Gopher tuna. Bring more tuna.

Posted on 5 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In the 1930’s composer Carl Orff set some mediocre but amusing medieval Latin (mostly) poems, such as drinking and student songs, to music and called the collection Cármina Burána (yes, those are the correct syllables to accentuate, yes, it’s Cármina and not, for all love, Carmína.). The opening piece of the set is “O Fortuna“, and I am guessing we have all heard it a thousand times. It is used constantly in films, commercials and the like and the users have not the slightest clue what they are using.

The writer is glossing on … how did Mark Knopfler put it? … sometimes you’re the windshield and sometimes you’re the bug.

We are usually the bug, as it turns out, at least according to O Fortuna.

The opening lyrics are:

LATIN	FAST & BRUTAL LITERAL VERSION
O Fortuna, velut Luna statu variabilis, semper crescis aut decrescis; vita detestabilis nunc obdurat et tunc curat ludo mentis aciem; egestatem, potestatem, dissolvit ut glaciem.	O Fortune, like the moon in a changing state, you always wax or you wan; hateful life is first brutal, and then fosters the mind’s keenness in a game; it melts poverty, power, like ice.
Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis, status malus, vana salus semper dissolubilis; obumbrata et velata mihi quoque niteris; nunc per ludum dorsum nudum fero tui sceleris.	Monstrous and empty chance/fate, you are a turning wheel, your state is dire, your help empty always able to dissolve; shadowed and veiled you press also on me; now because of your sport, I bear a bare back of your evildoing.
Sors salutis et virtutis mihi nunc contraria; est affectus et defectus semper in angaria. hac in hora sine mora cordae pulsum tangite! quod per sortem sternit fortem, mecum omnes plangite!	Chance/fate of well-being and of virtue is now against me; there is good will and disappointment always servitude (to chance). In this hour without delay strike a chord on the strings! For, by chance/fate, it flattens the strong, Everyone now lament with me!

Someone sent me a link to a video of how the Latin can be…. shall we say… mis-heard.

PUT YOUR (Mystic Monk) COFFEE DOWN.

[wp_youtube]nIwrgAnx6Q8[/wp_youtube]

A different version, mentioned above:

[wp_youtube]JIHMN1rFi9s[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged Carl Orff, Carmina Burana
20 Comments

A reminder about Sr. Farley and abortion

Posted on 5 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A little discussed fact as you carry on your own discussions about the CDF’s Notification about Sr. Farley’s dreadful book and the grand-nutty feminists/liberals are throwing.

From CWN:

“The CDF warning is not the first public confrontation between Sister Farley and the Vatican. In 1984 she was one of the women religious who faced disciplinary action after signing an advertisement in the New York Times that said Catholics could legitimately support legal abortion. Sister Farley has said that she never retracted her position on that point.”

I don’t believe that Farley discusses abortion in the book that the CDF reviewed.

But this fact remains.

Radical feminists see abortion as their sacrament.

When the CDF turns its attention to you, they are not doing so because you don’t wear a habit, or you don’t live in community, or because you are a woman, or because you may hold some odd notions.

When the CDF is on your case, it is because you openly advance ideas contrary to Christian faith and morals, things that kill the life of grace in the soul and can lead you and others whom you influence to eternal separation from God in hell.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Linking Back, Magisterium of Nuns |
1 Comment

TRANSIT OF VENUS TODAY – rarest of all eclipses – 5 June 22:10 UTC – 6 June 4:50 UTC – the last in our lifetimes

Posted on 5 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

LIVE:

http://venustransit.nasa.gov/transitofvenus/

NOTE THE TIMES, below, in UNIVERSAL TIME.

Explanation: Today Venus moves in front of the Sun. One way to follow this rare event is to actively reload the above live image of the Sun during the right time interval and look for an unusual circular dark dot. The smaller sprawling dark areas are sunspots. The circular dot is the planet Venus. The dark dot will only appear during a few very specific hours, from about 22:10 on 2012 June 5 through 4:50 2012 June 6, Universal Time. This transit is the rarest type of solar eclipse known — much more rare than an eclipse of the Sun by the Moon or even by the planet Mercury. In fact, the next transit of Venus across the Sun will be in 2117. Anyone with aclear view of the Sun can go outside and carefully view the transit for themselves by projecting sunlight through a hole in a card onto a wall. Because this Venus transit is so unusual and visible from so much of the Earth, it is expected to be one of the more photographed celestial events in history. The above live image on the Sun is being taken by the Earth-orbiting Solar Dynamics Observatory and can be updated about every 15 minutes.

