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

I received a piece from a frequent reader/poster here at WDTPRS, Brian Mershon (pronounced MershON).  He asked me to look at it and, if useful post it. 

My emphases and comments.

PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance

By Brian Mershon

Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) has recently responded with a letter dated May 23, 2008, to questions I invoked regarding the official canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X and those Catholics who attend their chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

This article is certain to generate much commentary both from die-hard SSPXers who can’t bear to believe their marriages and confessions might be invalid to “more Catholic than the Pope” conservatives who will continue to misconstrue the clear teaching of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón and the Catholic Church regarding laity who attend SSPX chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.   [I love the smell of napalm in the morning… and I don’t mean the napalm patristibloggers enjoy!]

Indeed, the repeated public statements of Cardinal Castrillón that the SSPX is not in formal schism certainly rises above the level of a cleric’s private opinion on matters outside of his competence. His statements can be viewed by all Catholics as reflective of the current position of the Catholic Church on these matters. [That is so.] While some canonists, in good faith, might disagree, Cardinal Castrillón and the PCED’s responses to private correspondence certainly rise above the level of authority of a mere canonist’s opinion. [Probably.  Card. Castrillon is not just anyone.  He is President of the Commission which enjoys competence and authority from the Supreme Pontiff is act in all these matters.  He has made certain statements about the statues of the SSPX - repeatedly.  If what he were saying was not appreciated by the Holy Father, he would have been asked not to keep saying it.]

The responses to the letter below can be acted upon with a moral certitude.  [An important point is "moral certitude".  When in the Church we must deal with objective acts that everyone can see, we still cannot perfectly judge what we cannot see clearly.  Therefore, ecclesiastical authority must come to "moral certainty" when issuing a censure, for example.  This is the language Archbp. Burke used recently in his decrees about censures.  Also, when divorced lay people receive back from a tribunal a decree about the nullity of their marriages, they may then have "moral certainly" that they are free to marry.  When the Congregation for Causes of Saints issues a decree about the "heroic virture" of a person, it does so after coming to a "moral certainty" about the person’s state of soul based on the evidence that was gatehred and evaluated.  It is hard to judge perfectly things which cannot be seen or entirely grasped.  ]

His Eminence
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED)
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY

Monday of Holy Week
Anno Domini 2008

Your Eminence,

I [Mershon] have compiled as reference numerous public interviews, both print and television, where you were quoted as stating that the case of the Society of St. Pius X “is not a formal schism” and other words to that effect.

Q: Is this your mere private opinion, or the official teaching of the Catholic Church in your official capacity as head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? 

PCED: “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.”  [This means that it might in fact be the case that the SSPX is in schism, but at this point the matter hasn’t been officially decided by the Holy See, or if it has, they have decided not to say.  No official declaration means that, right now, people can act in moral certainty that the SSPX is not in a state of schism, disagree or not.]

Would you please clarify the following for me in this private correspondence so that I can ensure that my family and I are following the current teaching of the Church on this specific matter?  [The writer wants moral certainty.  He doesn’t want to make a mistake that could affect his spiritual life and that of his family.]

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are in formal schism with the Catholic Church? 

PCED: “The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of Episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L’Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1988, p. 1].

“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. [There’s that word again.  Puzzling.]

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. [Invalid.  Marriages and confessions.] It remains true, however, [pay attention] that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)  [What we get into here involves a person’s culpability for ignorance.  If a guy genuinely doesn’t know that the SSPX priests don’t have the faculties from the Church so that marriages and confessions can be valid, then the person himself is simply ignorant and, well, God takes care of him through the Church.  If he has never had the news or information about this at all, or if he has had it inadequately explained so that he doesn’t get it, it doesn’t stick, then he is not at fault for his ignorace – unless ... unless he either a) figured out there was something really important to this he didn’t understand and, either because he was lazy or afraid of learning the truth he therefore purposely avoided more information or b) is in a position of authority or responsibility which by its very nature require him to be adequately well-informed about all those things he must deal with.  In the case of a person who could learn, but doesn’t for whatever reason, we are talking about ignorance that could be overcome.  That person is in a state of vincible ignorance.  That ignorance can then either be innocent or culpable, depending on his own degree of guilt or responsibility for his own ignorance.  Then there are those who, for whatever reason, perhaps they are very stupid or perhaps they have some genuine psychological block, just can’t figure out or learn they truth, this is vinciable ignorance, which can’t be overcome. They have far less culpability, or none, for their state.]

