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

From The Telegraph in the UK:

My emphases and comments:

Priest apologises for joking that marriage is not for ‘Adam and Steve’

A Catholic priest [no, he is a deacon] has apologised for joking during a sermon that true marriage can only be between Adam and Eve – not ‘’Adam and Steve’‘.

Reverend Frank Wainwright, 48, a Deacon [deacon] at St Gregory’s Church in Cheltenham, Glos., made the controversial comment during a Sunday service. [It isn’t controversial to people who have their heads screwed on in the right direction.]

He was preaching on the theme of marriage when he claimed that same-sex civil partnerships are not considered as marriage by the Catholic church. ["claimed"?  ummmm…. they aren’t…. are they?  Did I miss a change?]

But his ‘’flippant joke’’ sparked five complaints from his congregation and has been branded as homophobic by gay and lesbian rights groups. [Just because he made this statement about marriage doesn’t mean that he hates or fears homosexuals, that he is homophobic.]

Rev Frank Wainwright, who lives in Cheltenham, Glos., apologised for causing any offence and claimed he is not ‘’homophobic’‘.

He said: ‘’The sermon was about marriage and I have no idea why all this has come up but someone has obviously complained.

‘’The comment is obviously not homophobic and it was just intended as a joke. [A joke, in the sense that it is a clever play on words.  But it was true.] My duty is to preach what the church preaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.

‘’I have plenty of gay friends [?!?] and I have no problem at all with them but as a Catholic minister I must preach that marriage is between a man and woman and nothing else. ["nothing" else… and therein lies the problem.  More on that below.]

‘’I’m sure there are gay members of my congregation and I imagine it’s one of them who complained but it certainly wasn’t the thrust of my sermon.

‘’I can see why people are upset by the comment because it was flippant. I totally accept that I have caused offence and I am apologising for that.’’ [sigh … they have a little nutty… and someone else has to apologize!  Or was it not a nutty at all… but rather another purposeful slash at the Church to silence her on a matter of morals….]

Rev Frank Wainwright delivered the 15-minute sermon on marriage at St Gregory’s Church on January 17 this year.

He told his 200-strong congregation: ‘’Sometimes in our families we have situations that either surprise us or are not ideal.

‘’For example if your 15-year-old daughter comes home and says ‘I’m pregnant’ even if it’s a shock and we disagree the first thing we should do to that person is hug them and let them know they are still family.

‘’Sometimes within the church we have to hold our heads above the parapet and say what we believe as Catholics and sometimes in saying that we will be marginalised and put down.  [Good for him.  And don’t apologize next time.]

‘’For example, in adoption a child has a right to want a mother and father.

‘’That marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s a life-long commitment and usually only ended by death, [And if it was a sacramental marriage, always ended only by death.] as it was in the beginning and ever shall be.

‘’Marriage is between Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve.’‘

A spokesman for the Gloucestershire Gay and Lesbian Community group said Rev Frank Wainwright’s words were ‘’poorly chosen’’ but accepted his apology.

He said: ‘’I can understand why he has said it as there are canonic references.

‘’However, we are living in a different world and one would hope that anyone who is in a loving relationship would be accepted. [Go back and read that ridiculous statement and savor it.]

‘’In this country, it is legal for people of the same sex to enter into a civil partnership and that is not necessarily a religious relationship.  [It might be legal, but it is wrong in God’s eyes.]

‘’But we appreciate he has apologised for the remark and we would not want to stir anything up.’’

His Hermeneuticalness commented here.

Note how this dovetails with what is going on in Boulder, CO, in the Archdiocese of Denver.

What I though was interesting was the statement: "I must preach that marriage is between a man and woman and nothing else."

"Nothing else".

That’s right. 

Once you legalize this sort of "marriage", then down the road people will want to marry minor children – for obvious reasons -  and then marry their dogs.

Sort of like an old-fashioned nylon stocking, isn’t it?  Once it gets a snag in it, there is no stopping the run.

Once upon a time…

... I stopped to visit my old chief and friend His Eminence Augustine Card. Mayer at his residence.  Sister said that he still had a guest with him, but they should be done soon.  I waited for a few minutes and out came His Eminence with His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger. 

Since he knew me, they shared what they had been talking about: the loose use of terms and the problems the equivocations cause.  Card. Ratzinger put a question to me: What term, in my opinion, was in urgent need of clarification.  I immediately replied "ministry".  We are constantly hearing "minister" of this and of that, "ministries" of this and of that.  That loose usage created confusion of the roles of lay people and the ordained.  

The smiling cardinals replied that that was exactly the word they had been chatting about.

Words make a difference. 

When they are repeated over a long period of time, they have an effect on the knowledge and faith of the people.   This is certainly the case in the mistranslation of "pro multis" and many other mistranslations now being corrected.  The cumulative effect has been damaging.

But I digress.. though not much.

Prof. William Mahrt has a good article in Sacred Music.  This is a good example of why you should subscribe to Sacred Music. 

My emphases and comments.

Forthcoming in the Spring 2010 issue of Sacred Music

Words, Words
By William Mahrt

Words make a difference. Even though two words are identical in basic meaning, their connotations may suggest that one is much more appropriate than the other. When it comes to music and liturgy, the connotations of some commonly-used words point to a mistaken ecclesiology. [Bingo!] This was an issue in the discussions of Music in Catholic Worship and Sing to the Lord. The former document represented an anthropocentric view of the church and her liturgy, while the latter, while far from perfect, yet included a much more theocentric view. I would suggest that if musicians and liturgists would consistently use the more appropriate terms, a change in attitude might gradually be effected. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Take, for example, two words: assembly and congregation. [Oooo… good one to tackle.] “Congregation” was used before the council, but has largely been replaced by “assembly.” Etymologically there are subtle differences. “Assembly” derives from ad + simul, a coming together, making similar. “Congregation” comes from con + grex (flock), a gathering together in a flock. Some would object to calling the people in church a flock, as in a flock of sheep, who are simply herded around without exercising their own independent judgment. [Then people would take exception to our Lord describing His people as a "flock" and as "sheep".] But I would suggest that the difference between the two terms is more functional: “assembly” implies bringing people together without distinction, being made similar; “congregation” implies being brought together under the guidance of a shepherd. That shepherd, as we know, is Christ, who is represented liturgically by the priest, who acts in persona Christi, who leads in the place of Christ himself.