It is entirely overcast where I am and in my time zone it would have been later in the evening through the night until earliest morning.

There is a live webcast of the event from an observatory in Hawaii. HERE.

QUAERITUR: Is water blessed with the newer rites really holy water?

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I’ve heard it claimed that holy water blessed via the new rite isn’t true holy water since the new rite doesn’t include prayers of exorcism; in other words, according to the person telling me this, such water is merely “blessed water” (strange, I thought anything blessed was, by definition, holy). If you were me, how would you respond to such claims? Thanks in advance, and God bless.

I don’t think the entire question rests on the lack of an exorcism. There is more to the issue.

I just reviewed 1085 ff in De Benedictionibus, the post-Conciliar collection of “blessings”. I use ” ” there because only a couple of the prayers in the book that explicitly bless something. All the rest refer to the blessings God could give to someone nearby, or around the place, or who might look in the direction of something, etc. The book attempts to change the Church’s theology about blessings, effectively trying to eliminate the concept of the constitutive blessing and reducing every prayer and action to an invocative blessing.

In my review of the Ordo ad faciendam aquam benedictam, used outside Mass to “bless” water, even though I found a rubric that says that the “celebrans… dicit orationem benedictionis… the celebrant … says the prayer of blessing” and there are three options that follow, I cannot find in any of the three prayers, in the Latin mind you, an explicit statement that the water is to be blessed water. These paragraphs use the word “blessing” throughout and the prayers ask for blessings on those on whom the water is sprinkled. Also, the “celebrans” can be a deacon, which is not possible in the older rite, with the traditional Rituale Romanum.

Here is the first of the new prayers as an example:

Benedictus es, Domine, Deus omnipotens,
qui nos in Christo, aqua viva salutis nostrae,
benedicere dignatus es et intus reformare:
concede ut qui huius aquae aspersione
vel usu munimur,
renovata animae iuventute
per virtutem Sancti Spiritus
in novitate vitae iugiter ambulemus.

Blessed are you, Lord, Almighty God,
who deigned to bless us in Christ, the living water of our salvation,
and to reform us interiorly,
grant that we who are fortified
by the sprinking of or use of this water,
the youth of the spirit being renewed
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
may walk always in newness of life.

The others are not more explicit.

The difference with the older rite is not just that there is no exorcism or blending of exorcised and blessed salt. There is not explicit act of blessing. The fact that a deacon can use this rite means that it is not connected to the power of the priestly office. There is no sign of the cross indicated in the text. The words don’t say the water is blessed. [NB: In a comment below we learn that the CDW indicates that a sign of the Cross is to be made.]

In the older rite, which priests can use (reason #4378 for why we needed Summorum Pontificum) first salt is exorcised and then blessed. Then water is exorcised and then blessed. In the exorcism of the salt and the water, the two elements are addressed directly, personally, in the second person. By this exorcism they are entirely and without question ripped from the domination of the “Prince of this World”, as our Lord calls the our Enemy. Then they are blessed with explicit words and gestures of blessings. Here are the prayers for the exorcism and the blessing the water (before the exorcised blessed salt is added), with my emphases:

God’s creature, water, I cast out the demon from you in the name of God + the Father almighty, in the name of Jesus + Christ, His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy + Spirit. May you be a purified water, empowered to drive afar all power of the enemy, in fact, to root out and banish the enemy himself, along with his fallen angels. We ask this through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire. All: Amen.

O God, who for man’s welfare established the most wonderful mysteries in the substance of water, hearken to our prayer, and pour forth your blessing + on this element now being prepared with various purifying rites. May this creature of yours, used in your mysteries and endowed with your grace, serve to cast out demons and to banish disease. May everything that this water sprinkles in the homes and gatherings of the faithful be delivered from all that is unclean and hurtful; let no breath of contagion hover there, no taint of corruption; let all the wiles of the lurking enemy come to nothing. By the sprinkling of this water may everything opposed to the safety and peace of the occupants of these homes be banished, so that in calling on your holy name they may know the well-being they desire, and be protected from every peril; through Christ our Lord. All: Amen.

In the newer prayer, we pray that people have spiritual benefits, because we are invoking God’s blessing. The water is a symbol of those blessings. In the older prayer something entirely different seems to be going on. The water is taken from the realm of the profane and made something of the sacred realm. Then the water is used to bring about the things we pray, through God’s power of course, but by the use of the water. Use of the water is a direct contradiction to the powers of evil who wish us harm.