“While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism” (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. [It can happen over time, though this would differ with every person.] While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. [Because, to one degree or another, you are weakening your bond wit the local bishop and the Roman Pontiff.] We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.”

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is not one for ecumenical dialogue [Good question.] because the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church?

PCED: “Up to now the Catholic Church has acted as if the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church and not a matter of ecumenical dialogue.”

Q: Do lay Catholics who frequent Society of St. Pius X chapels, either more less frequently, incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so, [Well… you don’t "incur" sin or delict, you "commit" them.  You incur a censure.]  if done solely out of devotion to the Church’s Latin liturgical tradition and not to separate one’s self from communion with one’s diocesan Ordinary or local pastor?  [Again we are into matters of conscience.]

PCED: “Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so. [They are quoting his language back to him.] However, we further refer you to what we have already stated in #4 above.”

A: What level of authority do your answers to this private correspondence hold?

PCED: “As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: “This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty.” [There is the issue of moral certainty.] We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.” [This is important because the PCED has competence in these matters and no other Vatican office should step on their toes.  For example, should the CDW get a question about the old Mass, they should pass it to the PCED.  If the Cong. for Clergy get these questions, they should be forwarded to the PCED.]

Please know that you and your staff and the Holy Father are in my family’s constant prayers as we prepare to celebrate the Holy Week and the season of Easter.

Pax Christi in Regno Christi,

Brian C. Mershon

Commentary on the PCED Responses   [This is by Mershon.]

1. The current language being used by the Catholic Church avoids saying that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism.  [They are not saying officially that the SSPX is NOT in schism.  They are avoiding saying officially anything either way.]

2. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained in the Society of St. Pius X directly against the express will of the Holy Father incurred excommunication, as outlined by the Code of Canon Law and confirmed by the Congregation for Bishops and Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.  [Remember, that no censure is incurred without the person having sinned.  When enough outward evidence points to the sinful nature of the act, the censure is also officially declared, as happened with the confirmation by the Congregation.  This is why some latae sententiae excommunications are later publicly confirmed.  They go by the evidence, come to a moral certainty about the person’s having incurred the censure automatically (which means they examined the evidence even of the possibility of the sinful nature of the objective act, and then made a decision, declaring the situation for the good of souls.]

3. The Society of St. Pius X priests are suspended from priestly ministry. Therefore, objectively speaking, they are committing sins of grave matter by continuing their active ministry without a specific mandate of the Church. [Of course they may subjectively not be sinning, they may either so convinced of their rectitude or, perhaps, dense, that they are not actually guilty of the objective sins they may be commiting.]  Of course, the Society’s official claim, wrongly or rightly, is that the salvation of souls and the current state of emergency in the Church forces them to continue to offer their ministries without ecclesiastical approval. There has been no indication by the Catholic Church that the priests, as a whole, are excommunicated or in formal schism.  [Remember: it is pretty hard, I would say impossible, to continue a claim of a state of emergency when more than one Pope, over quite a long time, says there isn’t not one that justified their actions.]