Moreover, in the use of the English language, congregation is specifically religious, while assembly is not. [YES!] In my recollection, “assembly” was something we had in elementary school, where all the classes gathered in the auditorium, either for some extraordinary entertainment or for some stern exhortation in the face of a looming problem of behavior. [There is still a connotation to "assembly".  Music styles still have connotations.]  It was a noisy affair, but it had the benefit of interrupting the normal schedule of classes, which, even for those who loved school, was a pleasant break in the routine; there was certainly nothing sacred to it. In modern church usage, “assembly” sometimes includes everyone in the liturgy, priests, ministers and people, emphasizing their similarity, while “congregation” retains the distinction of people from clergy. I would suggest, then, that “congregation” better represents the Catholic view of the hierarchical nature of the church, and that “assembly” represents the anthropocentric view of focusing only upon the people. This stands in striking contrast to a Christocentric view of the liturgy, in which the focus is upon the action of Christ, which subsumes priest and congregation without erasing the distinction between them.

There is a consequent term that follows from the de-emphasis upon the distinction of the ordained from the congregation: “the president of the liturgical assembly” [UGH!] or more commonly “presider,” [ARGH!] as opposed to “celebrant.” [ahhh!] A president is a member of a group, elected by the group as one of them to preside for a time. The notion of a minister, elected by the congregation out of the congregation is characteristically Protestant, and stands in striking contrast to the Catholic notion of priesthood, whose vocation is principally from God, and whose appointment is from the hierarchy of the church. [And this was at the heart of the discussion which ensued with Cardinals Mayer and Ratzinger, which I mention above.  Also, Papa Ratzinger wrote some very good paragraphs about this protestantizing view of minister and presider, etc.  I can’t remember where right now… perhaps an English version got into HPR.  Anyone?] Some will say to single out the priest as celebrant is to deny the fact that the congregation celebrates the Mass, too. That objection can be answered by using the term “priest” itself, though “celebrant” is the traditional term. Either is preferable to “presider,” which has the connotation of being temporary and provisional and not particularly sacramental.

If the liturgy should be Christocentric, then Christ should be the focus of attention, not the congregation. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?] The question of orientation is addressed very well in this issue by Msgr. Guido Marini, Papal Master of Ceremonies, who reports two solutions, clearly endorsed by Pope Benedict: facing east, or facing the crucifix. The eastward direction places the priest at the head of the congregation, with all facing the same direction, making it clear that the action is addressing God. If that is not possible, the usage of the early church of having a large image of Christ in the apse of the church, which is faced when facing east, is approximated by placing a crucifix on the altar which serves the priest as a focal point for his celebration of the Mass.

It is not widely known that the stance facing the people is not required by the liturgy; all that is required is that in constructing new churches, altars be built so that it is possible to celebrate the Mass facing the people. This, of course, should mean that it should remain possible to celebrate ad orientem as well, something not always observed in the construction of new churches.

There are two different Latin terms for the stance “facing the people,” versus ad populum, and coram populo. [This should be good…] We know “versus” from its legal usage in expressing an adversarial relationship, as in Brown versus Board of Education, clearly not the kind of relation to be expressed concerning the priest and the people. Etymologically, it stems from “verso,” I turn, so it says “turned to the people.” This is in fact used in the Latin missal, even the new edition of 2002; there it substantiates the ad orientem stance: at certain points the missal directs the priest, “versus ad populum,” turned toward the people, to address of the congregation, such as at “orate, fratres”; or at communion, “conversus ad populum.” Such rubrics clearly express the normal stance of the priest as facing the altar, [Right!] suggesting a new term “facing God.” This is an important distinction, since the popular media insist on describing the stance of the priest in the old rite as turning his back to the people, consistently overlooking the fact that both priest and people face God.

“Coram populo,” on the other hand, with its use of the dative, suggests a less direct relation; the priest is not facing the people in the sense of directly addressing the people, but celebrating the Mass, “before the people.” [Okay.] I remember the first years after the council, when priests began to celebrate coram populo, seeing the priest begin the Canon of the Mass by incongruously looking the congregation in the eye while saying “We come to you Father.” [How I loath that sort of shallow mummery.] The whole direction of the Eucharistic prayer is to the Father in renewing Christ’s sacrifice, and must bring the congregation into the act of offering up as the direction of prayer. Too direct address of the congregation by the priest runs the risk of both priest and people overlooking the necessarily transcendent object of the dialogue.

Other terms indirectly express an anthropocentricism. One names the entrance hymn a “gathering song,” often including its function as “greeting the priest.” [GRRRRR] The introit of the Mass is the procession of the clergy into the church processing to the focal point of the liturgy, the altar, and marking the altar as a sacred pace by incensing it. The music of the introit is to accompany that action and to establish the sacred character of the whole liturgy which is to take place. It is not about the congregation, but about the Mass; the congregation has already gathered, and it need not “greet” the priest yet; this takes place after the introit, when the priest greets the congregation, “The Lord be with you,” and the congregation responds.

To call it a “song” is also a misnomer;  it is true that song is a translation of cantus, but in English usage, there is quite a difference between “song” and “chant.” “Song” implies the kind of pseudo-pop music that pervades our churches, and which has no particular musical characteristics which identify it as being for the introit. Chant, for the introit, means that this chant is only sung for the entrance of the priest and only on that day, that it is proper. The loss of the Propers of the Mass and of the great repertory of proper chants is one of the negative results of the council that is only now beginning to be remedied by the revival of chant scholas and the introduction of English propers, whose purpose ultimately will be to lay the ground for the revival of the singing of the Latin propers. [Do I hear a big "Amen!"?]

