST during public worship. The reason was that the sun rose each day in the east. The Son of God rose from the dead on Easter morning, when the sun rose in the East. Hence, Christians were keen to respect that by facing east when they worshipped their Lord and Savior. Churches were built from Ancient to Mediaeval times facing east. The priest was not seen as ‘turning his back’ on the congregation, rather, BOTH priest and congregation were facing east TOGETHER. Does the bus driver or airplane pilot have his/her back toward the passengers OR rather is he/she facing the same direction of the destination everyone hopes to arrive at?

One of the dangers of exclusively celebrating Mass versus populum (facing the people) is that the Celebrant may be tempted to see himself as performing for the congregation. He is not on stage as an actor nor is a director or conductor guiding those in the audience. He is a LEADER of prayer and leaders POINT in the right direction. Great Generals led their armies in battle and both faced the same direction to victory. When the priest and the people both face the same direction, they are also doing the same thing, i.e., worshiping God.

The Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, the Byzantine Catholic Churches, and many Lutheran and Anglican churches have worship services where the celebrant faces east with the congregation. Where it is geographically impossible to face east (ad orientem), the custom arose for the priest and people to face the Tabernacle (versus apsidem) since that is where the Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity of Christ was always present. Facing the Blessed Sacrament was in essence facing east since the east symbolized the Rising SON (and not just the rising SUN). Therefore, once a month, I shall celebrate Mass facing the Tabernacle, just as you do every time you sit in the pews. WE will be facing the same direction TOGETHER and not me turning my back on you as some would erroneously claim. It is only once a month but I think it important to do since it is part of our legacy, it is done all the time in the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite (Tridentine Mass) and it is a valid and licit option in the Ordinary form (Novus Ordo or Vatican II Mass). The Scripture readings and homily will still be given facing the people since they are directed toward you. The prayers of worship directed toward God, however, will be facing Him as He IS present in the Tabernacle. Just as we have a diversity of music and language, we have a diversity of proper liturgical forms as part of our Catholic heritage. We should embrace the fullness of whom we are and how we worship.

The Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, Most Rev. R. Walker Nickless in his diocesan paper The Catholic Globe has issued a statement about Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her distortions of Catholic teaching on human life.

This is actually like a short pastoral letter about voting and how to think about your vote.

Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.

Understanding the issues and what’s at stake

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

If any of us thought that we could avoid political chatter this fall, the past two weeks of conventions and speeches have been a dose of unpleasant reality. In truth, I hope that all of us are paying at least a little attention. When leading politicians who claim to be Catholic misrepresent so badly the basic teachings of the Church, we Catholic citizens must call them on it. [Not just bishops, he is saying, but the rank and file as well.]

No doubt, no one has missed the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a self-described “ardent, practicing Catholic,” being interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” two weeks ago (August 24). When asked what advice she would give a president on the issue of when human life begins, and despite the clarity of the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception, Ms. Pelosi attempted to formulate a theological argument that (a) life may not begin at conception (quoting St. Augustine); (b) the teaching of the Church that life does begin at conception is only “about 50 years old;” and therefore© this teaching “shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose [an abortion].” Clearly, this not-quite-argument is poorly reasoned and false.  [Good summary!]

As saddened as I was to hear Ms. Pelosi make such indefensible, inaccurate statements about the Church’s teachings, I was greatly encouraged by the immediate response of my brother bishops. Archbishops Chaput, Egan, Wuerl, and others have responded strongly and clearly to Ms. Pelosi, and to all who might be swayed by her confusion and evasions, reiterating the constant, unchanging, and unequivocal truth that abortion is always a grave moral evil. On August 25, Archbishop Chaput responded, completely dismantling Ms. Pelosi’s confused argument, in part simply by quoting this from the excellent book “Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective” (Loyola, 1977), by Fr. John Connery, S.J.:

“The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion.”

Cardinal Egan rebuked Ms. Pelosi even more strongly in his open letter of August 26: “Anyone who dares to defend that they [i.e. the unborn] may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.” [Hear hear!]

I agree completely with the rebuke and rebuttal of Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Chaput. As your Bishop, I am responsible to our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of all the souls of North-West Iowa. I can’t force anyone to believe the truth, nor would I use such force if I could, but my duty as Bishop requires that I, as my brother bishops have done, teach that truth by word and example as firmly and as clearly as humanly possible.  [Hey!  I am starting to like this fellow!] These true and universal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are the teachings of Christ.

1. Abortion is always a grave moral evil (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270-2272). The deliberate taking of innocent human life can never be justified. The same grave moral evil is likewise practiced in euthanasia (CCC 2276-79), and in the destruction of human embryos for medical research, and in human cloning (CCC 2274). In each of these issues, as well, innocent human life is unjustifiably taken.