4. Therefore, all the sacraments offered by Society of St. Pius X priests, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, [And that is important.] are valid, but illicit, meaning “illegal.” Penance and Matrimony both require faculties from the local bishop, [or other legitimate authority such as a religious superior, etc., but generally also the local bishop if a priest is stable in a place for a long time and working publicly.] which the Society of St. Pius X priests do not have; therefore, they are invalid. Cases of supplied jurisdiction apply to those who are, for example, in danger of death. [That is to say that the Church’s law itself gives the faculty to any priest, even one who has been "laicized" to absolve in danger of death, even if there is present also a priest in good standing.  This is because the highest good of all the law is the salvation of souls.  Thus, law foresees these possibilities.]  Those who read and understand the PCED’s response can no longer claim ignorance regarding the Church’s official teaching on these two sacraments’ invalidity.  [The writer is trying to overcome the ignorance, vinicible and perhaps also culpable ignorance of those who frequent SSPX priests for absolution or who go to them to be married.  This is like saying: at this point you have no excuse.  You have been told.  You can’t claim ignorance anymore.  From now on, if you go to an SSPX priest for absolution, it is probably not going to forgive your sins.]

5. Catholic laymen may attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel without committing any sin nor incurring any canonical penalty. However, the PCED guidance is that it “cannot recommend” attendance at the Society of St. Pius X chapels due to the danger of imbibing a “schismatic mentality.”  [And we have seen that mentality among some lay people who frequent their chapels and give them support.] In other words, someone might find some Society priests fomenting division from full communion with the Church, their local Ordinary and/or the Holy Father in their sermons. The PCED’s recommendation is not to attend their chapels habitually, but they acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

6. The Society of St. Pius X is in an irregular canonical situation and an “internal matter” and therefore is not a case of ecumenical dialogue. [They are, in sense, Catholics on the slippery slope.]

7. Again, the correspondence from the PCED can be accepted and acted upon with “docility and moral certitude” by Catholics. The specific questions I asked were broad enough in nature to constitute an official response for Catholics to use as guidance.  [But they are not more than that.  They are not definitive or official.  They have weight and people can act on them with confidence.]

Catholic priests, bishops or laymen who contradict these specific responses seem to be out of step with the Church’s current official position.

My additional notes: While people can to some extent or reason agree with or disagree with the specific recommendations of the PCED or statements of Card. Castrillon, I would add this caution.

First, not everyone’s opinion is of equal weight.  Joe Bagofdonuts’ opinon is not going to be, probably, as good as mine, who have training and experience in these things at a level Joe doesn’t have.  My opinion is probably not going to be as good as that of a canonist, etc.  Our opinions are not as weighty as that of the President of the Commission which enjoys competence from the Lawgiver, the Vicar of Christ.  When the Cardinal speaks, his opinion has weight.  Joe really doesn’t have strong position to criticize the Cardinal in these matters, so perhaps he ought to pipe down and listen.

Second, some of the things, above, are based on Canon Law and on moral principles.  Those are not the sort of things we can disagree with because they are the general principles applied to the particular cases in question. 

This was interesting.  I hope this was useful for you!

 

 

Just when the Catholic Cathedral in Cardiff hits the LMS from the blind side, over in Winchester, at the Anglican Cathedral, something very different is happening.

I got this e-mail from a kind reader:

It is reported that this is how the forthcoming Mass at Winchester Cathedral on Saturday 21st June
at 11 a.m. came about:
 
It seems that some Anglican members of the Choir at Winchester Cathedral are particularly interested in the liturgy and they wanted to have a Mass in thanksgiving for the Motu Proprio. One is an acquaintance of the people who organise Masses for the Latin Mass Society in Canterbury Cathedral.  [Did you get that?  Anglicans are thankful for Summo[]rum Pontificum and want to celebrate it.]

The Dean and Chapter were all in favour and agreed.  So the Cathedral Choir will be singing a Polyphonic Mass with Gregorian Chant. Bishop Hollis was consulted and apparently agreed to the plan as long as it was a one-off.  [Bp. Hollis of Portsmouth is definitely not known as a strong conservative, but my friends in the Portsmouth diocese tell me that even before Summorum Pontificum he never said no to celebrations of the older form of Mass. ] The Celebrant is the former Abbot of Belmont, the Rev Dr laurence Hemming from London will be Deacon and a priest from Marlborough will be Sub Deacon.

This is what I call true ecumenical dialogue!
 

I got a question from a reader.  Perhaps you can chime in with answers.

