ASK FATHER: Father told me not to genuflect when passing tabernacle during Mass

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I was serving at Mass in the OF today, and before Mass, my priest approached me and told me that, when crossing from one side of the altar to the other, I was not to go to the foot of the altar and genuflect, instead instructing me to cross behind the altar and bow to it with my back to the tabernacle. He claimed that this was part of the extraordinary form, and since one cannot pick and choose sections you like, you cannot add something from the extraordinary to the ordinary, but rather the two must remain separate, either offered in full, or not at all. He claimed there were canons that prohibited the mingling of the two. He further mentioned, upon my mentioning of the OF’s very scanty rubrics as regards the movement of servers, that what is common practice has the force of law, and what I did is not common practice, so ought not be done. Was he incorrect about any of the above, and if so, where can I find proof to the contrary?

Firstly, it is probably the best course of action to be obedient to Father.

There may be reasons for why he laid down such rules. He may be under “heat” from the chancery or other quarters to “stamp out” the wild and flagrant abuse of showing respect to the Blessed Sacrament during the course of the Mass.  (Don’t laugh.)

That said, the rubrics of the Ordinary Form of the Mass prescribe genuflection upon entering the sanctuary where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, and upon leaving the same sanctuary, as well as after the consecrations.

The General Instruction states,

“If the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.”

It’s a really stupid rule, but it is the rule in the Ordinary Form.

Yet another reason to promote the Extraordinary Form.

In the Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass, the abuse of incidentally genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament, and showing respect to Our Sovereign Lord and Majesty, is on the same scale as using a gold safety pin, instead of an aluminum one for the maniple on a ferial day of Lent.

Both of these abuses should be corrected severely, dealt with harshly, perhaps by imposing a penance of two ice cubes in the server’s post-Mass glass of lemonade instead of three.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ,
24 Comments

Peters on reactions and claims about Francis’s off-the-cuff contraception remark

From the canonist Ed Peter’s fine blog In The Light Of The Law.  He doesn’t have a combox over there and doesn’t mind if we use his stuff here. DO, however, go over there to his place regularly.  Emphases are from Peters, comments mine:

Misunderstanding the (alleged) ‘Congo contraception’ case

Even by the standards of his reign, the presser Pope Francis conducted on his return flight from Mexico has provoked an unusual number of questions.  [No kidding.  You should see my inbox, too!] I wish to address only one of those here.

Preliminarily, I note that the burden is not on the negative to prove that something did not occur, it is on the affirmative to prove that the alleged something did occur. [I sent a question to someone in the Press Office and I received no response.] That said, though, it now seems all but certain that the ‘permission’ or ‘approval’ which Francis has claimed his predecessor Pope Paul VI gave for Congo nuns facing rape to use contraception simply does not exist. See e.g. Fr. Zuhlsdorf or John Allen*.

Unfortunately this myth has been invoked by the pope as if it were a fact of Church history, and, more importantly, in a way that suggests it might be a precedent to be considered in deciding whether contraception may also be used to prevent pregnancy in some cases of possible birth defects. That claim would take Pope Francis’ contraception remarks into a very different area. No longer are we musing about a point of Church history (as interesting as that might be), now we are dealing with Church moral teaching. The stakes become dramatically higher.

[NB] So here’s my point: not only does the Congo nuns permission seem NOT to exist, but, even if it does exist in some form, it could NOT, [!] I suggest, by its own terms, be used by Francis (or anyone else committed to thinking with the Church) to call into question the Church’s settled teaching that “each and every marital act [quilibet matrimonii usus] must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae vitae 11) and that therefore “excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after conjugal intercourse [coniugale commercium], is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (Humanae vitae 14).

Obviously the Congo nuns case (or the Balkan nuns story in the 1990s, to take another variation of the myth) was not about martial acts, it was about religious women facing criminal acts of violent sexual intercourse; the Congo question was not about possible birth defects, it was about stopping rapists’ sperm from reaching ova that perchance had been ovulated. [IMPORTANT…emphasis mine] Between women facing rape and wives worried about birth defects there simply is no parallel relevant to the moral question of contraception. One can like that fact or hate it, but one cannot change it or ignore it.  Moreover, Church teaching on the immorality of contracepted marital acts is, I believe, taught infallibly; [Yes.] but, even if I were wrong about that technical claim, there is no question about what that teaching is, namely, that contracepting acts of marital intercourse, whether doing so as an end in itself or as means to some other end, is objectively immoral.