2. Cooperation in any evil act is also a grave moral evil (CCC 1868). Directly to assist with, for example, the taking of innocent human life makes one culpable for that action. Indirectly to assist with the taking of innocent human life may or may not be culpable cooperation, depending on circumstances. One of the key circumstances is knowledge of the evil to be perpetrated (CCC 1859-1860); and in our society today, it is scarcely to be believed that anyone above the age of reason could claim “invincible ignorance” regarding the moral status of any of these issues.

3. The proper formation of conscience is an ordinary duty of all the baptized (CCC 1777-1782). The objective sources of moral knowledge, according to which conscience can be formed with certainty, are natural law, Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church (CCC 1785). Subjective sources of moral knowledge, such as reflection on one’s own experience, private revelation, and infused virtue, never contradict the objective sources, but can deepen and strengthen conviction in the truth of the objective teachings (CCC 1778-1779). This means that the “argument from anecdote” (so-and-so did such-and-such a grave moral evil, and they came to no harm…) and the “argument from personal authority” (I have such-and-such a belief or experience, and I say…) always fail to persuade. It also means that, with very few exceptions, no one has the easy excuse of ignorance of the moral law to justify their malformed conscience (CCC 1791-1793).

4. Participation in the political process is an ordinary duty of all the baptized (CCC 1913-1917). This means not only that the faithful should vote, but also, more importantly, that the faithful must take responsibility for the actions of our elected officials by (a) exercising their vote with care and right discernment in conscience and truth, and (b) insisting that elected officials use their executive or legislative power for the common good (CCC 1916-1917). [He is an organized writer.  I like this!]

5. The end never justifies the means (CCC 1753). This means that the common good can never be achieved by practicing any moral evil as state policy (CCC 1789, 1905).

Now, it must be admitted that not every moral evil is equally grave (CCC 1852-1854). Some issues have little effect beyond themselves; some touch on a few related issues; some are foundational to the whole structure of politics and society. The issues which have been labeled as “non-negotiable Catholic issues” are the most grave, because they are at the foundation of all our rights and responsibilities. These are, namely, the “life issues” of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning; and the fundamental social issue of the family, which in this country today mostly means the definition of marriage. These issues are “non-negotiable” because, if the fundamental right to life is not secure, no rights are ultimately secure. If existence is contingent upon the will of others, so too is every other human right contingent.

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, made this explicitly clear, as Cardinal Ratzinger, in the 1987 document called Donum Vitae (“The Gift of Life”):

“The inviolable right to life of every innocent human individual and the rights of the family and of the institution of marriage constitute fundamental moral values, because they concern the natural condition and integral vocation of the human person; at the same time they are constitutive elements of civil society and its order…. The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…”http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml – 80 (Donum Vitae, III; see also Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Chapters 3 and 4).

In this way, the rights of prisoners and criminal suspects, of the ill and elderly, of children and families, of immigrants, all depend directly for their coherence and reasonableness on the right to life. Even opposing the three great “-isms” of modern liberal philosophy (race, gender, and class) depends on the prior recognition of human personhood and its inherent dignity as such. In the same way, the root principles defining all forms of social justice, such as solidarity and subsidiarity, are only ultimately guaranteed by defense of the right to life and of the family as the basic social unit. When families are unstable units, then all voluntary associations, up to and including states and nations, ultimately lack a coherent concept of justice to animate laws and mores. The five “non-negotiables” are fundamental because, when they are abandoned, justice itself is de facto abandoned (CCC 2273).

Our nation is divided today, because we have in fact abandoned these foundations for personal and corporate liberty in our legal system, but not in our culture, our expectations, or our vocabulary. More and more, to be “progressive” means to wish to change the culture to conform to new legal interpretations, while to be “conservative” means to wish to change the laws to conserve traditional culture. More and more, because America is a nation greatly attracted to the innovative, and not much attached to tradition or conservation, the expectation that law be the servant of culture is rejected. In other words, the tools of politics tend to favor a new, illusory ideal of the isolated, autonomous self, rather than (as they ought) to protect and defend a shared and inherited idea of the common good.

When this happens, division results. The “politics of identity” take over; the perceived “rights” of this or that group (defined by race, gender, and class) begin to seem more important than shared identity, shared humanity. In some fundamental sense, as Pope Benedict has said, the denial of a shared humanity requires a denial of some particular group’s humanity: in our day, especially of the unborn, and the terminally ill.

In the early Church, as still today, Christians were ridiculed for coming to the defense of the poorest of the poor: widows, slaves, orphans, infants exposed to die. Christians challenged the assumptions of the world that only the rich and powerful mattered, and died for it. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” The full fruit of the Church’s early centuries of evangelization ultimately included the conviction that politics not only can but must aim for justice – not the worldly justice of due process and evenhanded use of force, which is too easily perverted into an idolatrous worship of order or system; but the divine justice of converted hearts and life completely free from sin. The conversion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the democratic revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were sparked by the brightness of this luminous ideal. Our nation claims this Christian vision as its foundation and its heritage: to choose to accept one’s personal responsibility for the common good.