I believe he is talking about the Novus Ordo.

Should the congregation STAND or SIT for the singing of the Sequence on Easter and Pentecost? At my church the cantor asked for people to remain seated for the Sequence. One of the priests said that was wrong, that the congregation should stand. Which is Correct?

I’ll let you readers get into this.

In the meantime, perhaps our WDTPRS parody song writer can come up with the answer… musically. 

"Should I stand or should I sit", might be just as good a title for someone going to the "Tridentine" Mass for the first time!

Tonight all across the world people will, alas, take note that some priests and bishop have decided to wash the feet of women during the Holy Thursday Mass. 

They do this even though they shouldn’t and, probably, know they shouldn’t.

Pretty frustrating, isn’t it?

And in those times when we are irritated by such disrespect what do traditional, conservative Catholics do? 

They write parody songs, of course!

The official WDTPRS parodohymnologist, Tim Ferguson, has sent me this:

A Holy Thursday Reflection on “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree” by Lew Brown, Sam Stept and Charles Tobias.
(Imagine Ray Eberle and the Modernaires singing this…)

Don’t go washing those women’s feet; the Latin is plain to me:
“selecti” should be “viri.” The rubrics are clear you see. No, no, no,
Don’t go washing those women’s feet at Thursday night’s liturgy,
Thus says the Pope of Rome.

Don’t go altering rubrics now, no matter who you may be,
Or where you got your degree in Scripture and Liturgy. No, no, no,
Don’t go altering rubrics now, this calls for humility:
You’re not the Pope of Rome. 

I just got word that Ranjith has heard,
‘n put the Vicar in a jam,
Seems some priest here, washing feet last year,
Scrubbed a nylon-covered gam.
So, don’t go washing those women’s feet at Thursday night’s liturgy,
Or feel the wrath of Rome.

There… isn’t that better?

Has anyone else noticed that it seems only serious, traditionally minded Catholics tend to have a good sense of humor?  I guess this comes from the fact that when you are right you can’t be wrong.  That gives us the security to be funny.

 

But, getting back to business… I am feeling that old anger rise up inside again, .... and I need an outlet.

And what better outlet than …. another song!

From the Musical: Fiddler on the Apse
(a parody of Matchmaker, Matchmaker, from Fiddler on the Roof)

Yenta: Modernist Liturgist,
Please wash my feet,
I’m not wearing sox,
And I’ll be discrete,
Inculturate the American Way,
And please wash my feet Thursday….

Fr. Lovebeads: I am the Liturgist,
Take off your shoes!
Women and men,
There’s no need to choose!
“Viri selecti,” is just not too clear,
I’ll wash all your feet this year…

Fr. Lovebeads: For me now,
It signals inclusion!

Yenta: For me now,
It’s my chance to shine! 

Congregation: For us, well,
It doesn’t matter,
As long as we’re leaving for home by nine! 

Congregaton: Modernist Liturgist,
Give us a break!
Follow the red words
For pity’s sake.
Mass after Mass we feel under attack,
Please, just say the words in black!

The Official WDTPRS Parody Song Writer, the esteemed Tim Ferguson has been at it again.

As he put it,

“I ruminated a bit more … and came to the realization that, while “La Donna e Mobile” might be readily appreciated and understood by those with an interest in the motu proprio, there’s also a need to reach out to those who might not be so appreciative and who, in general, tend to have different musical tastes.”

He continues….

So, reaching back to the halcyon days of folk music and came up with a version of the Pete Seeger classic (made famous by the Byrds in 1965) :

Go to the altar (turn, turn, turn)
look to the East now, (turn, turn, turn)
there’s a time for every Mass now, if it’s valid.
The time for banjos and dancing is gone,
dust off the censer, and toss out the bong.
No need for hugging, we all get along
let’s keep our focus together, on Jesus.

Page through the Missal (turn, turn, turn)
remember the rubrics (turn, turn, turn)
there’s a time and a purpose for those words there Pure,
humble rev’rence is what we now lack,
just do the red words and say those in black.
When we say High Mass, there’s no need for crack,
just let your deacon and subdeacon guide you.