A discussion could be had, I think, on whether non-marital sexual intercourse is subject to the same moral requirements as that to which marital intercourse is held. [Ummmm….] Humanae vitae does not, as far as I can see, address that question. But, as to whether a permission allegedly given to nuns to take contraceptive measures in the face of rape establishes a precedent for spouses wanting to contracept their sexual relations out of fear of possible birth defects, the conclusion seems inescapable: there is no parallel between the two cases, and so there is no precedent set.

*A note on Allen’s article cited above: As I feared he did earlier, Allen is once again arguing that papal non-action is papal action. [We knew that would happen, right?]

After claiming that then-Cdl. Montini was “close to the currents that shaped [the journal] Studi Cattolici” and that it “was assumed” that Montini approved of an article defending contraception by Congolese nuns, an assumption that Allen says “appeared to be confirmed later” when as pope Montini later promoted one of its authors, Allen tops off this journalistic house of cards with a zinger: “The Vatican [sic] never repudiated the 1961 position [taken by theologians, not by Montini], so the takeaway was that it remained a legitimate option. To Italians — and remember, Francis’ ancestry is Italian … that meant Paul VI approved.”

Good grief. I say it again, good grief.  [I’ll call good grief… and I’ll raise another good grief.]

I can imagine not a few Italians are hitting the roof right about now over Allen’s opinion of their formal logic skills. But my question is, How many conjectures from assumptions based on silence may a journalist pile up before someone shouts Enough!? Here’s one for ya: God could have stopped this evil or that if He wanted to, but He didn’t stop it, so bingo, God is the author of evil. Talk about bad logic skills. Seriously, there are plenty of terrible things that John Allen has never written about, let alone condemned; may we assume that his silence on such matters signals his consent to them? If not, should not the same deference be accorded to a pope?

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Francis, HONORED GUESTS, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , , ,
43 Comments

ASK FATHER: Lace during Lent

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I was wondering what the rules are if any about wearing lace albs or cottas [surplices] by priests during Lent. Is there a prohibition on lace being worn during Lent?

I don’t think there is. I haven’t found any proscription – or prescription – of lace during Lent. However, it could be argued that it makes sense to back off with decorations of all kinds during Lent. If we don’t put flowers on altars, perhaps we should also back off on other decorations as well.

If it’s all lace all the time, you really have no where to go when Annunciation comes during Lent, or St. Joseph, or Holy Thursday and Easter.  Right?

His scriptis, wearing lace in Lent wouldn’t be wrong, provided – as always – that it isn’t exaggerated (i.e., comprising too much of the alb or surplice), that it is in decent condition, etc.

On a personal note, I don’t use lace very often.  If I am a guest and it is laid out for me, sure.  When important feasts come along, great.  I have some really nice albs and surplices with lace, but for most Sundays and weekdays, I use a plain alb with little or no decoration… except some wrinkles… linen is tough to keep smooth, a less ornate surplice.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , ,
9 Comments

WDTPRS 22 Feb: Cathedra of Peter (2002MR)

Today is a fine opportunity to reflect of the will of the Savior that the Church He founded should have as a necessary element the Petrine Ministry.

Also, I wish all those who belong to the Ordinariate of the Chair of Peter a fine feast day.

COLLECT:

Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus,
ut nullis nos permittas perturbationibus concuti,
quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti.

There is nothing especially difficult about the grammar and vocabulary of this prayer, though it is theologically profound. NB: the solidasti is really solidavisti, a “syncopated” form.

I’m sure some of you can come up with your smooth but accurate versions.

SUPER OBLATA:

Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine,
preces et hostias benignus admitte,
ut, beato Petro pastore,
ad aeternam perveniat hereditatem,
quo docente fidei tenet integritatem.

