Fr. Z's Blog | Catholic commentary by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Labor Day of Love: “How I am to approach the Sacrament of Penance?”

Posted on 31 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Some of you denizens of these USA might be experiencing a buzz in your head as we approach the Labor Day weekend. You have, perhaps, lots of preparations for this unofficial end of summer activities which have to be squeezed in.

Don’t forget also to examine your consciences and GO TO CONFESSION!

Apropos going to confession, a reader sent this:

I know you love evangelizing – esp the sacrament of reconciliation. I thought this was a nice quote for you to see (and or use). From Sr. Faustina’s Diary:

Today, the Lord has been teaching me, once again, how I am to approach the Sacrament of Penance: My daughter, just as you prepare in My presence, so also you make your confession before Me. The person of the priest is, for Me, only a screen. Never analyze what sort of a priest it is that I am making use of; open your soul in confession as you would to Me, and I will fill it with My light (Diary, 1725).

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, GO TO CONFESSION | Tagged confession, sacrament of penance, St. Faustina Kowalska
5 Comments

“Admire the beauty but fear the beast.”

Posted on 31 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

What’s your nightmare?

From APOD:

Explanation: Admire the beauty but fear the beast. The beauty is the aurora overhead, here taking the form of great green spiral, seen between picturesque clouds with the bright Moon to the side and stars in the background. The beast is the wave of charged particles that creates the aurora but might, one day, impair civilization. Exactly this week in 1859, following notable auroras seen all across the globe, a pulse of charged particles from a coronal mass ejection (CME) associated with a solar flare impacted Earth’s magnetosphere so forcefully that they created the Carrington Event. A relatively direct path between the Sun and the Earth might have been cleared by a preceding CME. What is sure is that the Carrington Event compressed the Earth’s magnetic field so violently that currents were created in telegraph wires so great that many wires sparked and gave telegraph operators shocks. Were a Carrington-class event to impact the Earth today, speculation holds that damage might occur to global power grids and electronics on a scale never yet experienced. The featured aurora was imaged last week over Thingvallavatn Lake in Iceland, a lake that partly fills a fault that divides Earth’s large Eurasian and North American tectonic plates.

Of course TEOTWAWKI doesn’t have to be sparked by a CME. It could be a pandemic, a man-made EMP, an economic meltdown, a massive earthquake or volcanic event, cyber attacks, etc. etc. etc.

Here are a couple titles to freak you out a bit as summer ends and the weather changes.

US HERE – UK HERE

There are many others in this genre, of course. This is a mere sampling.

Posted in Look! Up in the sky!, Semper Paratus, TEOTWAWKI | Tagged aurora borealis, Carrington Event, CME
4 Comments

ASK FATHER: Mass intentions for groups of people

Posted on 31 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

As the anniversary of 9/11 approaches I would like to have mass said for the members of the NYPD and FDNY who died on 9/11. Sadly, when added up that means several hundred names. Can a priest simply say a mass for “all members of the NYPD and FDNY” or do they have to be named individually. And thank for for always supporting cops.

First, thank you for praying for the souls of first responders, especially for LEOs, for whom I have a warm heart.

Yes, you can pray for “all members” of the police department and the fire department who died on that day and because of the ill-effects of what they experienced. God knows them, and you know them too. You don’t have to say all their names individually for the intention for Holy Mass.

When we have intentions for a specific group, we have a moral intention to pray for them all. For example, you might have an intention for the deceased members of the Bertram and Hilda MacGuillicuddy Family, the Members of the Ladies Sodality of the Lord’s Eyebrow on the Tabernacle Door, the Donors of Fr. Z’s Blog (for whom I pray regularly).

Posted in ACTION ITEM!, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged 11 September, Mass intentions
2 Comments

ASK FATHER: What are the best arguments they have in the favor of the novus ordo?

Posted on 30 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader… and please note that when I get emails with strings of questions I usually delete them instantly. Answering this is an exception to the rule, which I indicate clearly on the ASK FATHER form. If ya’ll want me to read your email, do me the kindness of reading what I wrote.

QUAERUNTUR:

We’ve heard plenty, and readers agree, about the superiority of the extraordinary form. We also agree that the novus ordo can be done well, but that it far too often isn’t. We also know, as all recent evidence proves, of the extraordinary form’s blessings.