Furthermore, the water which has been blessed has itself now a role in the blessing of other things. Consider the principle that something cannot give what it does not have.

That said, the rite of blessing water during Mass found in the newer, Ordinary Form Missale Romanum, includes the words:

“… dignare, quaesumus, hanc aquam + benedicere… deign, we implore, to bless + this water… “

The second option (aren’t there always options in the Novus Ordo?) has:

“…hanc aquam, te quaesumus, + benedicas... we implore You that You + bless this water… “

Mind you, there is no exorcism of the water in the newer Missale Romanum during Mass. And keep in mind that in the older rite, the water was blessed outside of Mass. Easter water is another kettle of fish.

There is a world of difference, of sensibility, of theology, between what we find in the newer Missale Romanum and what we find De benedictionibus.

So, my answer is, I know without question that when I bless water with the older rite, it is blessed water, holy water. I have never used – and never will use – the newer book. But were I to imagine myself to do such a thing, I am not sure what there would be in the bucket when I was done.

That said, here is a little WDTPRS poll.

Choose your best answer and give reasons in the combox.

UPDATE 6 June 0914:

I received in email a link to a truly interesting article comparing the two different rites at greater length than I did. I writer and I come to substantially the same points, I think, but he has greater detail.

HERE.

UPDATE 6 JUNE 0930 GMT:

Over at Rorate, who picked up this entry, there are a couple of amusing comments.

First, some wag suggests that what the newer rite outside of Mass produces is “nice water” rather than “holy water”. I think I’ll adopt that term for my own usage.

Also, there is this comment:

Cardinal Stickler has once been reported to say- “When I bless water, I never use the New Rite. I only use the Old Rite. Why? Because I’m interested in making Holy Water, not Happy Water.”

I don’t know if the late Cardinal said that or not, but – as Thucydides would say – that is what he ought to have said. I knew him a little and it sure sounds like him.

Honestly! Why did these pointy-headed liturgy geeks have to tinker around with something like this? Did the Council Fathers ask for a whole-cloth revision of the theology of blessings? Were people far and wide clamoring for a harder explanation of blessings? Were the faithful longing for head-scratchingly ambiguous rites? What about what the Council Fathers required even as they mandated a liturgical reform? Let nothing be done unless it is truly for the good of the faithful! Let nothing be done that is not an organic outgrowth of what went before!

I have never used the new book. I never will, either.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill | Tagged blessings, De Benedictionibus, holy water, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
71 Comments

LONDON: Latin Mass Society day conference – Saturday, 9 June 2012

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In London, the Latin Mass Society has organized a one-day conference: ‘The Traditional Liturgy and the Catholic Life’

You can book tickets online at that link, above.

WHEN:
9am Low Mass at St James’s, Spanish Place.
Talks elsewhere till 6 pm with breaks.

WHERE:
Talks: Regent Hall, 275 Oxford Street, London W1C 2DJ
(opposite BHS, less than 5 minutes’ walk from Oxford Circus)

WHO:
Dr John Rao (Roman Forum)
Stuart McCullough (Good Counsel Network)
Fr John Zuhlsdorf (columnist and blogger)
Fr Tim Finigan (columnist and blogger)
John Hunwicke (of the Ordinariate)

Ticket prices:
LMS Members £15
Non-LMS Members £20
(includes morning and afternoon refreshments)
Optional: Buffet lunch including drinks £9 supplement

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged Latin Mass Society
Comments Off

Fr. James Martin, SJ, sticks up for Sr. Farley and her teachings

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The usual suspects are encircling with nurturing and supportive embraces Sr. Margaret Farley, author of a dreadful book, filled with grave errors concerning faith and morals. Click HERE.

Fr. James Martin, SJ (whose recent Twitter campaign demonstrates that he sides with the Magisterium of Nuns rather than CDF in the matter of the LCWR) has in the Jesuit-run America Magazine come out with a full-throated defense of Sr. Farley and her ideas.

