Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

10 Nov – Wash DC – CUA – Conference on Economic Freedom – Fishwrap’s Michael Sean Winters ATTACKS!

Posted on 8 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I saw this at the site of Catholic University of America:

Conference on Religious and Economic Liberty

The Acton Institute and The Catholic University of America School of Business and Economics will hold a conference on “The Relationship between Religious and Economic Liberty in an Age of Expanding Government,” and examine the important and complex relationship between religious liberty and other freedoms, particularly economic freedom.

In recent years, religious liberty in America and abroad has undergone varying degrees of challenges. In much of the West, actions by the government have made it more difficult for Christians and other believers to practice their faith, which includes not only the right to worship but also to exercise political, civil, and economic freedoms.

In “The Relationship between Religious and Economic Liberty in an Age of Expanding Government” speakers will examine how the Christian conception of religious liberty limits the state’s exercise of power, the manner in which the expansion of economic freedom creates new opportunities and challenges for believers, and how social welfare policies can inhibit or facilitate religious freedom.

WHO: Cardinal Robert Sarah (Pontifical Council ‘Cor Unum’),
Russell Hittinger (The Catholic University of America)
Michael Novak (Author and former Ambassador)
Jay W. Richards (The Catholic University of America).

WHAT: Panel Discussion: The Relationship between Religious and Economic Liberty in an Age of Expanding Government

WHEN: Monday, November 10, 2014
12 p.m.-5 p.m. (includes lunch and reception)

WHERE: Edward J. Pryzbyla University Center, Great Room
The Catholic University of America
620 Michigan Ave NE
Washington, D.C.
This is the second conference in an international series of five on “One and Indivisible? The Relationship Between Religious and Economic Freedom.”

For more information or to request accommodations for disabilities, contact Beatriz Lopez in the school of business at lopezbe@cua.edu.

MEDIA: To attend the event, media should contact the Office of Public Affairs at 202-319-5600 or cua-public-affairs@cua.edu.

Sounds like a good conference. I’d like to go.

Now let’s see what the National Schismatic Reporter’s Michael Sean Winters has to say about the event!

Michael Sean Winters specializes in irrational demonizing of those with whom he disagrees. His present instance of high dudgeon is aimed at Catholic University of America. What is CUA’s sin? CUA has dared to host a conference in which speakers associated with Acton Institute are to be involved!

Imagine! The nerve!

A while back, Winters helped to organize at CUA a conference which aimed to smear free-marketers (Acton Institute) as boogeyman “libertarians”. I was told that, even though the liberal media made much of MSW’s conference, fewer than 40 people showed up. The basic thrust of MSW’s conference: anyone who believes in a free-market is a “libertarian”. There doesn’t seem to be much more nuance than that. Just accept that “libertarian” is “bad” and that anyone not onside with big government, etc., is, without any other qualification, a “libertarian”.

One of MSW’s speakers was, by the way, the union activist – some might suggest thug – Richard Trumka. He was welcomed by Winters at his own CUA event, but, apparently, the involvement of speakers associated with Acton Institute at someone else’s event is simply too much to be borne.

In his attempt to shame CUA and to smear the event, MSW resorts to a seriously low-blow and intellectually dishonest tactic. He questions how CUA could team up with Acton, given that Acton’s Fr. Robert Sirico – and I am not making this up – “makes the case that John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is really a Christ-figure.”

For liberals, you see, Ayn Rand is invoked in the same way as the creature under the bed or Hannibal at the gates is raised to frighten impressionable children. “Ayn Rand!?!” Thus follows the fluttering of hands, the sinking upon the fainting couch while men stand by with deep frowns and good boys and girls draw their covers up about their ears.

Keep in mind that if you are a liberal who believes in redistribution of wealth and a nanny state, it is okay that you have ever in your life, probably your youth, read Ayn Rand. But if you believe in a free market and just enough government to foster economic freedom in a virtuous society, if you have even looked at the cover of a book by Ayn Rand, even if you were only a stupid eighteen-year old, you are solemnly to be condemned with bell, book and candle… and fan fluttering.