[1] So why is the extraordinary form so disliked by some bishops and clergy?

[2] What are the best arguments they have in the favor of the novus ordo?

[3] What reasons do they use to cling to it, given its by now obvious flaws? Was there ever a clown or giant puppet mass before Vatican 2?

That reasons many priests give on keeping an obviously flawed mass can only be described as Jesuitical. But this is a mere layperson’s view.

What’s yours?

Among the reasons why bishops and priests might hate the older form of the Roman Rite is because they fear it. People tend to fear what they don’t know. Many priests and bishops today are young enough not to have grown up with the Traditional Latin Mass. Also, the TLM is in Latin. They maybe ignorant of Latin, which means that they do not know the language of their Rite, their Church. That means that they are self-conscious. They don’t want to be revealed as being ignorant of Latin. Another reason is that they perceive the use of the older Mass as being a repudiation of everything they were told about Vatican II, etc. And if they are older – and this pertains to priests in these USA, at least – and they grew up in the halcyon days of protests and Vatican II, their own identity is fused with the mythic, iconic “spirit” of those times. When they see something like a biretta or hear the suggest that Latin be used, or Gregorian chant, a switch flicks in their heads and they go into an anti-authority, anti-traditional mode. Also, if they know something about the older form of Mass, they might realize that they can’t be the center of attention, as they can be in the Novus Ordo. By now so many priests are conditioned to have to be the focus of attention, the driving energy of the “liturgy”, the main event, the ring master, the host of the party. This may not even be conscious, at this point. Lastly, the older form constantly reminds the priest that he is a redeemed sinner and that he, too, must be not just a priest, but a priest who is also victim. More could be written. This is sufficient.
Christ shares His priesthood with us, lay and ordained. He does this in qualitatively different ways for lay and ordained. Nevertheless, all the baptized and baptized, ordained priests are able to offer sacrifice pleasing to God and to participate with actuosa participatio in the Church’s sacred liturgical worship. Christ is the only High Priest: He speaks, sings, acts in each one of us according to who we are, lay or ordained. St. Augustine, in explaining the difference “voices” in the psalms, says that ever word of the psalms is Christ speaking: Christ the Head, Christ the Body, Head and Body together – Christus totus. We see this in sound Church architecture: there is a sanctuary for the Head, a nave for the Body and the mysterious place of joining which is the Communion rail. During the Church’s various liturgical rites, sometimes the priest (Head) speaks or sings, sometimes the congregation (Body), sometimes both together (Christus Totus). In some ways, the Novus Ordo reflects this three-fold dynamic more often than the older form, according to which there are fewer moments when the Body on its own speaks or sings, or when they do so at the same time as the priests. They are there, but there are fewer. Otherwise, another explanation is one which a lot of people really resent: in this day when so much of our catechesis has been non-existent, poor, or ridiculous, and so many people have little or no idea of the transcendent in worship, sound and traditional use of the Novus Ordo could help them to “grow up” liturgically. Sometimes I – with a touch of whimsy to make the point drive home – will say that when humans are young, they need more or less shapeless goo to eat, stuff out of jars, because they can’t yet handle the steak and Cabernet. Eventually they are given more complicated foods of different textures. They need that kind of food in order to thrive! However, once they grow up more, they need something else. Grown ups, on the other hand, can continue to survive on the goo, but they won’t thrive on the goo. So, now that we are in the state we are in, the Novus Ordo could be, when celebrated well and reverently and with a strong strain of Roman style and tradition – which is exactly what the Council Fathers wanted – a great propaeduetic for something richer and more nourishing, satisfying yet. I could say more but that’s enough.
Oh yes, there have been priests and bishops who were clowns since our Lord ascended. That’s a constant. And, in way, it can be comforting to recognize how fallible and feeble we can be. This is Christ’s Church and His Church depends on Him, not on us.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged clown Masses, Novus Ordo
59 Comments

ASK FATHER: Minimum to fulfill Mass obligation

Posted on 30 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

So a friend of mine who’s familiar with the old Mass but doesn’t offer it mentioned that you could fulfill your Sunday obligation (in the EF) so long as you arrived by the lifting of the veil and stayed until the Priest’s Communion. I had heard the first part and still go by that for the NO when asked (if no veil used, I just say the collection or offertory). I hadn’t heard the part before about the Priest’s Communion as the upper limit though. Is that the case? Thoughts on application to the NO? If it were true, it would certainly explain that it’s actually the OLD-TIMERS who are the worst about leaving Mass early after Communion. When I’ve asked, I only get excuses about traffic and walkers and how hard it is to get out with the rush – to which I normally reply saying – well how about you pray for a few minutes after Mass has ended rather than risk committing a mortal sin…or something to that effect.