Here is a sample. Don’t feel compelled to go there, though some of the comments are a hoot:

Book by Margaret Farley, RSM, Condemned by Vatican
POSTED AT: MONDAY, JUNE 04, 2012 07:51:55 AM
AUTHOR: JAMES MARTIN, S.J.
One of the most respected [by whom?] Catholic [c] theologians in the United States has been severely critiqued by the Vatican for one her most recent books. Margaret A. Farley, RSM, who teaches moral theology at Yale Divinity School, [isn’t she now listed as “emerita”?] and has served as a mentor for generations of Catholic theologians, [no wonder so many of them are so screwed up] has been critiqued for her book Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, published in 2006. Sister Margaret has served as past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, and was also awarded (among her many awards) her peers’ highest honor, the John Courtney Murray, SJ Award. [Well! Isn’t that something!] The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has condemned her book for its presentation of several topics: “Among the many errors and ambiguities in this book are its positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage,” read the Notification from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. [Those are pretty serious matters. Perhaps Fr. Martin doesn’t agree.]

The Vatican Notification read, in part: [You can find all that on your own.]

Sister Margaret responded to the Notification in a statement released to NCR. [aka Fishwrap. They all stick together, don’t they?] “Although my responses to some particular sexual ethical questions do depart from some traditional Christian responses, [You are suppose to infer that those “responses”, being “traditional”, are outdated and subject to change.] I have tried to show that they nonetheless reflect a deep coherence with the central aims and insights of these theological and moral traditions. [Sister Farley: You failed.] Whether through interpretation of biblical texts, or through an attempt to understand ‘concrete reality‘ (an approach at the heart of ‘natural law’), the fact that Christians (and others) have achieved new knowledge and deeper understanding of human embodiment and sexuality seems to require that we at least examine the possibility of development in sexual ethics. This is what my book, Just Love, is about.” [You see, modern man is all grown up now. We moderns have a new reality. We aren’t any longer subjected to those old restrictive ideas and taboos.]

In reviewing the book for America in 2006, the Boston College [Yet another Jesuit run place. Isn’t it amazing how often Jesuits and their acolytes turn up when it comes to dissent to Catholic moral teachings?] moral theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill wrote, “This long-awaited work by America’s leading Catholic feminist theological ethicist, Margaret A. Farley, is the product of years of experience, reflection, scholarship and wisdom. [and errors. Don’t forget the errors. Farley gets it all wrong.] Just Love is decisively shaped by Farley’s longstanding interests in the sexual equality of women and men, and of gay and straight couples; and, more recently, in advocacy for people affected by AIDS, especially women in Africa. [Just forget about the Church’s centuries of consistent moral teachings about any of those things.] Just Love’s thesis is that justice [can “justice” be separated from the truth made clear in the Church’s teachings?] is central to sexual morality, especially justice in the sense of respect for the real identity and needs of the other….As a theologian, Farley gives us a social ethic of sex that incorporates both the biblical ‘option for the poor’ and the orientation of Catholic social thought to the universal common good. As a feminist, she reminds Catholics that their tradition should make its global option for women more consistent, more explicit and more effective, especially in the areas of sex, motherhood, marriage and family.” [I suspect this gobbledygook is merely a justification for “You can have sex with whatever and however many warm-blooded critters you want without anyone mentioning sin.]

Margaret Farley is an immensely well respected theologian and scholar, [I suspect that’s going to change.] and is a revered mentor for many Catholic theologians. It would be difficult to overstate her influence in the field of sexual ethics, [And THAT, friends, is why the CDF Notification about her dreadful book is very important. First, if her awful book wasn’t subject to such an examination, then no one’s should be.] or the esteem in which she is held by her colleagues. With this stinging critique, the Vatican has again signaled its concern about theologians writing about sexual morality. [Watching out for Catholic teaching on failth and moral?!? The CDF?!? What’ll they come up with next?] This Notification will certainly sadden Sister Margaret’s many colleagues, her generations of students, and those many Catholics who have profited by her decades of reflection on the faith. [I wonder if it will sadden anyone who lost the happiness of Christ’s Kingdom because they, at her urging and bad teaching, endangered their immortal souls through deviant sexual practices or the erosion of their faith and morals under he influence.] It will also, inevitably, raise strong emotions among those who already feel buffeted by the Vatican’s Apostolic Visitation of Catholic sisters in the US, and its intervention into the LCWR. [Boo hoo.]

NCR also has an extensive list of reactions from prominent Catholic theologians here. And Michael Peppard’s provides an analysis of the CDF Notification on Dotcommonweal.

Will Fr. Martin start a new Twitter campaign for poor, persecuted Sr. Farley?

He could use the hashtag #WhatSrFarleyMeansToMe !

He’ll have WDTPRS’s full support!

