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

YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS

Posted on 6 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

Registered or not, will you in your charity please take a moment look at the requests and to pray for the people about whom you read?

Continued from THESE.

I get many requests by email asking for prayers. Many requests are heart-achingly grave and urgent.

Something is up. I’m getting many more requests for prayers than last year at this time

As long as my blog reaches so many readers in so many places, let’s give each other a hand. We should support each other in works of mercy.

If you have some prayer requests, feel free to post them below. You have to be registered here to be able to post.

I still have a pressing personal petition.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
32 Comments

My View For Awhile: reading edition

Posted on 6 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I’ve travelled to my native place for a meeting of my literary group. We are reading the poetry of John Henry Newman.

And as a bonus for attentive readers here’s a menu option!

A fresh salad of watermelon, feta cheese, and mint from our hostess’ garden.

The group opted for Chinese!

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
10 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Posted on 5 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Was there a good point you gleaned from the sermon you heard as you fulfilled your Sunday obligation?

Let us know.

Meanwhile… for the 6th Sunday after Pentecost… whether there are good points in it or not…

ASK FATHER: Priest who baptizes any baby brought to him

Posted on 4 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

I know of a local Ukrainian Catholic priest who baptizes any Catholic baby (whether Roman or Eastern Rite) who is brought to him by their parents (whether or not the parents knew of this priest or if a relative or friend referred them to this priest). In most of these cases, the parents who want the Baptism of their child/children from this Ukrainian Catholic priest do not practice their Catholic faith, and/or the parents are not married, and/or one of the parents is not in the picture, etc. And in most cases, the Roman Catholic priest(s) they’ve went to have refused the baptism of their child/children for all of the above listed reasons. The UC priest’s reasoning for doing all of these baptisms is that he believes that the child should not have to suffer (I’m guessing the effects of original sin by living their lives unbaptized) and that it’s not the baby’s fault that their parents are in some of the above listed reasons.

Is there anything wrong what this Ukrainian Catholic priest is doing?

Is there a violation of Canon Law? Are the Roman Catholic priests right or wrong for refusing baptism in these cases? Who is right and who is wrong here?

Liberality, or mercy, is a virtue. Prudence remains the mother of all virtues. Prudence instills temperance and strength into liberality, lest it devolve into mushy sentimentality or pompous fanaticism. Prudence helps us to keep the apple cart between the lines along the narrow path.

Holy Church – with Our Lord – wishes that all men be baptized. How different would the world look if everyone shared the Catholic faith? Problems would not be obliterated, but just imagine how wonderful a truly Catholic world would be. That’s something that the Devil works to thwart… and pretty successfully, too.

From the outset the Church rejected frivolous baptism. Baptism requires something of the person being baptized. In the case of children to be baptized, it requires something of their parents, and sponsors. Otherwise, to save everyone from the effects of original sin, we would have long ago sent priests (probably Jesuits) up in planes with water canons, to fly around the world baptizing everyone.

The Church asks in can. 868 that all those who administer the sacrament of baptism to children do so only when there is “founded hope” that the child will be raised in the faith. The parents, or those who stand in their place, must have a commitment to raise their child as a Catholic before we can licitly baptize that child. A priest who baptizes children without exercising that prudential judgment in discerning whether or not the parents truly are committed to raising their child Catholic errs. The baptism is still valid, mind you.

Prudential judgment is a delicate thing. One priest might have obtained the “founded hope” in the simple request of the parents to have their child baptized. Another priest might only have founded hope if the parents are registered members of the parish who attend and contribute every week.

It seems to me that both such priests are extreme cases and not truly being prudent, but only God knows their hearts. It would have include a case-by-case investigation to get to the bottom of the matter.

The question of baptizing children whose parents do not belong to one’s particular ritual Church is a bit of further complication. The newly baptized child’s rite is not determined by the minister of his baptism, but by the ritual Church of his parents. So if both parents are Latin Catholics, their child (under the age of 14) will be Latin Catholic, no matter who performs the baptism. Still, one should not baptize the children of parents who do not belong to one’s Church unless there is a serious need (such as no priests of the parents’ Church available).

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Both Lungs, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged baptism, can. 868, prudence
21 Comments

ASK FATHER: Same-sex confusion, false understanding of marriage, and nullity

Posted on 4 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

This may be more of a canon law question (and therefore not necessarily your expertise), but I was rueing the number of Catholics rejoicing with the recent SSM ruling, and it strike me, if they are married, is it possible the marriages are in fact null because of their support for SSM? My understanding that part of the requirement is understanding the nature of marriage, if you support it, do you really understand it? Anyway, a hypothetical really, but thought it could be a thought provoking proposition (and one where I would benefit from more learned individuals).

Hypothetical situations are generally not the most helpful ones for understanding canon law. The law is designed for real situations, and takes into consideration the complexity of the human person. Each of us, and each marriage situation is unique. Though the law speaks in generalities, it does so with the understanding that it is going to be applied in specific, real situations.

The understanding of marriage that’s required for positing a valid act of consent is pretty basic. Can. 1096 establishes that matrimonial consent requires that the parties “be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, order to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.”