That seems to be founded on the fact that the Sacrifice is not renewed until the destruction of the Eucharistic elements in the priest’s two-fold Communion. If the Eucharist were confected, but not consumed by the priest, there would be no Mass. So, that is the point at which Mass has been celebrated. If you leave before that, you haven’t participated in Mass. So, the bookends of offertory and priest’s Communion make sense… as a MINIMUM. I don’t think we should focus on minimums (e.g., what are the fewest words needed in a sacramental form, etc.). Remember also the distinction of the Mass of the Catechumens (up to the Offertory). Catechumens had to leave the church before the Offertory, indeed before the Creed.

So, if someone wanted a base-line, bare minimum for fulfilling one’s obligation, offertory to priest’s Communion is reasonable.

It’s minimalist, but logical.

But there is more to be said.

It is useful to review something that Tracey Rowland wrote in Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (US HERE – UK HERE).

The Lercaro—Bugnini inspired liturgical experiments of the last three decades have been based on an overemphasis on baroque sacramental theology and eighteenth-century philosophy, and an obsession with pedagogy. This in turn can be boiled down to a cocktail of scholasticism (the reduction of sacramental theology to considerations of matter and form), the Kantian obsession with pedagogical rationalism (the predominance of ethical values over strictly religious ones), moralism (a notion of Mass attendance as duty parade), and a Jansenist attitude to beauty (it is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is that the words are doctrinally sound and in the vernacular). In other words, one has a cocktail of theological and philosophical ingredients which Ratzinger has spent his entire ecclesial life trying to throw out of the pantry. Anyone wanting to escape the culture of modernity with its lowest-common-denominator mass culture will find it difficult to do so at many contemporary Catholic liturgies based on the Lercaro—Bugnini principles. As Catherine Pickstock has argued, ‘a genuine liturgical reform would either have to overthrow our anti-ritual modernity, or, that being impossible, devise [or perhaps, develop] a liturgy that refused to be enculturated in our modern habits of thought and speech’. [I think that we already have that.]

The “spirit” of the modern, Novus Ordo, Lercaro-Bugnini “lowest-common denominator” Mass and over-emphasis on the minimum necessary to fulfill one’s Mass obligation have factors in common.

However, I understand wanting to get out of some Masses as quickly as possible, given the ars celebrandi or, rather, nugae celebrandi, perpetrated by in some churches.

If we take seriously Benedict’s teaching that “everything related to the Eucharist should be marked by beauty” (in opposition to the “Kantian attitude that aesthetics is a mere matter of taste which Paul VI – Lercaro – Bugnini promoted), then, over time, the desire for the “minimum necessary” and the “lowest common denominator” in our liturgical worship, and people’s actual participation, would shift. “Beauty” is an essential element, not an add on. It’s absence prompts thoughts that are antithetical to what I think is a sine qua non for Catholic identity.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged active participation, actuosa participatio, Annibale Bugnini, beauty, Card. Lercaro, Immanuel Kant, minimalism, Paul VI
35 Comments

ASK FATHER: Praying for the Holy Father’s intentions when those intentions are… odd

Posted on 30 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE:

A reader sent:

Father: When the Pope is saying “human person at center”, I think this article might explain the thinking. [The serendipitous article in question is from today’s page at Crisis.]

Person as opposed to power and goods (at center) and other Marxist ideals.

HERE

__________

It doesn’t hurt to remind people that when we pray “for the intentions of the Holy Father” (as we do when we pray the Rosary), we are not praying for the Holy Father. Rather, we are to pray for the intentions the Holy Father designates for our prayers that month.

We don’t have to know what they are explicitly. It is enough to desire to pray for, to have the moral intention to pray for, what he wishes. That said, it is pretty easy in the age of these interwebs to find out what they are.