Posted in Linking Back, Magisterium of Nuns | Tagged American Magazine, Fr. James Martin, LCWR, Sr. Margaret Farley
85 Comments

A request to bloggers about the the phrase “Magisterium of Nuns”

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

I have a request to make of all Catholic bloggers.

Whenever you write anything about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, try to work in the phrase “Magisterium of Nuns“. I don’t care if you give any sort of attribution. Just use it. Use it all the time.

The LCWR isn’t the “Magisterium of Nuns”. It is a subset, a “subsidiary” if you will, a symptom of a larger phenomenon.

Never mind the distinctions about “nuns” and “sisters”… blah blah blah. Lump them all together for this, because it is more annoying that way.

The phrase “Magisterium of Nuns” came out of the obvious attempts of some women religious, such as Sr. Carol Keehan (GIVE BACK THAT PEN!) of the Catholic Health Association, to establish themselves as a Catholic teaching authority over and against the teaching authority exercised by bishops. (“The bishops might say X, but we say Y. You are still Catholic and in good conscience if you listen to us and not to them. “) At that time they desired to give cover to Catholic politicians (mostly pro-abortion democrats) so that they could claim to have a good conscience in keeping with Catholic teaching and vote in favor of Obamacare (which would lead among other things to tax payer funding of abortion and other objectionable things).

This is a pernicious phenomenon and it must be unmasked.

The moniker is getting some traction. It (therefore I) was attacked explicitly in America Magazine in an article by someone I had never heard of, one Christine Firer Hinze who works for Jesuit-run Fordham University. Here is the relevant paragraph:

As Vatican II affirms, the episcopal office uniquely serves the revealed truth of the gospel. But that truth resides in and with the whole church. Beholden to military or business organizational models, pundits who deride L.C.W.R. sisters for posturing falsely as a “magisterium of nuns” disrespect the authentic authority not only of religious communities, but of the laity in their various charisms and vocations. Because the official magisterium does not have a monopoly on gospel truth, office-holders must constantly listen for that truth in the whole church, and all must work to avoid what Avery Dulles, S.J., called “excessive conformism” and “excessive distrust” among hierarchy and faithful.

Fun!

First, what, may I ask, is the “authentic authority” of religious communities? More on that, below.

I particularly enjoyed the shot about being “beholden to military or business organizational models”. I think that means that I am a cog in the Catholic equivalent of a Military Industrial Complex. In other words, I am a warmongering capitalist and, therefore, my phrase “magisterium of nuns” is not accurate.

Did you feel the iron-jaws of logic closing upon your brain?

Be careful when reading any defense of the Magisterium of Nuns to watch for code language like this: the phrase “the official magisterium”.

Let’s see it in situ:

Because the official magisterium does not have a monopoly on gospel truth, office-holders must constantly listen for that truth in the whole church, and all must work to avoid what Avery Dulles, S.J., called “excessive conformism” and “excessive distrust” among hierarchy and faithful.

We can rest our case on that. The writer proposes that there is a “magisterium” over and against that exercised by the bishops. It is “unofficial”, but it is – for her and those who hark to the Magisterium of Nuns – more compelling. They owe their obedience to that “magisterium”, the “unofficial magisterium”.

A “Magisterium of Nuns”.

Since there was no citation in the paragraph above for the late Card. Dulles’s phrases (which I am guessing are from the old Models of the Church, which Dulles later in life revised), I suggest that you review Lumen gentium 25 and 12 and then get your hands on – get your hands on NOW – Dulles’s book Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith (UK link HERE). Therein you will find a more accurate account of what Dulles thought about the Church’s Magisterium and our role when there is any doubt, contrast, or – quod Deus avertat – conflict.

In a nutshell, presumption should always favor the Magisterium. Theologians who have doubts and who may even dissent are invited, as we find in Donum veritatis, to express their concerns privately to the CDF. If they have useful observations, they can actually be of service to the Church! In all cases, people must avoid scandal, which – as Dulles put it – “harms the Church in the eyes of the general public” and which divides Catholics against each other.

That is exactly what the LCWR (a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns) is doing. When you hear them talking of the “official” Magisterium, they are suggesting that there is another “magisterium” over and against that exercised by the Church’s shepherds. Those who defend the “official” Magisterium will be fixed by them with labels such as “militarist” or “capitalist”, as the writer did, above.

Here now is something for reflection from Lumen gentium 12:

“The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life” .