A case might be made that a certain hypothetical person lacked sufficient understanding of marriage because he lacked the understanding that it must be between a man and a woman, and that he thought it could be contracted by any two persons, regardless of sex.

Proving that would be difficult.

The whole situation brings to light the need to pray for – and to teach! – a better understanding of marriage among our children.

Unless the next generation gets this right, our society will head down a very dark alley.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged can. 1096, canon law, consent, marriage
16 Comments

CQ CQ CQ – Ham Radio Saturday – UPDATED – Echolink use

Posted on 4 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Echolink

I don’t have too much to report on the Ham front today. I’ve been busy with other things.

There was a field day last weekend but I was unable to get involved. There was a 1st Mass to attend on Saturday and may other pressing things. On Sunday I had two Masses, so that was that.

I had an email (at last… they are pokey in responding) from the people who made my Juicebox. You might recall that it had discharged and I couldn’t get the batteries going again. I wrote to the company… I’ve only been trying to resolve this since APRIL. Anyway, they are sending two new batteries (when… who knows…) and I will do the work of swapping them out myself. The Juicebox has an Anderson Power Pole option. And that leads me to my next point…

My Kenwood T140 came (from a reader) with an Anderson Power Pole cable. So, when I get the Juicebox going again, I’ll have a good power source for the Kenwood. I’ll try setting it up with a Buddistick.

Other than that, I’ve been doing a little Morse and lacksidasically looking over materials for the Extra exam. I have a couple little Baofeng UV-5r radios now. One is tuned to the local repeater and I have reached out a few times to local regulars I hear doing some rag chewing. One, as it turns out, is a reader of this blog who recognized my voice. One of the other radios I would like to set up to listen to local LEO/Fire etc., but I haven’t figured that out yet. One should go into my Go Bag in my car.

I got the Baofeng data cable, but I wasn’t able to get the software to install. That’s going to take a little effort, it seems.

I will switch on my Echolink program for a while today, if any of you check that. One of our readers here (who sent the Kenwood) has made his node availble to us: 554286 – WB0YLE-R (Thanks!) Remember: You must be licensed to use Echolink. BTW… there is a great iPhone app for Echolink. I can see quite a few hams using that method to connect.

UPDATE:

After an attempted contact in the “WDTPRS Cafe” I did a couple level tests at the ECHOTEST node and found that my mic was waaaay too quiet, underpowered. I switched to a new USB port (powered) and that helped.

UPDATE: 5 July

It looks as if someone tried to contact me via Echolink at 03:36 CDT and again at 0649 CDT (I was just heading off to Mass). From the log information, this may have been a priest! I see your call N____ but I won’t post it here. I looked for you in Echolink, but didn’t find you.

I am quite interested networking with clerical hams! … yes… I wrote that: “clerical hams”.

I could write “clerical amateur radio operators”, just what fun is that?

Posted in Ham Radio, Mail from priests | Tagged Anderson Power Pole, Baofeng, Buddistick, Echolink, Ham radio, Juicebox
24 Comments

Ingress

Posted on 3 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Are any of you readers involved in Ingress?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged Ingress
27 Comments

Excommunication of same-sex ‘marriage’ Catholic SCOTUS Justices for Heresy

Posted on 2 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From Ed Peters, distinguished canonist, on Catholic SCOTUS Justices (Kennedy, Sotomayor) who ruled for Obergefell v. Hodges:

Obergefell and canonical criminal law

Dcn Greg Kandra calls attention to a question floating around out there, namely, [QUAERITUR…]should Catholic justices who voted to impose “same-sex marriage” on America be excommunicated? We can deal with most of that question pretty quickly.

Excommunication can impact any Catholic (there are no exemptions for those in high civil office), but it can be incurred only for twelve specifically delineated crimes (CLSA Comm. 932, not counting a couple of excommunicable crimes listed outside the Code). Now, voting to impose “same-sex marriage” on a nation (or, taken more broadly, gravely damaging the common good) is not among the canonical crimes punished by excommunication, and even Canon 1399 (sometimes derided, if unfairly, as a “catch-‘em-all” penal norm) would not suffice for so-called automatic excommunication (a canonical institution that presents its own legal complications, but let that pass). In short, I see no excommunication readily imposable on Catholic justices who voted to impose “same-sex marriage” on America.

But, [But…] two points remain for Catholics to consider.

1. For reasons outlined here (chiefly that—aside from the compelling natural law demonstration that marriage is possible only between a man and woman, a demonstration that should be understandable as a matter of human reason—the Church teaches with infallible certainty that marriage is possible only between a man and woman) I think that some Catholic justices have, indeed, manifested their opposition to Church doctrine (Canons 750 § 2 and 1371, 1°), doing so, moreover, “in published writing” and in a way that “gravely injures good morals” (Canon 1369). The canonical sanctions referenced for such offenses are, however, ‘indeterminate’ (justa poena) and, I would hold, do not extend to excommunication. To be sure, a number of very important procedural steps would need to be observed before moving on these norms (and the track record of thinking-through, let alone enforcing, penal canon law has not been strong in our day) but, [But…] at the very least, the fact that such an argument can even be made suggests a basis for some kind of pastoral intervention toward those Catholic justices who hold that “law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes”, let alone toward those who voted to impose “same-sex marriage” on America.