Now weed your library, (turn, turn, turn)
use some discernment (turn, turn, turn)
it is time now to brush up on your Latin.
Farewell to Vosko, McBrien, Hans Keung,
deep down you knew that they just peddled deung,
the 60’s are old and the Church is still young
what still subsists is a thing of great beauty.

Frequent poster and old friend Tim Ferguson, noted writer of brilliant parody lyrics (who authored inter alia "O Come, O Come, Liturgical Blue") has given us his newest on the problem of Milingo:

Here we go.  It is to the tune of the famous song in The Sound of Music:

How do you solve a problem like Milingo

He sneaks around and can’t be found,
Until he’s on TV…
He takes a Moonie for a wife,
Embracing heresy;
And underneath his mitre,
Seems his lost his sanity.
I heard him once professing Docetism.

He’s always breaking canons
But his penitence is real
He’s always late for everything
Except for every meal
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
Milingo’s even worse than Charlie Curran!

I’d like to say a word in his behalf
(then say it, Sr. Margaretta)
Milingo makes me… laugh.

How do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you make a bishop keep in line?
How do you find a word that means Milingo?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown!

If bishops are dogs, Emmanuel is a dingo Which even a German Shepherd couldn’t tame.
So how do you make him stay
And shut up for just one day?
How do you keep a crosier from his hand?

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you keep a Moonie’s feet on land?

When I’m with him I’m distressed
Things he blesses don’t seem blessed
And you never know what stunt he’s pulling next He’s defiant as M. Luther Wacky as Rosemary Reuther He’s a bishop! He’s a nutcase! He’s a wreck!

He’s a Gnostic without Gnoss
Like a crosier sans a cross
He could make a Trappist hermit scream out loud He is funny, he wild Pray his wife is not with child!
He’s a headache, he’s amusing
He’s a looooooon

How do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you make a bishop keep in line?
How do you find a word that means Milingo?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown!

Many a thing you know you’d like to tell him:
Celibacy’s not just a papal whim
So how do you make him stay
And shut up for just one day?
How do you keep a crosier from his hand?

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Milingo?
How do you keep a Moonie’s feet on land?

Today, on a boat in Pittsburgh, 12 women are pretending to get ordained. In their honor, a little riff on Gilligan’s Island has been written:

Come sit right back
and you’ll hear a tale,
a tale of some heretics
That started from a Pittsburgh port,
aboard a tiny ship.

The mate was a fan of labyrinths
The skipper was a nun
10 other women were on board
for sacramental fun.
(for sacramental fun)

The liturgy was getting rough,
The litany was long,
Invoking Lilith, Gaia too,
Seemed just a bit too wrong
(though not to Bishop Spong)

The ship set ground in a strange new world,
uncharted heresy
With lesbians And feminists
An acting deacon’s wife
Peace activists
And the rest
Here on Womanchurch Isle

So this is the tale of the priestesses
There here for a long, long time.
They’re sure to make a mess of things
And bitch and moan and whine.

No pope! No men! No canon law
Not a dime to Peter’s Pence!
Like Lollard, Hussites, Bogomils,
They’ve left out common sense.

So join us here each year my friend,
There’s sure to be more fun,
With a hearty shout, “non serviam!
My will, not Thine be done.”

FR. Z ADDS: I am not sure we will thank Tim for planting the Gilligan’s Island theme song in our heads, where it will no doubt stick for a while, but this was pretty good parody work, I’ll say.

Frequent WDTPRS contributor Andrew posted a gem, on dew, as a comment to another thread in this blog:

Here it is (emphasis mine):

Interesting how Latin uses the concept of dew in various forms.

In addition to “Ros, Roris” (dew) and “Rorare” (”to dew” as in “Rorate Caeli”) we also have “Roratio” (dewing?)