Another misnomer is “opening prayer.” This is properly called a collect, which means the closing prayer of a liturgical action, collecting the prayers and intentions of that rite in a general summarizing prayer. Thus the collect at the beginning of the Mass concludes the entrance rite as a whole, just as the prayer over the offerings concludes the offertory rite, and the postcommunion prayer concludes the communion. The Latin collects of the Roman Mass are models of concise statement and little schools of prayer all in themselves; we rarely hear them, though, because their present English translations are banal, and longer alternative prayers have been provided, leading most celebrants understandably to chose the seemingly more interesting prayers, overlooking the classic Roman collects. [Good point.]

A similar misnomer is the “Prayer over the gifts.” The Latin is oratio super oblata, and “oblata” is better translated as “offerings,” being etymologically linked to “offero,” I offer. It has always seemed to me a bit presumptuous to call the bread and wine offered in preparation for the Holy Eucharist “gifts.” The real gift is what is made of them, the Body and Blood of the Lord, his gift to us. Our humble offerings are but natural elements offered in preparation for the Eucharist; they do not give the Lord anything he needs or wants, but rather are symbols of our offering of ourselves to be incorporated into his Mystical Body, by his action, not ours.

Why address these matters in a journal about sacred music? Because music is an essential element of the liturgy, [pars integrans] making substantial contributions to its sacredness and beauty. The words discussed above are off the mark precisely because they contribute more secular connotations, which militate against the sacredness of the liturgy and are thus out of consonance with its music. So let us always choose the more sacred term, that the underlying notion of the sacredness of the liturgy will be properly expressed and thus be consonant with the same purposes of the music.

WDTPRS kudos to Prof. Mahrt.

This is a good example of why you should subscribe to Sacred Music.

_

UPDATE 9 March 1850 GMT:

Archbishop Chaput chimes in more directly.
_

There is a real kerfuffle going on in Boulder, CO, in the Archdiocese of Denver. 

The Archdiocese of Denver that catholic schools in the Archdiocese are not to accept as students the children of same sex "parents".

The policy is here:

Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.

The policy would also protect teachers in the school.

At the catholic pre-school of Sacred Heart parish in Boulder, CO, a decision was made to adhere to archdiocesan policy and not admit the child of a lesbian "couple".

Liberals and homosexual activists are now staging a professional nutty.

A fire storm is now whirling about the parish, Sacred Heart, and the parish priest, Fr. William Breslin, who has a blog called The Heart of the Matter.

Fr. Breslin is personally taking a great deal of heat for adhering to archdiocesan policy and his parish and school are being picketed.  He is being attacked on his blog.

You can imagine the canards the protesters are tossing around. 

• What Would Jesus Do?  (...as if they know…)
• Don’t pick on a child!  (... they aren’t… this is about not hurting the child …)
• Teach Acceptance!  (... by which they mean ignore the Church’s teachings on homosexual actions, etc…. )

I have some comments.

First, the protestors and the couple are the ones abusing that child by instrumentalizing her.  Knowing the Archdiocesan policy, the only reason why the lesbian "couple" would press this is to hurt the Church or try to force their own sinful agenda on an institution of the Church.  They are using the child as a tool in their fight.  So are the protesters. 

Second, the parish priest did not set the policy.  If people want to protest, go to the chancery and protest.  Follow the Archbishop around and protest.  Protesting at the parish or the school to protest at the point of weakness not of strength.  That is what bullies do.

Third, this sounds like a concrete use of the tactics of Saul Alinsky.  Am I wrong?  As a result, there are larger forces behind these protests and probably even the original decision to test the archdiocesan policy at that school… where the parish priest (I am guessing) had a reputation for being strong… thus ensuring that there would be a conflict.  If you want a fight, you never pick fights with people whom you know won’t fight back.

Fourth, this is part of our struggle right now over our Catholic identity and that ad intra and ad extra.  Remember: If Catholics don’t know what their faith is, if they don’t embrace it, then they will have nothing to contribute in the public square.  But when they do, the prevailing secularist and relativistic zeigeist will fight back with demonic ferocity.  Their objective is to driven the Catholic voice from the public square.  They will do their best, therefore, to subvert Catholic identity from within and from without.

Now, something from Fr. Breslin’s blog, with my emphases and comments.

This past week we implemented a policy that has been the most difficult decision of my life.  The choice could have been made to do nothing and allow a lesbian couple to enroll their child in our Kindergarten.  But that choice would have been against Archdiocesan policy; and when a priest is ordained he promises obedience to his bishop; and I cannot violate that vow; and I will not.

    The choice before me was either to protect the beliefs of our faith or pretend nothing was happening.  But our school, after all, is a Catholic school. [This is about identity.] And our reason for existence, both as a parish and as a Catholic school, is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. [Not of the world.]  Being disciples of Jesus Christ is very demanding. Yes, being disciples entails adherence to the many examples of Jesus’ love: love one another as I have loved you; be not the first to throw a stone; judge not lest you be judged.  Think of the Good Samaritan story and the Prodigal Son.

But when it came to making disciples, He spoke in a different way, a more radical way: unless you take up your cross and follow me, you can have no part of me.  Repent and change your ways.  If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn and offer him the other cheek.  Unless you hate your mother and father, brothers and sisters, you cannot be my disciples.  Unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life within you. And when the throngs deserted him, He turned to the 12 and said, “Do you also want to leave?”   These are only a few of the hard sayings Jesus gives to those who really want to be his disciples.  [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

    Would that I could wave a magic wand and make all of the present struggle disappear.  I hate the fact that I had to make a choice between being loving and protecting the teachings of the church.  [But what he did was choose truer love in choosing adherence to the teachings of the Church.]

    As I look around Boulder I recognize that there is ample love all around; but there is a scarcity of discipleship. [That suggests that what one sees "around" is not truer love, the love that is charity.]  I chose to be on the side of what was lacking.  I chose to protect the faith over doing what would have looked like the loving thing to do.  ["looked"] Perhaps some of you parents have been in the position to make a decision for your family that looked like the opposite of love, but was the right decision anyway.