And as far as the women religious are concerned, this from the Apostolic Exhortation Vita consecrata 46:

“In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church [sensus ecclesiae], which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church’s life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff. […] A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the Magisterium of the Bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication. Because consecrated persons have a special place in the Church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole People of God. Their witness of filial love will give power and forcefulness to their apostolic activity which, in the context of the prophetic mission of all the baptized, is generally distinguished by special forms of cooperation with the Hierarchy. In a specific way, through the richness of their charisms, consecrated persons help the Church to reveal ever more deeply her nature as the sacrament ‘of intimate union with God, and of the unity of all mankind’”.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Linking Back, Magisterium of Nuns, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged America Magazine, Christine Firer Hinze, Fordham, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, magisterium of nuns
24 Comments

LCWR is planning how not to obey

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From the site of Vatican Radio:

Statement by Archbishop J. Peter Sartain in response to the LCWR statement

Following the May 31 statement by the national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR ) concerning the assessment that led to the Vatican decision to reform the organization, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, appointed to oversee the reform, has issued the following statement:

Both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and I are wholeheartedly committed to dealing with the important issues raised by the Doctrinal Assessment and the LCWR Board in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, integrity and fidelity to the Church’s faith. I look forward to our next meeting in Rome in June as we continue to collaborate in promoting the important work of the LCWR for consecrated life in the United States.

The Holy See and the Bishops of the United States are deeply proud of the historic and continuing contribution of women religious – a pride that has been echoed by many in recent weeks.

Dramatic examples of this can be witnessed in the school system and in the network of Catholic hospitals established by sisters across America which are lasting contributions to the wellbeing of our country.

So… what did the LCWR (a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns) do?

Here is their statement:

LCWR Board Meets to Review CDF Report
June 1, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[Washington, DC] The national board of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) held a special meeting in Washington, DC from May 29-31 to review, and plan a response to, the report issued to LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [If the CDF asks a group to do something, the first meeting held should aid at figuring our how to jump as high as necessary. But in the case of this subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns, that seems not to have been on the agenda.]

The board members raised concerns about both the content of the doctrinal assessment and the process by which it was prepared. Board members concluded that the assessment was based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency. Moreover, the sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission. The report has furthermore caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization. [I guess they didn’t like the CDF’s plan.]

The board determined that the conference will take the following steps:

On June 12 the LCWR president and executive director will return to Rome to meet with CDF prefect Cardinal William Levada and the apostolic delegate Archbishop Peter Sartain to raise and discuss the board’s concerns.

Following the discussions in Rome, the conference will gather its members both in regional meetings and in its August assembly to determine its response to the CDF report. [Is that the same LCWR Assembly where they are scheduled to hear talks from the editor of a dissident catholic rag, a lesbian activist, and a talk about “co-creating a cosmic shift” and “entering the cosmic mystery”?]

The board recognizes this matter has deeply touched Catholics and non-Catholics throughout the world as evidenced by the thousands of messages of support [Like the one here?] as well as the dozens of prayer vigils held in numerous parts of the country. [Each attended by tens of people!] It believes that the matters of faith and justice that capture the hearts of Catholic sisters are clearly shared by many people around the world. [Watch this…] As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity. [“by the entire church community”…. Just how would that work, exactly? This is nothing other than a dodge. They don’t want to obey.]

Contact: Sister Annmarie Sanders, IHM – LCWR Director of Communications – 301-588-4955 (office) – 301-672-3043 (cell) – asanders@lcwr.org

June 1, 2012

Remember ladies: When you decide to disband you will immediately become …

irrelevant.

Posted in Magisterium of Nuns, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged Archbp. Sartain, CDF, LCWR, magisterium of nuns
10 Comments

London Blognics: A) Monday 7pm Coal Hole and B) Friday… TBA.

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE:

The 6:30 Mass at Maiden Lane, for HM the Queen, is on, but I am not liturgically involved. Do take in the Mass and gain its benefits. I will head to the Coal Hole either way, aiming at about 7:00 pm MONDAY or shortly after (depending on if I also chose to hear Mass). Text around to friends and let others know as you will. I have received word from a few people who are coming. Some friends, such as His Hermeneuticalness and Mulier Fortis are away on pilgrimage.

________

Some people have asked about a blognic in London. I would be happy to participate.

Otherwise, perhaps Friday 8 June in the evening.