The Pope usually assigns two petitions or intentions, one general and one of a more missionary spirit. Coming up in September we are to pray for these intentions which the Holy Father has designated:

Universal: Centrality of the Human Person

That each may contribute to the common good and to the building of a society that places the human person at the center.

Evangelization: Mission to Evangelize

That by participating in the Sacraments and meditating on Scripture, Christians may become more aware of their mission to evangelize.

In regard to the first, I had to scratch my head a little…. “the building of a society that places the human person at the center”? The human person and not God? I am reminded of the way the prayers for the Feast of Christ the King were altered. In the older Missale Romanum the orations see Christ as being, now, King of all earthly things. In the newer Missale, Christ is seen more as an eschatological King.

I had a note from a priest about the September 2016 intentions:

I practice the First Saturday devotion and try to pray for the pope’s intentions often for indulgences, but have found this increasingly difficult.

This month, for example, it seemed a little strange that the pope is asking for us to pray that “sports may be an opportunity for friendly encounter,” but I just shrugged my shoulders and went along with it. [In August, the Summer Olympics were going on in Rio.]

But now I am troubled to see the September intention, namely, that we build a society that “places the human person at the center.” This seems so contrary to what we should hope for – and exactly what the enemy wants. How can I pray for the Holy Father’s intentions when I believe them to be contrary to the Faith? Or, more specifically, how can I fulfill the obligations to gain plenary indulgences without directly supporting intentions contrary to the Faith?

Thank you, and I understand of course if you are unable to get to my question. I will offer up my Mass for you today. [Thanks!]

The indulgence is conceded according to the way it is conceded. If the indulgence says that the work to be performed includes praying for the Holy Father’s intentions, then that is what we do. He, being Pope, gets to designate his intentions, silly or solemn, frivolous or fervid, humdrum or heavenly.

Perhaps this will help. If there are monthly intentions which cause you to scratch your head, you might add when you pray for the Pope’s intentions the words…

“in the manner in which the Holy Father’s intention fulfills Thy Will O, Lord.”

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests | Tagged Holy Father's intentions, indulgences, rosary
27 Comments

ASK FATHER: Confessions during Mass – followup

Posted on 29 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Not long ago I answered a question about why priests might not offer opportunities for confession on feast days. HERE As part of that entry we moved into the issue of priests hearing confessions during Mass (not the celebrant, obviously). In support of this I linked to the Holy See’s document Redemptionis Sacramentum 76, which clearly states that confessions can be heard during Mass.

One comment left for my consideration (it went into the queue), said:

From the policy books of the Archdiocese of Chicago:
BOOK FOUR- THE SANCTIFYING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH (SACRAMENTAL AND LITURGICAL LIFE)
202.12.1. Policy The Sacrament of Penance or any other service shall not be celebrated while Mass is being celebrated in the same space. Regularly scheduled confessions between Sunday Masses are not permitted.
301.1.2. Policy The Sacrament of Penance shall not be celebrated while a Mass is being celebrated in the same place. (See also Policy 202.12.1., herein.)

This is apparently directed to “regularly scheduled confessions” and I note the most priests I know will gladly hear the confession of those who approach them whenever they can.

This stuck in my craw.

In 2001 a dubium was submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. That dicastery has pretty much ultimate authority when it comes to the matter at hand. A response was give in the official publication of the aforementioned Congregation, Notitiae 37 (2001), 259–260.

[QUAERITUR:] Quaenam sunt dispositiones quae ad momentum celebrationis sacramenti Paenitentiae spectant: utrum, exempli gratia, christifideles perdurante Missae celebratione ad sacramentum Paenitentiae accedere possunt?

De tempore celebrationis sacramenti Paenitentiae praecipuae normae inveniuntur in Instructione Eucharisticum mysterium, 25 maii 1967, ubi commendatur, ut « Fideles ad eum adducantur extra Missae celebrationem, praesertim horis statutis, ad sacramentum Paenitentiae accedant, ita ut eius administratio cum tranquillitate et ipsorum vera utilitate fiat, neve ipsi ab actuosa Missae partecipatione impediantur » (n. 35). Quae etiam in Praenotandis Ordinis Paenitentiae denuo proponuntur (n. 13), ubi tamen declaratur, ut « reconciliatio paenitentium omni tempore ac die celebrari potest » (ibidem).