    My brothers and sisters, our school is a Catholic school and our teaching on the sanctity of marriage is as clear as a bell.  So, the decision I made was based on my conviction that we needed to rest on the side of backing our beliefs and our values.  We need to fight for our Catholic values because here in Boulder it seems, no one else is. [kaBOOM] In many ways, I feel quite alone, even though I know I am not alone.  [No, Father.  You are not alone.  WDTPRS has your back.] But I do feel like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner—“alone, alone, all, all alone- alone on a wide, wide sea.”  If you’re upset, blame me.  Not our principal.  She’s an excellent principal.  I’m the one who made this decision.  If you want to blame, blame me, your Catholic priest for being – Catholic!  [OORAH!]

Some links:

Video from a local newspaper from yesterday’s protest:

The Denver Post
KDVR
CNA
America Magazine

1.  Right now… now... stop and pray the St. Michael Prayer for Fr. Breslin and Archbp. Chaput.
2.  Immediately after pray the Memorare for the conversion of the couple of that child.
3. VOTE in that poll from the denverpost.com .
4. Then vote in the second poll farther down on the right side.

As of now, 2029 GMT, here are the results of that poll.  MOVE THEM.   PUT THIS ON YOUR BLOGS.  TELL AND E-MAIL FRIENDS.  TWEET.  ETC.  I will update results on Twitter from time to time.



The second poll, farther down on the right side is about protesting:



UPDATE 9 March 1505 GMT:

You are doing your work!  Thanks!  Keep going!

 UPDATE 9 March 1837 GMT:

Getting there!  Great progress!




 UPDATE 10 March 1813 GMT:

LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!

The poll graphic on the denverpost.com page is screwed up.

This is the best I could get




UPDATE 10 March 1839 GMT:

I see that on Fr. Breslin’s blog, the comments have been deleted under all the posts.  Hard to blame him, poor guy.


UPDATE 10 March 2344 GMT:

The Yes, I am Catholic category has pulled ahead!  

But the bad opinion is still head if you add their two categories together.




UPDATE 11 March 1344 GMT:

The poll has been turned around!

Keep up the good work!




UPDATE 11 March 2304 GMT:

The good guys are winning.

We knew liberals wouldn’t like Archbishop Chaput’s important speech in Houston.

They never disappoint.

The blog Mirror of Justice found a comment by Paul Baumann, the editor of the liberal leaning Commonweal, on Commonweal’s blog under an entry by Fr. Joseph Komonchak.

The editor of Commonweal comes out swinging against Archbp. Chaput and tries to defend JFK’s error in Houston.

I’ll give you signposts along the way, but Baumann has three arguments. 

The first point begins with the first paragraph and ends with "So it seems clear to me that Chaput’s reading of the speech is anachronistic at best." 

The second ends, "let alone fellow Christians." 

The third begins thereafter and ends, " to lay the blame at Kennedy’s door." 

The last part just connects JFK with Commonweal through Cogley… which let’s the agenda out of its bag.

Let’s together read Baumann’s comment closely and try to follow his logic with my emphases and comments.

Commonweal’s Paul Baumann on Archbishop’s Chaput’s Houston Speech

[Several comments on the speech here, including this by Paul Baumann, editor of Commonweal:]

I attended the Fordham conference on Kennedy’s speech, and remember well Shaun Casey’s rebuttal to those, such as Chaput, [author of ] who insist that the speech was an effort to “privatize” religion. “After the [Kennedy] speech there was a question-and-answer period,” Casey said, “The transcript of the Q&A session is actually three times as long as the speech itself. The exchanges there, in particular, I think helped knock down the argument that somehow Kennedy was declaring his Catholicism to be purely private, and hence irrelevant. He embraces his Catholicism. He says he’s not renouncing his church. At the very end, he said, ‘I don’t think I made any converts to my church in the process of this meeting, but I don’t repudiate my faith.’”

So [THEREFORE!] it seems clear to me [Oh yah?] that Chaput’s reading of the speech is anachronistic at best. [No one has said JFK "repudiated" his Catholic faith.  Chaput didn’t say that.  This is a canard.  Chaput said that JFK was "wrong" to do what he did.  The flaw in Baumann’s logic is this: Baumann read’s Casey’s statement as if it proves that Chaput’s statement is anachronistic.  Baumann’s doesn’t quote JFK.  He quotes CASEY.  And therefore Baumann is "sure"?  And we are just supposed to believe him?  Ask yourself how Baumann get’s to this certaintly.  B would have us believe that JFK did the opposite of what Chaput says just because Casey says so, but Baumann quotes nothing of substance. So, it can’t be clear to anyone else.  That ends Baumann’s first argument.  Thus the second begins…] Chaput’s talk is also studded with provocative but vague declarations about the false faith of others:  [Hereafter follow snippets…] “It’s a form of lying,” “They’re not optional,” “I wonder if we’ve ever had fewer of them who can coherently explain how their faith informs their work, or who event feel obligated to try,” “Too many live their faith as if it were a private idiosyncrasy—the kind that they’ll never allow to become a public nuisance. And too many just don’t really believe.” This doesn’t strike me as the kind of language one uses when trying to persuade those who might disagree with you, let alone fellow Christians. [Baumann says Chaput makes "vague" allegations.  Do we not remember the absurd but clear declarations made in public by such figures as Speaker Pelosi and then-Senator Biden?  Patrick Kennedy?  Very recently again Archbp. Niederauer corrected Pelosi.  Many US bishops have made public statements in clear terms.  Is Chaput being "vague"?  Chaput was very clear in Houston that he was talking about the abortion issue.  There is a point at which bishops must shift from trying to correct the politician (persuade) to warning the faithful about their errors.  Baumann paints what Chaput said about the faith of politicians as "vague".   Chaput wasn’t vague, though we grant him the "provocative".  Chaput did not go to Houston to try to persuade the likes of Nancy Pelosi and her ilk (she is just the most prominent).  He went there to show that they are the fruits of the 50 year old JFK Tree.  Chaput was not trying to persuade so much as point out that these so-called Catholics in public life are not acting in accord with their Catholic faith.  That is probably what Baumann objects to.  That ends Baumann’s second argument.  Thus begins the third…] In any event, Chaput fails to make a plausible case that Kennedy’s speech “profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation.” Even if you accept the notion that religious believers have been marginalize in this way—which I don’t—it’s quite a stretch to lay the blame at Kennedy’s door.   [Mormons and Jews and Catholics are in Congress, but they are not allowed to bring confessional perspectives into their words or deeds.  In the sense that there are religious people in the public square, Baumann is right: they haven’t be marginalized.  He is wrong in the sense that action on the basis of religion has in fact been marginalized.  Let them go to temple or church on Sunday.  Fine.  The fruit of the JFK Tree is that the religious beliefs and motivations of religious people have been marginalized.  That’s what is not allowed.  Perhaps Baumann thinks it is acceptable that Catholics set aside the Church’s teaching on abortion on and that it is perfectly harmonious for Catholic politicians to vote in favor of abortion.  I don’t know.  But if that is the case, then I understand why Baumann can think that Catholics haven’t been marginalized: just look at Pelosi!  Chaput is saying that there is a different sense of how to be a Catholic in political life.  We cannot be cafeteria Catholics or park our Catholicism at the door of the church.  Finally, is it such a stretch to connect what is going on today with what JFK did 50 years ago?  I don’t think so.  The speech took on a life of its own, resonating down though decades.  It was one of the most important speeches of JFK’s career and many refer to it today.  Wonks immediately connected Mitt Romney with JFK during the last presidential campaign. It comes up all the time with there is a question of conflict of religious faith and public role.  So, is it really such a stretch?  JFK’s Houston Speech is part of the American political psyche.]