If you are in the area, drop me a line and I can send my UK mobile number for texting/meeting purposes. Some of you should have it already. If you write, use the CONTACT option on this blog’s top menu and put: “FR UK MOBILE TEXT ME” in the subject line – and include your mobile number! I also have my skype number: 02081334535 – though I don’t check that as often.

Posted in Blognics, On the road | Tagged blognic, London
11 Comments

CDF NOTIFICATION about Sr. Margaret Farley’s dreadful book (cf. Magisterium of Nuns)

Posted on 4 June 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This, given the timing, is a Big Deal. Make that Really Big Deal.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a notification about a book of one of the prime exponents of the Magisterium of Nuns: Sr. Margaret Farley.

If you go to that link, above, you find all the different language versions – in other words this is important not only for the USA! – and the version of the document including the footnotes. In the version I posted below, the footnotes were lacking.

Remember her? In April I wrote about here in the infamous post NUNS GONE WILD: A trip down memory lane. Here’s the excerpt:

Margaret Farley: over the years, she has taken positions favorable to abortion, same-sex “marriage,” sterilization of women, divorce and the “ordination” of women to the priesthood. Farley, who taught Christian ethics at Yale Divinity School, is well known for her radical feminist ideas and open dissent from Church teaching. In 1982, when the Sisters of Mercy sent a letter to all their hospitals recommending that tubal ligations be performed in violation of Church teaching against sterilization, Pope John Paul II gave the Sisters an ultimatum, causing them to withdraw their letter. Farley justified their “capitulation” on the ground that “material cooperation in evil for the sake of a ‘proportionate good’” was morally permissible. In other words, she declared that obedience to the Pope was tantamount to cooperation in evil, and that the Sisters were justified in doing it only because their obedience prevented “greater harm, namely the loss of the institutions that expressed the Mercy ministry.” In her presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America in 2000 she attacked the Vatican for its “overwhelming preoccupation” with abortion, calling its defense of babies “scandalous” and asking for an end to its “opposition to abortion” until the “credibility gap regarding women and the church” has been closed. In her book Just Love she offers a full-throated defense of homosexual relationships, including a defense of their right to marry. She admits that the Church “officially” endorses the morality of “the past,” but rejoices that moral theologians like Charles Curran and Richard McCormick embrace “pluralism” on the issues of premarital sex and homosexual acts. She says that sex and gender are “unstable, debatable categories,” which feminists like her see as “socially constructed.” She has nothing but disdain for traditional morality, as when she remarks that we already know the “dangers” and “ineffectiveness of moralism” and of “narrowly construed moral systems.”

What a gal.

From the Holy See’s site with my emphases and comments.

CDF publishes notification on book ‘Just Love’

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published the following notification regarding the book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Sister Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M.

Introduction

Having completed an initial examination of the book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2006) by Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote to the author on March 29, 2010, through the good offices of Sr. Mary Waskowiak – the then President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas – enclosing a preliminary evaluation of the book and indicating the doctrinal problems present in the text. The response of Sr. Farley, dated October 28, 2010, did not clarify these problems in a satisfactory manner. Because the matter concerned doctrinal errors present in a book whose publication has been a cause of confusion among the faithful, the Congregation decided to undertake an examination following the procedure for “Examination in cases of urgency” contained in the Congregation’s Regulations for Doctrinal Examinations (cf. Chap. IV, art. 23-27).

Following an evaluation by a Commission of experts (cf. art. 24), the Ordinary Session of the Congregation confirmed on June 8, 2011, that the above–mentioned book contained erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the faithful. On July 5, 2011, a letter was sent to Sr. Waskowiak containing a list of these erroneous propositions and asking her to invite Sr. Farley to correct the unacceptable theses contained in her book (cf. art. 25-26).

On October 3, 2011, Sr. Patricia McDermott, who in the meantime had succeeded Sr. Mary Waskowiak as President of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, forwarded to the Congregation – in accordance with art. 27 of the above cited Regulations – the response of Sr. Farley, together with her own opinion and that of Sr. Waskowiak. This response, having been examined by the Commission of experts, was submitted to the Ordinary Session for judgement on December 14, 2011. On this occasion, the Members of the Congregation, considering that Sr. Farley’s response did not adequately clarify the grave problems contained in her book, decided to proceed with the publication of this Notification.