Quod tamen quamquam consilium a pastoribus intellegi debet ad pastoralem curam christifidelium, quos hortari et adiuvare ne omittant, ut in sacramento Paenientiae bonum animae quaerant et ad eum pro posse accedant extra tempus et locum celebrationis Missae. Altera ex parte haec norma nullo modo prohibet sacerdotibus, praeter illum Sanctam Missam celebrantem, confessiones fidelium audire, qui id desiderent etiam tempore celebrationis Missae.

[NB] Hac praesertim aetate, qua ab multis ecclesialis significatio peccati et sacramenti Paenitentiae obscuratur et desiderium accedendi ad sacramentum Paenitentiae valde minuitur, pastores omnibus viribus suis favere debent frequens usus huius Sacramenti inter fideles. Ideo in can. 986 § 1 Codicis Iuris Canonici leguntur: Omnis cui animarum cura vi muneris est demandata, obligatione tenetur providendi ut audiantur confessiones fidelium sibi commissorum, qui rationabiliter audiri petant, utque iisdem opportunitas praebeatur ad confessionem individualem, diebus ac horis in eorum commodum statutis, accedendi.

Celebratio re vera sacramenti Paenitentiae unum e ministeriis propriis sacerdotis est. Christifideles autem non solum obligatione tenentur peccata confitendi (cf. can. 989), verum etiam ius est eis ut ex spiritualibus Ecclesiae bonis, praesertim ex verbo Dei et sacramentis, adiumenta a sacris Pastoribus accipiant (can. 213).

Licere quidem patet etiam perdurantibus Missarum sollemnibus confessionem suscipere quotiescumque praevidetur fideles illud petere ministerium. Si concelebratio fit, enixe rogatur ut aliqui sacerdotes abstineat a concelebratione ita ut praesto esse possint fidelibus qui ad sacramentum Paenitentiae accedere velint.

In mentem autem revocandum est, non licere sacramentum Paenitentiae cum sancta Missa unire, ita ut fiat unica celebratione liturgica.

ASK FATHER: Confessions during Mass - followup

By now you are probably wishing you had strong coffee to keep you awake during this post. So…. CLICK already!

Translation from Adoremus:

Reply to a question about hearing confessions during Mass
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (October 2001)

What are the dispositions governing the time for the celebration of the sacrament of Penance? For example, can the faithful have recourse to the sacrament of Penance during Mass?

The principal norms governing the time for the celebration of the sacrament of Penance are to be found in the Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium (25 May 1967), which states: The faithful are to be constantly encouraged to accustom themselves to going to confession outside the celebration of Mass, and especially at the prescribed times. In this way, the sacrament of Penance will be administered calmly and with genuine profit, and will not interfere with active participation in the Mass (no. 35). The same is reiterated in the Praenotanda of the Ordo Paenitentiae (no. 13), which states that: the reconciliation of penitents can be celebrated at any time and day.

Nevertheless this ought to be understood as a counsel directed to the pastoral care of the faithful, who ought to be encouraged and helped to seek health of soul in the sacrament of Penance, and have recourse to it, as far as possible outside the place and time of the celebration of Mass. On the other hand, this does not in any way prohibit priests, except the one who is celebrating Mass, from hearing confessions of the faithful who so desire, including during the celebration of Mass.

[NB] Above all nowadays, when the ecclesial significance of sin and the sacrament of Penance is obscured in many people, and the desire to receive the sacrament of Penance has diminished markedly, pastors ought to do all in their power to foster frequent participation by the faithful in this sacrament. Hence canon 986 §.1 of the Code of Canon law states: All to whom by virtue of office the care of souls is committed,are bound to provide for the hearing of the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them, who reasonably request confession, and they are to provide these faithful with an opportunity to make individual confession on days and at times arranged to suit them.

The celebration of the sacrament of Penance is indeed one of the ministries proper to priests. The Christian faithful, on the one hand, are not only obliged to confess their sins (cf. can. 989), but on the other hand are fully entitled to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments (can. 213).

Consequently, it is clearly lawful, even during the celebration of Mass, to hear confessions when one foresees that the faithful are going to ask for this ministry. In the case of concelebrations, it is earnestly to be desired that some priests would abstain from concelebrating so as to be available to attend to the faithful who wish to receive the sacrament of Penance.