After the conclusion of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI issued his Apostolic Constitution “Mirificus Eventus” where he declared a year of jubilee and encouraged the faithful to gather with their bishops in their cathedral churches. Here is a sentence from that document:

Deinde templum cathedrale expressa imago est ducenda aspectabilis Christi Ecclesiae, quae in terrarum orbe et precatur, et canit, et adorat; est nimirum imago putanda Mystici eius Corporis, cuius membra in una conglutinantur caritatis compage, supernorum donorum RORATIONE nutrita;

[Further, the cathedral temple is an expression of the image of the Church of Christ, praying, singing, adoring all over the world: surely it is to be viewed as an image of His Mystical Body, whose members are bound together through a structure of love, nourished by the “dewing” of celestial gifts …]

Isn’t that a nice expression? “Christi Ecclesia supernorum donorum roratione nutrita.” (The Church of Christ nourished by the “dewing” of celestial gifts).

Gorgeous turn of phrase.   "...nourished by the dewing…"  Thanks for that!  It brings in both the action of the Holy Spirit and also the gift of the Eucharist, our viaticum in this veil of tears. 

Here is a riff for you: Contrast "this veil of tears" with the working of the Holy Spirit as "dew".

Vice President Richard Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington, a millionaire Texan, while the two were on a quail hunting trop this past weekend. Mr. Whittington is in stable condition, and recovering well, after getting peppered with the shotgun fire.

I could be wrong, but this might well be the first time a sitting Vice President shot and wounded someone since July 11, 1801, when Aaron Burr dueled with Alexander Hamilton. Let’s hope and pray that Mr. Whittington does much better than the late lamented Mr. Hamilton.

Following tradition, Pope Benedict addressed himself at the beginning of the year to the judges and other canonists of the Roman Rota, the court which deals primarily as the court of appeal for matrimonial nullity cases. This annual allocution is closely watched by canonists worldwide to give some sense of the direction the Pope and the Rota will take in the development of jurisprudence. Generally, the Pope gently corrects what he sees as deficiencies, or praises positive developments. This year’s allocution (VIS has excerpts translated into English here) was given on Saturday and follows the traditional form.

There is a lot to digest in this year’s allocution. Two significant moments last year in the canonical world were the issuance of the Instruction, Dignitas connubii in the Spring, and the comments made by a number of bishops at the Synod of Bishops regarding the difficulties faced by pastors dealing with those in irregular marriage situations. At the Synod, a number of Bishops urged swifter and "more pastoral" applications of the law to those who are divorced and remarried, so that their marital situation can be regularized and they can be readmitted to the Eucharistic banquet. In this, these Bishops echoed the concerns Pope Benedict himself expressed to the clergy of the diocese of Aosta while on vacation there in July:

"

We all know that this is a particularly painful problem for people who live in situations in which they are excluded from Eucharistic Communion, and naturally for the priests who desire to help these people love the Church and love Christ. This is a problem.

None of us has a ready-made formula, also because situations always differ. I would say that those who were married in the Church for the sake of tradition but were not truly believers, and who later find themselves in a new and invalid marriage and subsequently convert, discover faith and feel excluded from the Sacrament, are in a particularly painful situation. This really is a cause of great suffering and when I was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I invited various Bishops’ Conferences and experts to study this problem: a sacrament celebrated without faith. Whether, in fact, a moment of invalidity could be discovered here because the Sacrament was found to be lacking a fundamental dimension, I do not dare to say. I personally thought so, but from the discussions we had I realized that it is a highly-complex problem and ought to be studied further. But given these people’s painful plight, it must be studied further. "

and further

"On the one hand, therefore, is the good of the community and the good of the Sacrament that we must respect, and on the other, the suffering of the people we must alleviate. " (Meeting with the Diocesan Clergy of Aosta

The Pope truly recognizes the pain of those who have suffered failed marriages, but at the same time recognizes the authentic teaching of the Church that marriage is permanent, and cannot simply be ended. The canonical process for determining the invalidity of marriage cannot be simply a tool for "sanctifying" a divorce – not every marriage proposed to the tribunal is invalid, and it would be a travesty of justice were that to be the case.