1. General problems

[Keep in mind what I am constantly coming back to with that phrase “Magisterium of Nuns”…] The author does not present a correct understanding of the role of the Church’s Magisterium as the teaching authority of the Bishops united with the Successor of Peter, which guides the Church’s ever deeper understanding of the Word of God as found in Holy Scripture and handed on faithfully in the Church’s living tradition. In addressing various moral issues, Sr. Farley either ignores the constant teaching of the Magisterium or, where it is occasionally mentioned, treats it as one opinion among others. [Get that? One opinion among others.] Such an attitude is in no way justified, even within the ecumenical perspective that she wishes to promote. Sr. Farley also manifests a defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law, choosing instead to argue on the basis of conclusions selected from certain philosophical currents or from her own understanding of “contemporary experience”. This approach is not consistent with authentic Catholic theology.

2. Specific problems

Among the many errors and ambiguities of this book are its positions on masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage and the problem of divorce and remarriage.

Masturbation

Sr. Farley writes: “Masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers. In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them. My final observation is, then, that the norms of justice as I have presented them [?!?] would seem to apply to the choice of sexual self-pleasuring only insofar as this activity may help or harm, only insofar as it supports or limits, well-being and liberty of spirit. This remains largely an empirical question, not a moral one” (p. 236).

This statement does not conform to Catholic teaching: “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved. To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”.

Homosexual acts

Sr. Farley writes: “My own view… is that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise” (p. 295).

This opinion is not acceptable. The Catholic Church, in fact, distinguishes between persons with homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts. Concerning persons with homosexual tendencies, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. Concerning homosexual acts, however, the Catechism affirms: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

Homosexual unions

Sr. Farley writes: “Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love. … Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex partners – that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between heterosexuals” (p. 293).

This position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: “The Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself”. “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”.

Indissolubility of marriage

Sr. Farley writes: “My own position is that a marriage commitment is subject to release on the same ultimate grounds that any extremely serious, nearly unconditional, permanent commitment may cease to bind. This implies that there can indeed be situations in which too much has changed – one or both partners have changed, the relationship has changed, the original reason for commitment seems altogether gone. The point of a permanent commitment, of course, is to bind those who make it in spite of any changes that may come. But can it always hold? Can it hold absolutely, in the face of radical and unexpected change? My answer: sometimes it cannot. Sometimes the obligation must be released, and the commitment can be justifiably changed” (pp. 304-305).

This opinion is in contradiction to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage: “By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement ‘until further notice’. The intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them. The deepest reason is found in the fidelity of God to his covenant, in that of Christ to his Church. Through the sacrament of Matrimony the spouses are enabled to represent this fidelity and witness to it. Through the sacrament, the indissolubility of marriage receives a new and deeper meaning. The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law. Between the baptized, a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death”.

Divorce and remarriage

Sr. Farley writes: “If the marriage resulted in children, former spouses will be held together for years, perhaps a lifetime, in the ongoing project of parenting. In any case, the lives of two persons once married to one another are forever qualified by the experience of that marriage. The depth of what remains admits of degrees, but something remains. But does what remains disallow a second marriage? My own view is that it does not. Whatever ongoing obligation a residual bond entails, it need not include a prohibition of remarriage – any more than the ongoing union between spouses after one of them has died prohibits a second marriage on the part of the one who still lives” (p. 310).

This view contradicts Catholic teaching that excludes the possibility of remarriage after divorce: “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ (Mk 10:11-12) –, the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence”.

Conclusion

With this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses profound regret that a member of an Institute of Consecrated Life, Sr. Margaret A. Farley, R.S.M., affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality. The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.

The Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on March 16, 2012, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on March 14, 2012, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, March 30, 2012.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

+ Luis F. Ladaria, S.I.
Titular Archbishop of Thibica
Secretary

And there it is.

This is book is really bad. And this scratches the surface of how bad the book is. This comes from the CDF in a time when it is actively trying to correct the LCWR.

I suspect this news will propel Sr. Farley to the top of the running for the Fishwrap’s, the National catholic Reporter’sm prestigious “Person of the Year” award!

UPDATE:

Predictably, Fishwrap is having a spittle-flecked nutty. They quote Sr. Farley’s reaction to the Notification:

“I do not dispute the judgment that some of the positions [expressed in Just Love] are not in accord with current official Catholic teaching.” she said. “In the end, I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.”

We agree. Some of the positions are indeed not in accord with “current official Catholic teaching”. Note that “current”, because it can change, and “official”, which we can discount because nuns who teach at Yale have their own “magisterium”.

She clarifies that the book was “not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching”. She succeeded!

“It is of a different genre altogether.” Sure is.

But she also says, “nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching”.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!