This is harder than the Collect. From the point of view of vocabulary, trying to get the right sense of admitto helps to establish the “mood” of the prayer. Admitto carries the weight of “suffering” or “allowing” something to enter into one’s presence. “Admit” is more eloquent than just “receive”. Admitto immediately lends a sense of God’s highness and our needy lowliness, waiting upon God’s good pleasure. Grammatically, you have to get that quo docente right, or nothing else works. I think the trick here is to avoid taking quo docente as an ablative absolute (which is what beato Petro pastore clearly is) and instead see it as an ablative of “agent”.

SLAVISHLY LITERAL RENDERING

O Lord, we beseech Thee,
kindly suffer to receive the prayers and sacrificial offerings of Thy Church,
so that, blessed Peter being Her shepherd,
and, by whom as he is teaching holds fast to the integritry of the Faith,
She may attain to the eternal inheritance.

POST COMMUNION:

Deus, qui nos,
beati Petri apostoli festivitatem celebrantes,
Christi Corporis et Sanguinis communione vegetasti,
praesta, quaesumus,
ut hoc redemptionis commercium
sit sacramentum nobis unitatis et pacis.

Commercium is a loaded word. It means “exchange”. It has a theological, not a mercantile sense, of course. Bread and wine were chosen by God, from all gifts He gave us, to be transformed into His Body and Blood.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

O God, who with the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ,
has nourished us celebrating the feast of the blessed Apostle Peter,
grant, we beseech Thee,
that this sacred exchange of redemption
be for us a sacramental sign of unity and peace.

We chose from among those gifts of bread and wine, those concrete gifts which we offered at this particular Mass. They were a symbol of something from to be offered ourselves, to be returned to the one who gave them. God accepted them, and transformed them through His Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. Then gave them back to us, so that we, through them might be transformed more and more into what they are. This is an amazing interchange of gifts, God always having logical priority over the giving and the given. Thus, in the process, we are united to God and each other in a marvelous sacred “exchange”.

As a bonus… here are a few photos of St. Peter’s shot some years ago on this Feast of the Cathedra of St. Peter.

It is pretty dark in the Basilica, so steady is the name of the game. Here is a shot through the columns over the main altar toward the apse, where you can see the candles arrayed around the magnificent bronze by Bernini.

WDTPRS 22 Feb: Cathedra of Peter (2002MR)

A closer view.

WDTPRS 22 Feb: Cathedra of Peter (2002MR)

The bronze Cathedra is decorated with lighted candles only once a year, today.

The black bronze statue of St. Peter attributed to the marvelous Arnulfo di Cambio was always dressed up in his cope and tiara, with a ring on his finger and pectoral Cross on two days, 29 June and today. Then the modernists in the Fabrica started fooling around. Too triumphalistic. They started cutting out elements. But all of them were back the day I shot these except for the griccia alb, which I can live without I guess. I don’t know if it is back this year or not.

WDTPRS 22 Feb: Cathedra of Peter (2002MR)

And ….

WDTPRS 22 Feb: Cathedra of Peter (2002MR)

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged
7 Comments

22 February 1980 – The Miracle

I was at the University of Minnesota when the US Hockey Team beat the Soviet Union at the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. I was particularly tuned in, because quite a few Minnesota players were on the team.

From History:

U.S. hockey team makes miracle on ice

In one of the most dramatic upsets in Olympic history, the underdog U.S. hockey team, made up of college players, defeats the four-time defending gold-medal winning Soviet team at the XIII Olympic Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York. The Soviet squad, previously regarded as the finest in the world, fell to the youthful American team 4-3 before a frenzied crowd of 10,000 spectators. Two days later, the Americans defeated Finland 4-2 to clinch the hockey gold.

The Soviet team had captured the previous four Olympic hockey golds, going back to 1964, and had not lost an Olympic hockey game since 1968. Three days before the Lake Placid Games began, the Soviets routed the U.S. team 10-3 in an exhibition game at Madison Square Garden in New York City. The Americans looked scrappy, but few blamed them for it–their average age, after all, was only 22, and their team captain, Mike Eruzione, was recruited from the obscurity of the Toledo Blades of the International League.