As many contributors to this blog know, long-time Commonweal columnist John Cogley was an important adviser to Kennedy and a speechwriter Ted Sorenson for the Houston address. Cogley concluded his 1973 book “Catholic America” as follows: “While Catholicism can coexist very well with separation of church and state, its best representatives will always refuse to separate religion and life. And that makes all the difference.”

Baumann’s logic is pretty bad.

But you can see that Chaput has gotten under the skin of the liberals.

It has taken a while, but they are starting react.

There is probably a John Courtney Murray/JFK axis here in the liberal mind.

Remember our context: Liberals are going bananas about a perceived assault on their version of Vatican II.   They are losing control of the narrative.

Liberals have flipped out about what is happening with the Church’s liturgy, of course.  They see that deeper connections are being made with tradition.  They think this is an attack on Vatican II.

When Archbishop Chaput gives a speech in Houston about the fruits of the 50 Year Old JFK Tree, they are going to hear an attack on… what?  What they think Vatican II taught on religious liberty.

Think about this.

First: Consider how wrong liberals are about inculturation and liturgy. 

Now imagine how wrong they are about religious liberty.

When you watch liberals getting upset about Chaput’s speech in Houston, ask yourself why.

Earlier this week I mentioned in these electronic pages the provocative book by Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, from Family Publications entitled The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England. (Order from Amazon UK click HERE.  This doesn’t seem to be available on the USA Amazon now.)

I received a copy of Fr. Nichols’ new work Criticising the Critics: Catholic Apologias for Today, also from Family Publications.

Inexplicably, this is not available through amazon.co.uk … yet.  But it is from the aforementioned Family Publications.

Fr. Nichols herein describes and responds to critics both inside and outside the Church.

His chapters are:

1. For Modernists (Modernism a Century On)
   
2. For Neo-Gnostics (Challenges to Orthodoxy and Mission)
   
3. For Academic Exegetes (Reading Scripture in the Church)
   
4. For Feminists (How God is Father)
   
5. For Liberal Protestants (How Christ is Priest)
   
6. For Progressive Catholics (The Council and the Gospel of Life)
   
7. For the Erotically Absorbed (on the Nature of Lust)
   
8. For Critics of Christendom (Secularization: A Catholic Response)
   

This final chapter is a response to the critics of what Nichols proposed in The Realm.

There are end notes, though not extensive, but no index, which is a bit of a drawback.

Led by Pope Benedict we are presently engaged in a struggle concerning our Catholic identity. Those who for the last decades have controlled the narrative about what it means to be Catholic, and controlled it within a very narrow band, are giving way to a new wave of Catholics who are looking at who they are and what they believe in continuity with a far deeper tradition. 

This slim book can give Catholics with a growing awareness of who they are a way of identifying both in themselves and in others certain tendencies to which we, as children of our own epoch, are necessarily subject.  Framed as a series of brief thematic responses, Nichols’ book will also help us as Catholics in the public square, and no doubt in our families as well, respond to common objections to Holy Church and our membership in her.

Furthermore, it is instructive, far-ranging and amusing.  I suspect that you, as I, will read this with pen in hand. 

(Of course you may, like I, be making your own index!)

DIGRESSION:

Another worthy Nichols book:

The Thought of Pope Benedict XVI: An Introduction to the Theology of Joseph Ratzinger



UK link to buy
USA link to buy

Nichols together with Tracey Rowland’s excellent book will give you a very comprehensive and accurate view of the methodology and thought of Joseph Ratzinger.



USA link
UK link

Some time ago, Fr. Aidan Nichols set out radical and comprehensive program for Catholic renewal of England in a book The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England. (For readers in the UK click HERE to buy.)

Fr. Nichols called for:

• 
  Firmer doctrine in our teaching and preaching
• Re-enchant the liturgy [My constant drumbeat.]
• Recover the insights of metaphysics
• Renew Christian political thought [Catholics must act in the public square.]
• Revive family life
• Resacralise art and architecture
• Put a new emphasis on monastic life
• Strengthen pro-life rhetoric
• Recover a Catholic reading of the Bible

From the UK’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald, comes this.

My emphases and comments.

Bishops call for renewal of Britain
By Ed West

5 March 2010

The bishops of England and Wales have called for a wholesale reform of public life. [Is this possible?]

In a major intervention ahead of the general election, expected on May 6, the bishops addressed the crisis of trust in Britain’s institutions following the financial meltdown and the MPs’ expenses scandal.

Choosing the Common Good, a 10-page statement issued on Wednesday, argued that Catholic social teaching offers a solution to the country’s most pressing problems.