Especially in some conservative or traditional sectors of the Church, there is concern that too many marriages are declared null by the Church’s courts, that "annulments" are too easily handed out. I myself shared this concern before beginning my work in a tribunal. The tribunal of the Archdiocese of Detroit is one of the busiest tribunals in the U.S., and therefore, one of the busiest in the world. Instead of seeing judges annulling marriages willy-nilly, with little regard for the law or for the facts of the case, I’ve found priests, lay canonists, and office personnel truly concerned about the administration of justice, the search for truth, and an appropriate pastoral response to the situations we’re asked to face. True, a large number of marriages are found to be invalid, but I have not seen any incidents of justice being miscarried, or of callous disregard for the truth.

This is precisely what the Pope calls for in his recent Allocution: a diligent search for the truth. It’s often said that pastoral concerns and the demands of justice and law are two separate, even opposed concerns. As eminent a canonist as Joaquin Llobell of Santa Croce University recently seemed to adopt this view. Yet Pope Benedict clearly demonstrates that true pastoral concern is synonymous with the demands for justice, in that they both have as their aim the search for truth. Highlighting the pastoral nature of tribunal work, the Pope expressed concern that Tribunals not be overly preoccuppied with the "le formalità giuridiche previste" the prescribed legal formalities, and neglect the pastoral end of the process. At the same time, Courts must have an appropriate understanding of what "pastoral" means – not, as is often interpretted, giving people whatever they ask for and declaring marriages null without sufficient proof (the Law requires that the judge have "moral certitude" based on the evidence presented that the marriage is null).

In the end, the Pope urged the Rota, and by analogy all those involved in tribunal work, to handled cases with appropriate speed and foster a love for the truth, for it is Truth Himself who should be our guide and goal.

Via the Rome Report, an interesting article by Tim Drake from the National Catholic Register on the difficulties faced by newly ordained priests. As a friend of many young priests from different parts of the world, the tensions Drake points out seem particularly a North American phenomenon.

All newly ordained priests face the difficulty of a transition from a style of life with a heavy emphasis on community to a relatively solitary life in a parish. With few exceptions, rectory life, even if there are other priests living there, is a lonely existence. I’ve known of situations where priests, living together, almost never have a conversation, let alone pray together.

There is frequently a generational conflict of younger men living with older men. Styles, patterns, habits, all cause tensions. Most problems, however, seem to emerge from doctrinal differences. The younger, generally more orthodox priests living with older, generally more heterodox pastors. The older priests tend to greet their younger colleagues with a suspicious attitude – after all, these are John Paul’s men, all interested in turning the clock back to 1950. Not that the younger priests are innocent of suspicions either – sometimes, very legitimate demands from the pastor (who is, after all, the “superior” in this relationship) are treated as affronts. Bitterness and acrimony replace mature dialogue, and a parish is often divided as people, for various reasons, chose sides. While Christ promised that the Gospel would bring division, I’m not certain this is what He had in mind.

If the pastor asked the vicar to preach in favor of women’s ordination, the vicar would be required by the demands of faith to do otherwise. Likewise, if the vicar preached on the invalidity of the Second Vatican Council, the pastor would be rightly angered. But let’s create this hypothetical situation: The pastor asks that the parochial vicar preach on stewardship on a particular Sunday – a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The vicar, instead, preaches on the evils of abortion – a perfectly reasonable thing to preach on.

Here’s where manly virtue (something sadly lacking in many quarters of the Church) should come into play. Instead of talking behind each other’s back – complaining to their own cheering sections where they would be reassured of the righteousness of their actions and the deviousness of the other’s – real men would not be afraid of confrontation. Calm, reasonable confrontation, that is. And, owing to the hierarchical nature of the Church and the pastor’s canonical role in the parish, if the pastor isn’t demanding something odious to the faith, his preferences reign. The Christian virtue of obedience isn’t a virtue if it’s only practiced when one agrees with the authority demanding it.