Few had high hopes for the seventh-seeded U.S. team entering the Olympic tournament, but the team soon silenced its detractors, making it through the opening round of play undefeated, with four victories and one tie, thus advancing to the four-team medal round. The Soviets, however, were seeded No. 1 and as expected went undefeated, with five victories in the first round.

On Friday afternoon, February 22, the American amateurs and the Soviet dream team met before a sold-out crowd at Lake Placid. The Soviets broke through first, with their new young star, Valery Krotov, deflecting a slap shot beyond American goalie Jim Craig’s reach in the first period. Midway through the period, Buzz Schneider, the only American who had previously been an Olympian, answered the Soviet goal with a high shot over the shoulder of Vladislav Tretiak, the Soviet goalie.

The relentless Soviet attack continued as the period progressed, with Sergei Makarov giving his team a 2-1 lead. With just a few seconds left in the first period, American Ken Morrow shot the puck down the ice in desperation. Mark Johnson picked it up and sent it into the Soviet goal with one second remaining. After a brief Soviet protest, the goal was deemed good, and the game was tied.

[…]

There’s a pretty good movie about this amazing event.

22 February 1980 - The Miracle

Click!

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged ,
1 Comment

ACTION ITEM REMINDER: Birettas for Seminarians

I’ve had a couple notes from men asking about birettas.

We had a really successful biretta project going.  Let’s keep it going.

A while back, John in Church Goods at Leaflet Missal in St. Paul (who is coordinating it) said he has some 35 seminarians around the country who would use one.

The biretta is in your court now!

For the whole story go HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on ACTION ITEM REMINDER: Birettas for Seminarians

ASK FATHER: Father sprinkles water with fingers into chalice

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Is it liturgically correct for a priest to dip their fingers into the water pitcher and then shake them off into the chalice as a means to add water to the chalice before the consecration?

Liturgically correct?

Not really. I believe the Latin says “infundit… he pours” not “he sprinkles/scatters” a little water into the wine.   Yes, a meaning of infundo is “impart” and, poetically, even “cast”, but “cast” is not the commonsense meaning.   In this rubric is means “pour”.  I’ll admit that, with some cruets, given the elastic tendency of the water’s surface, surface tension, sometimes you have to “cast” or “flick” or “tap” some water into the chalice, but that’s still pouring.  Taking water on your fingers and flicking it or dripping it in isn’t pouring.

That said, Father is clearly being careful not to put too much water into the wine, which is a good thing.

ASK FATHER: Father sprinkles water with fingers into chalice

CLICK TO BUY

At the offertory the priest is to add a small quantity of water to the wine in the chalice.  Small.  There must not be the least doubt that what is in the chalice is wine.  In other words, put in too much water, and you don’t have wine anymore.  The addition of too much water breaks the substance of the wine.

In the manual of dogmatic theology by Tanquerey, that tonic for the soul, I found the opinion that “quinta pars aquae ad vinum corrumpendum non sufficiat … a fifth part of water isn’t enough to break [the substance of] the wine”, and thus render it invalid matter for consecration.

Bottom line, we want to have just a tiny bit of water put into the wine.  Ideally, drops.  And we want to make sure that they don’t simply adhere to the inside of the cup of the chalice.

ASK FATHER: Father sprinkles water with fingers into chalice

Scruple spoon with friends,
to provide scale.

This is why at the offertory careful, diligent priests will use what is nicknamed a “scruple spoon”, a tiny dipper-shaped tool with with they dip up a tiny quantity of water from the cruet to put into the wine in the chalice.  The idea is that you never have to worry that, for reasons of surface tension of the water or the shape of the cruet or the unsteadiness of hand of the priest or deacon, too much water might be inadvertently added to the wine.

Priests must take care to avoid the the Ketchup Bottle Technique of Chalice Preparation™ when the water in the cruet is being stubborn.  You know the poem by Richard Armour (not Ogden Nash):

Shake and shake
the catsup bottle
first none’ll come
and then a lot’ll.

Lot’ll = bad.

When that happens the priest should start over.

Why?

I’ll tell ya’ why.