The bishops did not endorse any of the parties contending possibly the closest election in years. [Human nature being what it is, some will say they did.] But their call for politicians to "recognise and support marriage" was widely seen as a boost for the Conservative Party, which has promised to give married couples tax breaks if it is elected.

The bishops said that one of the key challenges facing the next Parliament was to restore trust in Britain’s battered institutions.

"Few need reminding of how major institutions have failed to live up to their calling," they wrote. "Members of Parliament have been pilloried for their use of expenses and allowances. Bankers have earned astonishing bonuses and brought the world economy close to collapse. The Catholic Church, too, has had to learn in recent years some harsh lessons in safeguarding trust. We understand the damage inflicted when trust is betrayed. But from our part we value enormously the individuals who meet our needs with patience, compassion, skill and often great generosity. "The challenge for society is to build up our structures and institutions so that they command the same respect and trust as the individuals who represent them best. We know it can be done, but it requires a new sense of service to others at the heart of our institutions." 

The bishops said that trust could not be restored by increased regulation, but rather by an expansion of virtue. [How about a return to practice of the Catholic faith by fallen away Catholics a more committed practice by the practicing, and then a return to the faith by others?]

They wrote: "Our society will rediscover its capacity to trust by the recovery of the practice of virtue, and through an ethically founded reform of many of our social and economic institutions. This will itself begin to restore the economy to a path that is both sustainable and just. In this way trust will be re-established. 

"We believe that this is what the vast majority of ordinary British people instinctively want. They want to belong to a world in which people care for one another. They are alienated by a selfish society. At a profound level they care more for social capital as we have defined it than for financial capital, for quality of life than for the value of property.

"Yet the structures and values built into the way society works often frustrate them. Ways need to be found to liberate the generosity of the people not only when an extreme emergency arises, but routinely."  [How about a return to the Catholic Faith?]

The document also touched on contentious issues such as the defence of human life, poverty and inequality, migration and community relations, the environment, marriage and family life and the role of faith communities.

The bishops described abortion and euthanasia as a "fundamental denial" of the common good.

They called for renewed efforts to support older people on low incomes, tackle persistent poverty and promote equality of opportunity.

They said the debate about immigration should not be reduced "simply to a matter of numbers", but must clearly distinguish between the different types of migration. Immigration policy, they said, should start from a recognition of migrants’ human dignity and the inalienable rights that follow from it. They also deplored politicians who "whip up fears, prejudices and anxieties" about immigration.

The bishops urged leaders to "work to protect the environment from permanent damage, for instance through climate change".  [Change?  How about the bishops telling Catholics to return to the practice of their faith and then get involved in the public square in a big way?]

They also highlighted the "tragic personal, social and economic costs" of family breakdown. Government should promote stable families, they said, without usurping the rights of parents. And they called on all political parties to support marriage as a key building block of a stable society.

The bishops wrote: "The future of society passes by way of the family. Families, for better or worse, are the first school of life and love, where the capacity to relate to others, to develop moral character, is founded. The tragic personal, social and economic costs of increased family breakdown are unmistakable.

"Whilst we recognise and applaud the many parents who, despite family breakdown, provide a loving and stable home for their children, we have also as a society to accept that the promotion and encouragement of family stability must be a high priority if this trend, so damaging to the common good, is to be reversed.

"Families require financial as well as relational stability, access to affordable housing, and fair conditions of employment that respect family responsibilities. Families have a right to a life of their own, and governments do well when they interfere as little as possible while supporting parents in the exercise of their responsibilities. But at the heart of necessary policy initiatives to support the stability of couple relationships, it is essential to support marriage

"Marriage brings considerable and measurable benefits to individuals, children, family life and society. It deserves protection. A strong future for marriage is both achievable and desirable.

"A more realistic view of married life should be encouraged and couples should be prepared with the skills to maintain and develop their commitment. There should be more resources for relationship support. Society has a vested interest in supporting marriage as the surest basis for family life. Politicians of all parties should recognise and support marriage as a key building block of a stable society." The bishops also expressed concern about threats to freedom of religion. 

"Care must be taken not to put obstacles in the way of religious belief and practice which reduce it to devotional acts," they said.  [How about helping Catholics be better Catholics so that they can act as a leaven in society?]

They added: "Partnerships between Government and faith communities should be mutually respectful and permit these communities to act with integrity in the provision of public services for the common good. This has long been the case in the provision of education and the benefits brought by that partnership are substantial and clear. Faith communities also have their part to play in the formulation of public policy and have a right to make a proper contribution to the life of our democracy."

In his introduction to the document, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, president of the bishops’ conference, wrote: "We offer this statement as a contribution to the wider debate on the important themes of the moment. It forms a backdrop to the more particular issues which may well dominate the election itself. But it proposes that without a wider debate about a shared vision for our society, the electioneering may well be confined to bitter arguments over issues of particular policy. We need a more wide-ranging debate about the values and vision which can underpin all our joint effort today."

Choosing the Common Good is available from the bishops’ conference website, www.catholic church.org.uk. Tory leader David Cameron has offered to answer readers’ questions ahead of the election. If you have a question for him, please email us at editorial@catholicherald.co.uk or write to us at the address on Page 13 by next Wednesday.

Remember!  1st Thursday is TODAY… make a plan.

In this year dedicated to priests and prayer for priests, Holy Church has provided lay people with a special plenary indulgence on first Thursdays of each month.

For the faithful, a plenary indulgence can be obtained on the opening and closing days of the Year for Priests, on the 150th anniversary of the death of St. Jean-Marie Vianney, on the first Thursday of the month, or on any other day established by the ordinaries of particular places for the good of the faithful.

To obtain the indulgence the faithful must attend Mass in an oratory or Church and offer prayers to "Jesus Christ, supreme and eternal Priest, for the priests of the Church, or perform any good work to sanctify and mould them to his heart."

The conditions for the faithful for earning a plenary indulgence are to have gone to confession and prayed for the intentions designated by the Pope.

On Monday evening, 1 March 2010, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver gave a speech at Houston Baptist University called “The Vocation of Christians in American Public Life”.