We know that for the common good to exist, the strong (such as those who wield the right to vote) are obliged to defend the weak (such as the unborn). We rejoice in the political freedoms of America, especially our freedom of religion. Because freedom in Christ is always freedom from sin, freedom to love, and never license to commit evil, we trust that our freedom of religion strengthens our democracy. When we live faithful to the fundamental truths of our faith and our democracy – that life is an inalienable right, endowed by our Creator, for a clear and specific purpose – then our laws and our culture will be strong and just, defending the weak and the poor.

I hope these words are helpful to you. As we approach the November elections we must clearly understand the issues and what is at stake. May the wisdom of the Church’s teaching help us all and may all faithful Catholics continue to speak the truth in love.

Your brother in Christ,

Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless
Bishop of Sioux City

 Well done!  Solid WDTPRS kudos!

I am getting notices that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has accepted His Excellency Archbp. Niederauer’s invitation to "converse" about a few things.

I solidarity with other blogs, I note that American Papist wrote about this too.

Here is the situation.

SAN FRANCISCO - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under fire from U.S. bishops [not just bishops – let us not forget that House Republicans wrote to her… and the blogosphere!] for comments she made about abortion, accepted on Friday an invitation from the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco for a private talk.

Pelosi said in a letter to Archbishop George Niederauer that she’d "welcome the opportunity for our personal conversation and to go beyond our earlier most cordial exchange about immigration and needs of the poor to Church teaching on other significant matters."  [Blah blah… she is trying to couch this in other issues which are of interest to the Church. Keep in mind that there is no moral equivalents in this matter.]

The proposed meeting stems from comments Pelosi made Aug. 24 on NBC’s "Meet the Press." The Democratic congresswoman defended her support for abortion by saying "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.  [She also said that it doesn’t make a difference when human life begins, abortion should still be an option.]

Niederauer, who extended the invitation in the Friday column of the archdiocesan newspaper, and other bishops say that the church from its earliest days has considered abortion evil.

Niederauer said Pelosi’s remarks were in "serious conflict" with church teaching and it was his duty to explain clearly church teachings about faith and morals.

Several U.S. bishops have condemned the remarks made by Pelosi, a Catholic school graduate who repeatedly has expressed pride in and love for her religious heritage.

While Pelosi’s letter said she was interested in speaking about "church teaching on other significant matters," it did not mention abortion specifically. Her spokesman has defended her comments, saying in a previous statement that the congresswoman "fully appreciates the sanctity of family." 

I am very pleased with this.  Archbishop Niederauer’s letter brought her in.

It is necessary now that their conversation actually take place and take place soon.

I suspect that the conversation, which will be private, won’t be transcribed for the public.   But surely there will be reports on both sides.

Our friend Diogenes made these observations.  First, it took Speak Pelosi less than 24 hours to respond, but nearly two week for the Archbishop to issue a statement.  Also…

how many other American Catholic politicians are still waiting for their bishops to summon their courage, clear their throats, and raise the issue for the first time[?]

What must come to the fore is that the issue of human life and abotion had to have been discussed and that Speaker Pelosi acknowledges what the Church teaches.  If she then will not embrace that teaching is a different matter.  Pro-abortion Catholic Senator and candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) accepts what the Church teaches without waffling too much about it, but then he acts against that teaching. 

What we at least need from Speaker Pelosi is that she, as a Catholic, acknowledges what the Church truly teaches.

The other day I posted about the minestrone I prepared for a supper with a guest.

I was going to post the second course the next day, but realized that the next day, yesterday, was a Friday. Some idiot who hates decent food well-prepared and presented was sure to complain that he saw a picture of meat on the blog.

In any event, I made saltimboca alla romana.

My guest brought the veal, and I had some prosciutto obtained from the "big city".

Alas the veal had been frozen, so it needed a bit of care.  I wound up having to work pieces of it together as I pounded it out.  Thus it required some pinning together.  Since I only has big skewers and no toothpicks around, I had to cut off the ends.

For this you use veal, and leaves of sage, beneath the slices of prosciutto.



So, into the pan it goes.  You use butter and olive oil, a bit of salt and pepper.  Deglaze with a little white wine.



Green beans are common with this sort of meal and they are in season and abundant.  I steamed them.

In another entry there is discussion of the reintroduction of ad orientem worship in a parish.

A priest made this comment:

it helped VERY much when laypeople actually gave me positive comments about attending Mass ad orientem.

I put to you a couple questions:

First, priests and lay people…. what was your impression of ad orientem worship when you encountered it for the first time?

Positive?  Negative? 

Certainly priests and lay people will have very different comments to make about this. 

Let’s hear both.

Did you have problems with it?  Preferences?

Second, if ad orientem worship has been introduced in your parish, how do you perceive others are adjusting to it?

Was there a fight?  Did it go smoothly?

Down the line somewhere, I will give my impressions of ad orientem versus versus populum.