On the other hand, pastors should not dismiss their vicar’s points of view simply because they disagree with them. There is much to be said about the fervor of the newly ordained. On a purely practical level, pastors should take care how they treat their vicars – it is the younger priests who will be taking care of them in their retirement years.

I realize I present this as somewhat of an outsider, but as someone not ordained who has close friends in the priesthood and plenty of experience in rectories, I think I can be relatively objective. My ideological tendencies are alligned with the younger priests, the JP II generation, but there are times when I hear these young priests complain about their pastors and I can’t help but cringe. Young priests need good, solid mentors. Sadly, the generation of priests who naturally should be providing that mentorship are a generation noted for their navel-gazing tendencies and too many are simply concerned about protecting their shrinking ideological base to be good guides.

I went to do an annulment talk last night at a parish in a little town downriver called Ecorse. Unfortunately, no one showed up. I waited for 15-20 minutes, until the pastor came in, apologized – they had promoted the talk
in the bulletin and from the pulpit, but there just weren’t any takers.

But, during my time there, I had a chance to pick up pen and paper and come up with:

I spoke of divorce in Ecorse, perforce
there is no recourse to divorce, of course;
that is, of course,
unless the source
is the Church’s visible head.

A Privilege isn’t divorce, of course,
though similar in its effects and force:
one may, of course,
without remorse
jump into another bed.

At long last, the English translation of Pope Benedict’s December 22 speech to the Roman Curia has been posted online. In it, His Holiness reflects on four important items from the past year. First, the passing of his predecessor, John Paul II; secondly, World Youth Day in Cologne; thirdly, the Synod on the Eucharist and lastly the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council.

Before turning my focus to the last section of the Pope’s talk, I think it’s interesting to point out that, in speaking of the conclusion of the Year of the Eucharist and the Synod, the Pope praises the proliferation of Eucharistic adoration in our day. He castigates the statement, “the Eucharistic Bread has not been given to us to be contemplated, but to be eaten,” often cited by those who espoused the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” which he takes apart in succeeding paragraphs. Benedict calls the use of such a statement or sentiment “nonsensical.” I can’t say I’ve ever seen that word used in a papal allocution. The Pope actually called a belief held by Richard McBrien nonsense.

But, to dwell on that too long would be to gloat intemperately, and Fr. McBrien is increasingly a figure to be pitied, rather than argued with.

What’s received the most attention from blogdom has been Benedict’s statements regarding Vatican II and the proper interpretation and implementation of the Council. He decries the fact that the Council has not been implemented fully nor easily in large parts of the Church, and attempts to understand why. In his exploration, he identifies two interpretations of the Council: “the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” and “the hermeneutic of reform.” Spurning those who, for the past 40 years, have invoked the amorphous “Spirit of Vatican II” to justify every liturgical and theological innovation, Benedict put the full weight of papal authority behind those who see in Vatican II not a reinvention of the Church, but a call for re-energizing; not a casting off of the past, but a refocused energy on the truth. The impetus of the Council was not to turn the Church from the past and towards the modern world, but to explore new ways in which the Church could present the timeless truths of the Gospel to a world that no longer spoke the same language of the past.

Which brings us to a powerful theme of this pontificate: Truth. Truth is the bulwark against the “culture of relativism.” Benedict, who as Cardinal Ratzinger was quoted as saying “truth is not determined by majority vote,” whose very motto calls us to be cooperators of the truth, is standing firm in a truthful, honest assessment of Vatican II. There is objective truth. There is an objectively true interpretation of the most recent ecumenical Council.

This one speech is full of insight – insight into the mind of the Pope, insight into the place of Vatican II in the history of the Church, insight into the beauty, truth and goodness of God. Faithful sons and daughters of the Church could do much worse than read, reread, contemplate and integrate this speech.

“In these days of Christmas, let us go to meet him full of trust, like the shepherds, like the Wise Men of the East. Let us ask Mary to lead us to the Lord. Let us ask him himself to make his face shine upon us. Let us ask him also to defeat the violence in the world and to make us experience the power of his goodness.”