Because we are Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists and we never never never fool around with the validity of matter of sacraments.

That’s why.

Let Scruple Spoons abound!  Promote the New Evangelization!

IMG_8892

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , ,
14 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Was there a good point or two in the sermon that you heard for your Mass of Sunday obligation?

Let us know.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
17 Comments

It’s not an urban legend, it’s a LIE: Paul VI did NOT give permission to nuns to use contraceptives.

paul vi tiara bwThe other day Pope Francis, in the infamous post-Mexico airplane presser, said:

Paolo VI – il grande! – in una situazione difficile, in Africa, ha permesso alle suore di usare gli anticoncezionali per i casi di violenza. … Paul VI – the great one! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted sisters to use contraceptives for cases of violenze.

I’ve heard this before. I never believed it.

Years ago on the COL Forum (which I ran) we had a discussion about this.  One of the staffers tried to dig up the old files.  In the meantime he – The Great Roman™ – sent this information.  It was not originally written in English, so I touched it up here and there… but not very much.

This reads like a soap opera, the one hand.  It reads like a vicious campaign of lies and disinformation designed to confuse the faithful and undermine the Church, on the other.

The urban legend (lie) is now so common that even high-ranking churchmen cite it as if it happened.   They aren’t lying, per se.  They are passing on something that isn’t true but that they think is true… even if it really doesn’t pass the smell test.

This whopper doesn’t pass the smell test.  Paul VI told nuns they could use contraceptives… riiiiight.

You decide.

My emphases and comments.

So far, I was unable to retrieve the COL Forum thread on this urban legend about Bl. Paul VI and contraception for nuns in Africa, but I had some notes stored and then idiocies about our Holy Faith have the ability to switch on my memory neurons to combat mode like yelling Saracens would do to a Templar knight who had been fasting and praying for a good fight the whole Quattuor Tempora of Lent.

You can search any archive, google any keyword, ask any historian or moralist, all you will be served with is old articles of pro-contraception authors repeating this story either with no supporting references or with no other evidence than references to older articles saying that “Rome” had OK’d contraception for endangered nuns in Africa at some point.

Notice, the more you go back in time, the more “Paul VI” becomes, more vaguely, “Rome”. Dig deep enough and you will find that “Rome” turns out to be just an article published, you guessed it, in Rome, precisely by the magazine Studi Cattolici, n° 27, in the year of our Salvation 1961. Title: “Una donna domanda: come negarsi alla violenza? Morale esemplificata. Un dibattito” (A woman asks, how to subtract oneself from violence? Exemplified morals. A debate).

Yes, I can hear you yelling at the monitor. Paul VI ascended to the Throne of Peter only in 1963.

And now I want somebody to tell me, with a straight face, that St. John XXIII allowed contraception.  Above all, I want them to show me where and when he did it.

Back to the article. The authors were 1) Msgr. Pietro Palazzini, later a bishop and a Cardinal but back then a respected moral theologian and the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Council, 2) Professor Francis Xavier Hurth, S.J., of the Pontifical Gregorian University, and 3) Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini of the Pontifical Lateran University (later Archbishop of Perugia).

Long and verbose story short, in that article Palazzini and Lambruschini explore a possible application of the “principle of the double effect” to the case of rape, where a legitimate end is pursued and the probable evil consequence is unintended.  [NB: Double-effect!]

Fr. Hurth attempts an elaboration of Aquinas’ concept of genus moris and genus naturae where the moral status of an act can be different depending on its spiritual and physical characteristics. In fairness, I’ll note that, back then, chemical contraception was relatively new a subject. Tonsured moralists were unlikely to be all that familiar with the science and the physiology involved and it will take 1968 to hear an authoritative pronouncement on this specific subject, the reviled Humanae Vitae. And it came from that same Paul VI who is said to have allowed contraception, if only by way of exception.

That’s all.

No, really, there is nothing else.

The opinion of three moralists on a magazine, attempting to offer, I repeat, an opinion on a complex matter, gets quoted loosely and ad nauseam by other moralists and journalists and becomes “Rome” and later “Paul VI”.