It should be borne in mind, nevertheless, that it is not permitted to unite the sacrament of Penance with the Mass, making of them both a single liturgical celebration.

So, it is not only licet to hear confessions during Mass, it is recommended. The Congregation states that the times for confessions should suit the faithful and be convenient for them. When else are so many of the faithful at church than for Masses? If there are more than one priests the Congregation urges some of them not to concelebrate, but rather hear confessions during Mass. The Congregation recommends confessions during Mass, it doesn’t just say that it’s permitted.

Given the CDW document Redemptionis Sacramentum and given this response from the CDW and their strongly favorable official response, I am inclined to say that a bishop who would try to forbid confessions during Mass would act ultra vires.

Why be so stingy?

It may be that those guidelines were published a long time ago. It might be opportune to update them in light what what Rome says about the matter.

On a personal note, at the church where I usually am on Sundays, we often have confessions during Mass. Lots of people go, they are happy to have the chance, and the priests are happy to hear the confessions.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Linking Back, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged Archd. Chicago, confessions, confessions during Mass, Notitiae, sacrament of penance
44 Comments

Of speaking truth to power, close hair cuts, and you

Posted on 29 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Speaking of St. John the Baptist, here is what the print (and digital) readers of the UK’s best Catholic weekly the Catholic Herald were able to read in the present issue:

We celebrate liturgically the births of Our Lord (25 December), His Blessed Mother (8 September) and the prophet who was more than a prophet, the greatest man ever born of a woman (Matthew 11:9-11; Luke 7:28), St John the Baptist (24 June – d 28-29). On 29 August we celebrate the Beheading of St John, murdered by a feckless politician, the pusillanimous Tetrarch Herod. John was imprisoned because he denounced Herod’s illicit, sinful “marriage”. Herod then had John killed because, blinded by lust for his niece, he was too craven to back down from a rash offer he blurted in his lechery.

St Augustine of Hippo (d 430) in s. 380 reflects on how John was martyred for Christ because he was murdered for the Truth. England’s own Venerable Bede (d 735) preached, “St John gave his life for [Christ]. He was not ordered to deny Jesus Christ, but was ordered to keep silent about the Truth”.

Speaking the truth to power, and to wider society, about sexual mores, about illicit and immoral unions, can earn you a close haircut. And yet, the “greatest man ever born of a woman” bore witness to the Truth. It is the right thing to do. The lives of martyrs are no less examples for imitation today than they were when they were fresh models to our ancient forebears in the Faith.

In 2012, Benedict XVI taught about the martyrdom of the Baptist in a General Audience. He said, “Celebrating the martyrdom of St John the Baptist reminds us too, Christians of this time, that with love for Christ, for his words and for the Truth, we cannot stoop to compromises. The Truth is Truth; there are no compromises. Christian life demands, so to speak, the ‘martyrdom’ of daily fidelity to the Gospel, the courage, that is, to let Christ grow within us and let him be the One who guides our thought and our actions. However, this can happen in our life only if we have a solid relationship with God.”

Speaking of speaking truth to power, to paraphrase Edmund Burke (d 1797), in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. United in prayer and our Faith, we must together bear witness to the Truth in our troubling times, as martyrs and confessors did in theirs.

Posted in Benedict XVI | Tagged beheading of John the Baptist, St. John the Baptist
7 Comments

ASK FATHER: How are we supposed to remain Catholic these days?

Posted on 29 August 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

How are we supposed to remain Catholic in these days?

A commission to study women deacons, after 2-3 previous studies said no? Beg forgiveness from gays? As if the Church was ever wrong to oppose the vice I’ve struggled with my whole Catholic life? Move away from “medieval, authoritarian, clericalist monologue” to “sisterly dialogue” (Cardinal König)?!

Was 1900 years of opposing error not good enough? Whence the change to the Church of Nice? At least you could tell Arians from Catholics in the 4th century. Now it’s the Church herself who speaks ambiguously — and she seems to be unsure that she’s even the true Church anymore, ecumenically coddling everyone (except faithful Catholics). What does tradition matter if we smash it?