2. If, as seems likely, Church teaching that marriage can exist only between a man and woman is taught not just infallibly (as a ‘secondary object’ of infallibility) but as being divinely revealed (making it a ‘primary object’ of infallibility), then, a Catholic’s obstinate denial of such a truth is canonically “heresy” (Canon 751) punishable by excommunication (Canon 1364 § 1), an automatic one at that—and is not just ‘opposition to Church teaching’ punishable by a ‘just penalty’. I leave it to theologians to hammer out whether Church teaching on the male-female foundation of marriage is simply, but infallibly, Church doctrine (I am sure it is at least that) or whether it is part of divine revelation (I am strongly inclined to say that it is), but either way, prominent Catholics asserting that marriage is whatever the State wants to make it, is a grave ecclesiastical problem.

Grave Ecclesiastical Problem™.

Yes, I would say so.

Posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, SCOTUS, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged can. 1364, can. 1369, can. 1371, can. 750, can. 751, excommunication, heresy, marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, SCOTUS
60 Comments

ASK FATHER: Sunday obligation and career conflicts

Posted on 2 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I read your recent answer to a man whose work schedule keeps him from attending Mass.

I’d like to go down that road a little further. I’m a commercial pilot. My schedule (which is written in stone) keeps me on the road 7 days at a time. I miss Mass every other Sunday because my duties do not allow me to attend during the 7 days I am “on duty”.

However, I am now at a point in my life where I “could” retire at some significant monetary loss. My wife and I are living on my income, but could live on social security and savings (401K/IRA) at this point.

Question: Does my obligation to attend Mass on Sunday dictate that I quit my job and retire?

At my age, the chance of landing another flying job that would allow me to attend Mass on Sunday approaches zero, but one never knows.

Being a Christian requires certain sacrifices. Being Catholic requires even more sacrifices.

Being a member of Holy Catholic Church allows one freely to request, from the treasury of grace the Church has built up, some accommodations.

Ironic, isn’t it? We live in a secular world, which makes fewer and fewer concessions to those attempting to live according to the dictates of the Church.

To determine the exact line between reasonable sacrifice and foolhardiness is difficult. Certainly, one should never put one’s family in an unnecessary state of financial uncertainty. Additionally, one should never place an undue burden on the State to provide!

If you can work, work, rather than rely on government assistance or charity. (εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω! – 2 Thess 3:10)

Giving up one’s job in order to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation can cause readjustment of priorities in life. If it is too much of a burden, don’t do it. Yet, if it’s the difference between eating hamburger or dining on prime rib six nights a week, the sacrifice might be spiritually appropriate. Consider that the earthly “banquet” is temporary, while the heavenly is eternal.

Before making such a decision, talk the matter over with your wife, check with your accountant, and consult with your pastor or a trusted priest in order assess the situation.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged Mass Obligation, Sunday obligation
12 Comments

UPDATE REVIEW: The ULTIMATE Priest’s Gift – Super Cool Portable Altar

Posted on 2 July 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Do you remember when I posted about the coolest gift for a priest ever? HERE There is a carpenter who makes portable altars of wood, rather like a suitcase, with wings that fold out, and an embedded altar stone.

St. Joseph’s Apprentice

After I received the first beautiful altar, which a priest friend immediately wanted to borrow, I offered some suggestions for improvements. The carpenter took them to heart!

Another priest friend recently obtained his own, upgraded, portable altar. He brought it over and I shot some photos.

In its case.

This one is considerably lighter than the one I have. Different wood, I believe, and construction have taken quite a few pounds off.

The altar, closed up.

One of the improvements I recommended were slots to place altar cards. He added them!

This version of the altar has a storage compartment under the element that holds the altar stone.

On the altar stone you can see a certificate of its provenance, that it was duly consecrated. I checked out the sepulcher for relics.

This version utilizes supports for the “wings” that fold out. Mine uses the drawers that pull out from the sides. Mine doesn’t have the central compartment.

The only concern I have is that the surface has to be pretty level and even for these side supports to work. Great if you are on a table.

The carpenter’s wife makes altar cloths to fit the altar! That’s really helpful. My altar didn’t come with cloths.

Not only are the cloths fitted, one of them is a cere cloth! This is important with a wooden surface.

The Cross sits atop. However, he added a little tongue/groove – one of the improvements I suggested – so that it will more easily stay in place.

My friend told me that there was a little book stand, too. I didn’t see it.

Pretty spiffy.

I would like to swap mine out for this, or at least have some of the upgrades!

This might be the coolest priest gift ever. It might also, in the future, be one of the most useful.

As the persecution of the Catholic Church mounts, it may be that we will lose a lot of our properties. Priests might have to take things on the road.

Also, lay people might want to have one of these stored away. Stock up on altar wine, hosts, candles and squirrel them away with your altar.

Otherwise, leave it set up all the time as a home altar! You could put a shelve over it for statues and hand a fine piece of religious art over it…. even a baldachin, much in the style of some home chapels I saw in palazzi in Rome.