They will tell you that that article legitimized the concept of “lesser evil”. Leaving aside the fact that we can never choose evil, no matter the scale of it, the fact is that in 1957 Palazzini had co-edited a widely used manual where the following is said (I quote a 1962 English edition of this manual):

“To choose the lesser of two evils is permissible [NB] if the lesser evil is not in itself a moral evil (sin), but a purely physical evil or the omission of something good or indifferent, from which in a specific case an accidental bad effect will follow, less serious, however, than that which another course would provoke” (Ludovico Bender OP, in Dictionary of Moral Theology, Ed. Roberti, Francesco, Palazzini Pietro. Transl. by H. Yannone. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1962).

Now, I am no moral theologian but contraception is in fact a moral evil in itself (see Humanae Vitae 16) and not a “purely physical evil”, much less “something good or indifferent”. Case closed.

Not many outside Italy know, however, that Cardinal Palazzini, was asked about this matter years later, and precisely in the ‘90s when another such myth was concocted, seen that the Paul VI-Congo nuns version was losing credibility.  I am talking about the John Paul II-Bosnia nuns myth.

Those of us old enough will remember, during the Balkan wars articles begun to be published about “the Pope” or “Rome” authorizing nuns in Bosnia to take the pill in war zones. Palazzini is quoted in an article on that paper sewer some call La Repubblica which seems to have taken the place once occupied by the Osservatore Romano lately (OTOH, natura abhorret vacuum). The article was published on March 5, 1993. Link HERE.

Translated title: “The pill? Forbidden also for missionary nuns at risk of rape”.

Palazzini explains that all they were trying to do was to explore the possibility of actions aimed at preventing a pregnancy after a rape and before conception, supposing that possibility existed, in ways that have nothing to do with taking the pill for weeks for fear of a potential rape. So “Rome” (read: the author of an old article) denies having ever said that contraceptives are OK in certain circumstances.

[QUAERITUR] But what was this new article about and why were they interviewing Palazzini after 30 years?

Bear with me.

There had been stories of women raped in Bosnia (nihil sub sole novi).  Fr. Bergamaschi, a Franciscan friar, had accused St. John Paul II of hypocrisy because the Great Pole had reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Church on contraception to the point of exhorting raped women to keep their babies but, according to Bergamaschi, had also authorized nuns to take the pill.  So journalists began to ask questions. [Agere sequitur esse.]

With the typically half-horrified and half-snarky tone, the reporterette of La Repubblica has to write that the Vatican is in fact unwavering in its position on contraceptives, even in the case of rape. The inhumanity! She quotes the then vice-director of the Press Office of the Holy See, Fr. Piero Pennacchini. His words:

“The Holy See never issued texts authorizing women religious to make use of contraceptives, even if they run the risk of being raped”. “I know of no official document by the Holy See on this”.

Disappointed, the journalist evokes Fr. Efrem Tresoldi, a missionary who says that he doesn’t know the extent of the phenomenon. “Surely” there is “talk” of contraceptives among missionaries. “Certainly” some nuns have been told to make use of contraceptives, says Tresoldi.  So, there are disloyal confessors or superiors of religious orders who tell nuns to act contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

OK Father, and what else is new?  [Not much.]

Above all, since when disloyal members of religious orders are “the Pope”, or “Rome”? [When it fits.]

Unsatisfied, the reporterette turns to a missionary nun (she couldn’t find one from Bosnia so she asks one who had been in Africa for 12 years. Says the missionary nun: “Personally I have never heard of contraceptive pills”, “but there has been certainly the risk of (sexual) violence for many of us who lived though the great African upheavals. I don’t know if other sisters have been advised to take precautions”.

Back to Tresoldi, we are told that, of course, there is no official pronouncement, but that’s because John Paul II and his merciless minions are hypocrites who tell nuns to take the pill in secret even while they tell lay women to accept their fate and keep the baby.

That’s when the Repubblica hack turns to Card. Palazzini hoping to save the day with the lies of 30 years ago.