The lecture was presented in coordination with the Pope John Paul II Forum for the Church in the Modern World at the University of St. Thomas.

He criticized President John F. Kennedy’s historic campaign speech on his faith impacting his possible presidency as “sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.”

I think this was a very important address.  As such, I decided to make a PODCAzT by reading the text of the Archbishop’s speech (yes, it is available also on Youtube) with by comments before and after.  I received the link to the Youtube page while I was making this, but decided to post anyway.  And my rendering of the talk section is a bit short that the original.  Check the page of the Archdiocese of Denver.


http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/10_03_02.mp3

 

Some people think that so long as Mass is valid, that the minimal elements of valid matter and valid form are used, we ought to be able to change all the other elements to conform to the needs or goals or even sentimentality of this community in this moment.

"Changes in the liturgy take on a momentous significance for the believer, for they are changes in his experience of God – changes, if you wish to be Feurbachian, in God himself.  The question whether to make the sign of the cross with two fingers or with three split a Church.  So can the question whether of not to use the Book of Common Prayer or the Tridentine Mass." 

For those priests and seminarians out there considering military chaplaincy during this administration…

From CNA with my emphases and comments:

Repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ could affect military chaplains’ religious freedom

Washington D.C., Feb 19, 2010 / 07:49 am (CNA).- Proposed changes [?!?  How about: "Pres. Obama’s State of the Union Address announcement about…] allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military could marginalize military chaplains from religions which consider homosexual acts sinful, a religious liberty group has warned.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said that if the military is forced to promote homosexual behavior [which is the right way to put this, by the way] there will be “open conflict between the virtues taught by chaplains and the moral message delivered by the military.”

“In such a conflict, it’s obvious who will win and who will lose,” Theriot claimed. “If the state favors the demands of the homosexual activists over the First Amendment, it is only a matter of time before the military censors the religious expression of its chaplains and marginalizes denominations that teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.”

A Feb. 17 letter from the ADF to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates lists many possible conflicts centering on whether chaplains could sincerely adhere to their religious beliefs and still conscientiously preach and counsel while serving as military chaplains.

Problems may arise concerning whether chaplains must allow soldiers who openly engage in homosexual behavior to lead worship services [ugh] or to serve in other lay leadership roles. Another concern for the ADF is whether chaplains may make public statements critical of homosexual behavior or military policy on the issue.

The ADF cited previous civilian conflicts between religious liberty and laws concerning homosexual behavior.

“Military chaplains who have volunteered to defend the liberties protected in our Constitution shouldn’t be denied those very same liberties,” Theriot argued.

He warned that forcing chaplains to “deny the teachings of their faith” in order to serve in the armed forces is a “grave threat” to the First Amendment and to the spiritual health of those in military service.

“We urge you to reconsider your decision and avoid this collision with America’s most cherished and fundamental freedom of religious liberty,” the ADF letter stated.

I noticed in John Zmirak’s article on "trads" that he picked up on a phrase I have been using for quite a while regarding Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  I have been calling SP Pope Benedict’s "emancipation proclamation".

Zmirak wrote in his piece that "many of our bishops answered it with liturgical Jim Crow."

I guess that means that those who don’t want to implement Summorum Pontificum "segregationists".

More news about Bp. Vasa in Baker, Oregon.

Bishop Vasa ends diocese’s sponsorship of hospital that performs sterilizations February 16, 2010

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker has announced that his Oregon diocese is ending its sponsorship of St. Charles Medical Center-Bend because the hospital persists in performing tubal ligations, thus refusing to adhere to Catholic teaching on sterilization.

“It is my responsibility to ensure the hospital is following Catholic principles both in name and in fact,” said Bishop Vasa. “It would be misleading for me to allow St. Charles Bend to be acknowledged as Catholic in name while I am certain that some important tenets of the Ethical and Religious Directives are no longer being observed.”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Catholic Church cuts formal ties with St. Charles-Bend (KTVZ-TV)

The new translation contains an alarming new threat.

"Consubstantial"

By clinging to the inaccurate rendering of "consubstantialem Patri" in the Creed as "one in being with the Father", liberals obfuscate the dogma of the Church that Jesus is God, that He is "consubstantial" with the Father. 

Ashtrays are "one in being" with the Father, or they wouldn’t exist.

Jesus isn’t just human.  Jesus is God.

The Son was ever God.  There was never a time when He was not.  Jesus, the Incarnate Son, was God from the instant of His conception.

"Consubstantial" will impress on people the fact that Jesus is God.

Let’s consider the claim of the liturgical left that people started finally to understand Mass when it was in the vernacular, and then their crystal-ball-gazing claim that "Joe and Mary Catholic" won’t be able to understand "consubstantial".  

We must ask, with a little shudder, "What do they understand now?"  If you ask them what they understand about who Jesus is, what answer will they give? 

Can liberals offer a prediction?

It is worth thinking about this.  

Do people really believe that Jesus is God?

The shift from the vague "one in being" language to the more accurate "consubstantial" will serve as an opportunity to verify the faith of those in the pews (not to mention at the altar).

Liberals are fomenting revolt.

They are revolting against Pope Benedict XVI, and the bludgeon they are using right now is the new translation.

More and more we are catching whiffs of a rather rank dissent in the ranks of liberals who are seeking to persuade the less acute that they should resist the implementation of the new English translation of the Roman Missal.

Frankly, I say if you really hate the new translation the best way to protest is not to continue to use the lame-duck ICEL version but rather just switch to Latin.  That’s real protest!  But I digress.

This is from the UK’s best Catholic weekly The Catholic Herald, with my emphases and comments:

A new English translation? Amen to that

The objections to the new English translation of the Missal fall apart upon close inspection, says liturgical publisher John Newton [editor-in-chief of the excellent traditional liturgical publisher Baronius Press]

Some people are predicting riots in the pews when the new translation of the Mass is introduced.  [Correction: some people want riots.]

For several years now experts have been preparing a revised English translation of the Roman Missal, which follows the Latin more closely. Following Vatican approval in 2008 the introduction of the new texts into parishes is on the horizon.Yet the project is not without its critics.