I’m sorry for my non-question, but I’m a man who desires to serve the Church as a priest, and I can’t tell if I’d even be working with the Truth anymore, under any given bishop, cardinal or even (God forbid) Pope. I struggled for years to accept Catholicism (especially the Magisterium), only to convert and realize that the whole Church has become an Episcopalians-lite club with seemingly no functioning teaching office. My heart is being broken by this “spirit of Vatican II” that just won’t go away.

What the heck are we supposed to do? Who do we trust? How do we live?

Not long after my conversion I wrote in an article for Sacred Music that no sooner had I entered my new home and settled into a comfortable chair, I realized that the other tenants were tearing the place apart and even calling in the wrecking ball.

Haven’t we always had trouble in the Church? Satan hates the Church, and all of us. The Enemy is really good at stirring up trouble. For example…

In 359 three hundred bishops, including the majority from Italy and France, met at Rimini. They denied the teaching of the Council of Nicaea. Pope Liberius may have rejected this Council, but he made no move to replace or to discipline these heretical bishops, leaving thousands of the faithful in the care of bishops who preached an incorrect version of the Gospel. The Emperor appointed another man, Felix, as pope, leading to chaos and confusion as to who should be obeyed.

When Pope Liberius died the clergy and the faithful of Rome gathered in two places to elect a successor. The upper class supporters of the antipope Felix supported the election of Damasus. Many of the deacons and the lower classes supported Ursinus, a deacon under Pope Liberius. Riots broke out and the Emperor had to send troops into Rome to stop the killing. (People took these things seriously. In N. Africa people rioted when they heard an unknown Latin version of Scripture.) They propped up Damasus and banished Ursinus, who continued for years to contest the election. Damasus was even accused of murder and, when he died, Ursinus made a final move to assert that he had been duly elected pope.

We could go through crisis after crisis for a very long time. We’ve always had trouble in the Church. From our perspective, we can look back through history and make a call about who was right and who was wrong, though in some cases there are legitimate scholarly disputes. In the midst of it, in the hugger-mugger, things were much less clear then than they are to us now.

And you can bet that many people were troubled, just as you can bet that many were blithely unfocused. Just. Like. Today.

It has never been easy to be a faithful Catholic. There have always been heretical bishops. After all, on the very night of their “ordination” 1/12 of the bishops sold the Lord and, later in the evening, in their first act as a body, all but one abandoned Him. There have always been those entrusted with the teaching authority, the Magisterium, of the Church who do and say really stupid things. Being ordained a priest or a bishop guarantees neither holiness nor intelligence.

Getting down to it, how do we remain Catholic when things are confusing, when those who should teach with clarity and conviction are, instead, feckless, vague and craven (when they aren’t downright dumb)?

We put on our big boy pants and we stick to the Catholic Faith as it has always been taught.

We adhere to the solid teachings of the Church as found in the Fathers, the Doctors, the Councils.

We cling with hope-filled tenacity to Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, present to us in the Blessed Sacrament, for there is no other source of salvation than Him.

We clutch lovingly the hem of the garment of Our Blessed Mother, praying our rosary, turning to her for consolation and guidance.

We GO TO CONFESSION!

This is not the time for weak Catholics. There was never a time for weak Catholics, of course. But now, more than ever, we are in serious straights. We’ve got trouble, my friends.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you who are actually causing the trouble will bellyache, “You are exaggerating as usual! People always think that the troubles of their times are the worst. Things are GREAT! We are finally heading the right direction. We are spirit-filled and in tune with nature again. You are fear-mongering! Why? You know why. You HATE VATICAN II!”

I respond: Satan. Get behind. Out of my sight.

The times we are in now are… different. There is a qualitative difference to the trials we collective face. That’s the stuff of another post.

Back to the perspective of history, our times, and how we move forward.

GK Chesterton wrote,

“This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic. The Church in its early days went fierce and fast with any warhorse; yet it is utterly unhistoric to say that she merely went mad along one idea, like a vulgar fanaticism. She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom–that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”

Hence, in answer to the question: How do you remain Catholic, how do you keep to the straight and narrow, when storms rage and the very earth shifts?

You step out onto the highwire of orthodox Catholic Faith with the rest of us, friend, and, with your eyes fixed on Christ Jesus, you put one foot in front of the other.