[The soap continues… after this commercial break…]

Are you tire of journalists lying to you through inuendo and omission, exageration and obfuscation?  Are you sick of timid prelates who wheeze and wring their hands and try to be liked by all, to the damage of clear doctrine?   Then you need a piping Fr. Z Swag Mug of

It's not an urban legend, it's a LIE: Paul VI did NOT give permission to nuns to use contraceptives.MYSTIC MONK COFFEE!

Mystic Monk coffee, and teas, are produced by faithful Carmelites in the clear, unpolluted air of Wyoming.  They keep the beans and teabags away from lying journalists and feckless prelates lest they be sullied by their … lies and cowardice.

Mystic Monk Coffee is not craven and that’s no lie!

No no.  Enough with the prevarications!  Enough with the pusillanimity!

Get your Mystic Monk Coffee and Tea RIGHT NOW!

It’s swell!

[And now back to our regularly scheduled program.]

A few months after this article and others of the same kind, in July 1993 the Jesuit magazine Civiltà Cattolica (surprise!) [NOT] published what to this day remains the “doctrinal” foundation to the John Paul II- Bosnia nuns version of the myth: G. Perico, Stupro, Aborto e Anticoncezionali, volume III, Quaderno 3433, 3 luglio 1993.

Search all you want, this stream of the myth always goes back to this article.  [It sounds almost like the way all myths about Pius XII and the Jews go back to one source, a play in 1963, and that source was cobbled up by the KGB in a campaign of disinformation.]

No need to summarize it. Go read it if you want. I did.

He harkens back to the 1961 article and moves from there. [Surprise.] As happened with the Palazzini, Hurth and Lambruschini article, and even more given the firepower of the media of 30 years later, Perico’s piece sparkled lively discussions among moral theologians on the subject of contraception. Fine. But that’s not the point. That point is that they have nothing, not one thing they can come up with to support the notion that Paul VI or John Paul II ever allowed contraception, when the facts, the known and easily accessible, official, constant and binding pronouncements of the Church show the exact contrary.

Discussions are NOT the teaching of the Church.

Off-the cuff-remarks are NOT the teaching of the Church.

This is why on my bended knees I beg you all, Fathers, check your facts and, in John Wayne’s immortal words:

“Talk low, talk slow, and don’t talk too much”.

 

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Emanations from Penumbras, HONORED GUESTS, Liberals, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
36 Comments

Pope Donald

It seems that, the presidency not being enough, The Donald is running for Pope.

This is from A-CNN:

Converted Trump Now Running for Pope

In shocking news first reported a week ago, businessman Donald Trump has converted to Catholicism and has now declared his candidacy for Pope. Today’s announcement coincides with critical statements Pope Francis made about Mr. Trump not being a Christian. Mr. Trump just held a rally outside of New York City. Although video is not available, A-CNN has just acquired the audio transcript which we are providing below:

Thank you….thank you. You know, when I first started this campaign, people didn’t believe me. First they said, he’s not converting, he’ll never convert. Then I converted. Then they said, he’ll never get baptized, he won’t want the water to mess up his hair. But then I got baptized. Then they said he won’t get confirmed, and I got confirmed. And then they said he’d never run for pope. Well here I am, and I’m running for Pope; and I’m doing very well I must say.

(Cheers, applause)

I don’t have to do this, when you think about it. I really don’t. I’m rich. I’m really, really, rich. I built a great company; a tremendous company. I employ thousands and thousands of people. So my friends, they ask me, they say Donald, you have everything you can dream of. You’re rich, you have an amazing wife, an amazing family, you’re very successful, why run for Pope? And I say, you know what? I have to run. My Church needs me. The Catholics need me. I have to make the Catholic Church great again. I have to.

(Cheers, applause)

You know, it’s a sad thing to say, but the Church is in such bad shape; terrible shape under Francis. The Catholic Church doesn’t win anymore. We just don’t. When is the last time Catholics won anything? Lepanto? When was that, the 1500’s? We don’t win anymore. But, let me just say, Under a Trump papacy, we are going to win again. We are going to win so much. We are going to win so much you are all going to be sick of winning, ok? But right now, it’s terrible. Just the other day, I see the Pope is praising Martin Luther. Martin Luther! Can you believe it?