Vociferous objections were raised in some quarters of South Africa when it was accidently [yah, right… it was an "accident"] introduced last year and in America Fr Michael Ryan’s internet petition to halt the implementation of the new translations has attracted more than 10,000 signatures from around the world. [Very many of them "anonymous", unverifiable, and even bogus.  Someone put my name on their list, for example.  Think about that.] But there’s no reason that changing the words of the Mass should cause any problems.

Perhaps time has dimmed our memories, but we seem to have forgotten that many of the people’s parts were changed in 1975, less than six years after the new form of the Mass was introduced. And, as many of the objections to the forthcoming changes focus on the use of more formal language, it is worth remembering that this is exactly the sort of language that was originally used in the new Mass.

A quick look at the Sanctus illustrates the point. The first line of the 1969 translation – "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts" – is identical to the new version. And those who fear the coming changes should be heartened by the fact that the rest of the new Sanctus is exactly the same as it is at the moment.  [The Lefevbrists-Of-The-Left will protest: "But…. but… sputter… but… we have been using this translation for nearly forty whole years now!  It’s a tradition that can’t be changed!  People are used to this!"  This from the same people who didn’t give a tinker’s damn about the people they hurt and the chaos created by the rupture they inflicted in the Church’s long liturgical tradition.]

For better or worse, we will not be going back to the 1969 text, which continued: "Thy glory fills all heaven and earth" – although I imagine there will be some who wish we were.

Indeed, one distinctive feature of the 1969 translations was the use of hierarchic language when addressing God. So the Gloria ran:

Glory be to God on high,
And on earth peace to men who are God’s friends
We praise thee. We bless thee.
We adore thee. We glorify thee.
We give thee thanks for thy great glory.

The reason the 1969 translations were replaced in 1975 was not a revolt against the thees and thous, nor because formal language had failed to serve the needs of the liturgy.

Rather it was because [get this] an ecumenical body, the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET), produced a version of the people’s parts of the liturgy that were adopted by the Catholic Church. Some opponents of the new English version have lamented the fact that, by abandoning the current texts, we will no longer be using common translations with other Christians.  [Too bad.  Furthermore, the only Protestants who will object to abandoning the poorly translated texts are also those who will object to the clearer theology of the better translation.]

This would be a fair point if it were true, but it is actually a base canard. Most Protestant communions stopped using these texts more than a decade ago. If they have found the ICET translations no longer meet the requirements of worship, there seems to me to be no good reason for us to keep them.

Indeed, given the Catholic Church seems to be leaning more and more towards the Orthodox, it is worth noting that when an English version of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom was published in 1995 it did not use the relevant ICET texts, but opted for a new translation employing more formal language.

Surprisingly, when the new English translations are introduced in the Mass the version of the Sanctus will be identical to that found in the Orthodox Liturgy. Many other parts have marked similarities – even the Creed, despite the inclusion of the filioque clause, is terribly close. It is hard to imagine that there was no consultation of the Orthodox texts when the new version of the Mass was being put together.

Yet, bizarrely, there are murmurings that in order to "save Vatican II" we need to resist the new translations. In high rhetorical fashion [the hysterical] Fr Ryan has said they are contributing to "what seems like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s decree".  [I like that: "dismantling the vision".  He can’t really point to anything in the documents themselves that is being "dismantled", so he points to a more nebulous "vision".]

He considers them "highly controversial" and asserts that "many highly respected liturgists and linguists" are unhappy with the "ungainly, awkward sentences".

While it is fair to say that not all of new texts are perfect, a little judicious polishing will smooth out the odd problems where these occur. What is needed is occasional fine tuning, not root and branch change.

Perhaps the problem is that we forget that liturgy is designed to lift our hearts and minds to God (see Sacrosanctum Concilium 33). [It also said that Latin was to be retained.] The natural language of liturgy leans towards the poetic, and when the new texts are approached as poetry then people will more readily be able to understand the riches they express.

Dignified and formal translations served the English-speaking Church well when the new Mass was first introduced in 1969, and they will do so again when the new texts arrive.

One hopes that, as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said, "the implementation of the revised Roman Missal [will] be a time of deepening, nurturing, and celebrating our faith through our worship and the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy".

Amen to that.
 

My good friend Fr. Ray Blake, the great P.P. of St. Mary Magdalen in Brighton, has a good post:

Mysogynistic, Homophobic, Fascist, Racist and Xenophobic

I find it quite frightening on how badly prepared the Church in England and Wales is to combat secularism and opposition to the Church’s teaching. We give the impression that we don’t really care.

This weekend there will be a demonstration against the Papal visit outside Westminster Cathedral followed by a rally outside the Italian embassy, presumably in the hope of attracting the attention of the Italian media, amongst the speakers will be Peter Tatchell, it advertises itself as:

    We support:
    · Women’s equality and reproductive rights
    · Equal rights for LGBT people
    · A secular Europe – immune to the Vatican’s agenda
    · One law for all, no religious exemptions from the law
    · State neutrality in matters of religion and belief
    We oppose:
    · European Union collusion with religion (Lisbon Treaty Article 16c)
    · The special status of the Vatican in the United Nations
    · State-funded faith schools
    · The economic privilege and political influence of the Vatican in Italy
    · Taxpayers funding the Pope’s State Visit to the UK this September
    · Misogyny, homophobia, fascism, racism and xenophobia

The problem is, I suspect most people in our congregation might actually agree or be unable to argue coherently against these assertions. Those Catholics not attending Sunday Mass, especiallly the young, are easy prey for the presentation of the Church as mysogynistic, homophobic, fascist, racist and xenophobic.

The very fact that our schools, our Catholic charities, our bishops, our clergy, our leading thinkers, our journalists, etc do not oppose this kind of appalling presentation of our faith might suggest that most of them believe that it is true.

Every agency of the Church needs to direct its efforts to communicating our Catholic vision of humanity. Too often we merely preach to the converted, rather than preaching to convert.

Let’s stop being so Churchy and look out, start training applogists, public speakers, people who can write about the faith.

 

Go give Fr. Blake some WDTPRS kudos.