(Boos)

Our Pope is over there praising Martin Luther; meanwhile millions of Hispanics are converting to Protestantism in Latin America. It’s true. We are losing millions and millions of people to the Protestants and our Pope does nothing. He does nothing. And I have nothing against the Protestants. Many of them are good people. I employ thousands of Protestants. I used to be a Protestant. But their leaders are just too smart for our leaders. We have people in power in the Church today who have no idea what they are doing. They are incompetent. All our leaders do is “dialogue.” We don’t convert anymore, we “dialogue.” What the hell is dialogue? Excuse me, but shouldn’t we be converting these people? If we have the Truth, why aren’t we converting them? But we don’t convert, we “dialogue”, and we lose millions and millions of these people to Protestantism. They are saying if the head of the Catholic Church thinks it’s ok to be Protestant, why convert? Why do we need to convert? Let him convert. Let the Pope convert. That’s what they’re saying. They’re laughing at us. There is no respect there. No respect. When I’m Pope, they are going to respect us again, let me tell you.

(Cheers, applause)

Another thing I hear a lot about is 2 Vatican. Have you heard of 2 Vatican?

(Crowd yells “Vatican II!”)

Vatican II? Is it Vatican II? Vatican II, 2 Vatican, who the hell cares. It stinks right? No matter what you call it, it stinks.

(Cheers, applause)

I was just looking at the numbers the other day, folks. Before Vatican II – tens of thousands of vocations to the priesthood and religious life in this country, thousands of baptisms, first communions, confirmations. Thousands and thousands of converts. Catholic universities all over the place, and I mean real Catholic universities, not the universities today that call themselves Catholic. Tens of thousands of Catholic schools with all kinds of nuns. There were so many priests the parishes were overflowing, ok? You couldn’t walk down your street without bumping into a priest, that’s how many of them there were. The Faith was exploding, it was really amazing, it was unbelievable. And then…. You have Vatican II.

(Boos)

Then you have Vatican II and they change everything. They change everything! You have the best Church in centuries, a flourishing Church, a vibrant Church, a converting Church, and they change everything. Now how stupid is this? How stupid?

(Boos)

You know people try to criticize me and they say I speak too plain and too simple. Look, I have a great education, I finished top of my class at the Wharton School of Finance, the top school in the country. I have a huge vocabulary. It’s huge. It really is. But when I see something like this, there really is no other word for it. I have to call it stupid. Because it is. It’s stupid. There’s no other word for it.

(Cheers, applause)

So they’re succeeding. The Church is succeeding, and they change everything. So then they say in Vatican II that the priests aren’t really the priests. I mean, we’re all priests, right? Isn’t that what Martin Luther said? We’re all priests? The Pope’s buddy, Martin Luther?

(Boos)

Then they try to say, oh but there’s a difference. The priests in the collars, if they even wear collars anymore. I saw a priest the other day; he was in a turtleneck and a cardigan. He looked like Mr. Rogers. Who the hell wants a priest that looks like Mr. Rogers? Who wants that? I don’t know. Anyway…so the priests in the collars can say the Mass and they can hear the confessions, but in every other way, we’re all priests. Men, women, kids, maybe even Muslims. I don’t know, can Muslims be priests under Vatican II? I have no idea. I wouldn’t be surprised folks, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s crazy.

(Boos)

So then they say we’re all priests and what happens to the priesthood? Plummets. Numbers go through the floor. Why be a priest if everyone can be a priest? Makes no sense. So now, if you’re a priest you can do what? Consecrate and absolve, right? Consecrate and absolve. So what do they do? Now they have “Communion Services.” They call them “Communion Services” ever heard of that?

(Boos)

The priest consecrates a bunch of hosts and then a layperson, usually a woman up at the altar in a pantsuit. Probably Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were Hillary.

(Laughter)

You ever notice today that all the nuns dress like Hillary? When did that happen? When did nuns start dressing like Hillary? It’s scary. It’s really scary.

[…]

Read the rest there. It’s a hoot.

I can actually hear his voice. 

BTW… A-CNN is associated with The Remnant.   Fr. Z kudos.  That’s pretty funny.

 

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged ,
26 Comments