I invite you, dear reader, to go read for yourself what Fr. Sirico wrote about Ayn Rand. Here are a few amuse-bouches:

“Rand was a nasty personality… She is indeed frequently adolescent… She was not as clear a thinker as she thought herself to be (her arguments in favor of abortion are among the weakest on the market). Indeed, in her writings and public appearances she almost seemed to relish the offense she gave for her strident, brash, and relentless defense of reason, human freedom, and laissez-faire capitalism. If she ever suffered a fool gladly—if she ever suffered a fool at all—one would be hard pressed to find any record of it. She was the antithesis of Mother Teresa, and would have bragged about it. I disagree profoundly with Rand; her attenuated definition of faith as unreason and her notion of sacrifice as wholly lacking dignity are unrecognizable to a Christian. Even her economics are better spelled out in Mises or Hayek. Her esthetic philosophy is paper thin and idiosyncratic; her malevolence toward children and the vulnerable is exceedingly distasteful. For these and many more reasons, people who reverence Western Civilization must reject Rand.”

I wouldn’t call that an endorsement of Ayn Rand. That apart, Sirico describes what is patently obvious to anyone who read Atlas Shrugged even at a stupid-eighteen: Rand herself intended John Galt to come off as a Christ-figure.

You see, Winter’s sense of personal liberal moral superiority and his animus for Acton and for Fr. Sirico, are such that he feels himself free completely to distort what Sirico actually wrote about the figure of John Galt in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Sirico was trying to understand what Rand was up to without approving of what she did. HERE

MSW is frantically trying to paint anyone who believes in a free market as being a “libertarian”, which is tantamount to being a black-marketer in fighting-dogs. Anyone who thinks that massive government regulation and that redistribution of wealth are not actually cures for poverty are smeared with a shameful scarlet L.

Like every liberal – for whom freedom means only that you are free to agree with him – Winters seems not to be able to stand that Acton should have an equal voice in the discussion about what economic and religious freedom means.

LAST WORD: I hope that anyone in the D.C. area will make the effort to go to the conference and to bring friends. Let there be a huge turnout.

Posted in Events, Liberals, New Evangelization, The Campus Telephone Pole, The Drill |
9 Comments

The Loosing of the Leash: Card. Burke appointed to Knights of Malta

Posted on 8 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

And so the shoe has dropped. From today’s Bolletino.

Nomina del Patrono del Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta

Il Santo Padre ha nominato Patrono del Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta l’Em.mo Card. Raymond Leo Burke, finora Prefetto del Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica.

[01769-01.01]

Nomina del Prefetto del Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica

Il Papa ha nominato Prefetto del Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica S.E. Mons. Dominique Mamberti, Arcivescovo titolare di Sagona, finora Segretario per i Rapporti con gli Stati.

His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke is now Patron of the Knights of Malta. This is not the usual way of doing things, as it has been pointed out before. First, the position is usually saved for a Cardinal who is in the twilight of his career… although during this pontificate this may still be true. Keep in mind that, since His Eminence is pretty young for a Cardinal, in the next pontificate, another Pope could snap his fingers and make Burke Prefect of a Congregation. Second, now that Card. Burke is no longer the Prefect of a Dicastery, he is far freer to act and to speak than he was before. So far as I know, the Cardinal has retained, for now, his appointments to certain Congregations.

As far as Card. Burke’s successor at the Signatura is concerned, I suspect that His Excellency Archbp. Mamberti hasn’t seen a marriage case, or any other canonical process, for a while. He has been working as a diplomat for quite some time. He comes to his new role from the Secretariat of State. He will no doubt bring a … fresh perspective to the role.

That said, at Aletheia Card. Burke has his best interview to date:

Cardinal Burke: “I Don’t Ever Put Myself in Opposition to the Successor of St. Peter”

He makes some clarifications about suggestions that he has made himself an opponent of Pope Francis. They go along the lines that you might imagine but with real clarity. I pass over those here. You can read them there. I found of much greater interest his comments about the Synod. My emphases:

At the Synod, when the interim report came out, some said it was a disaster.

It was a total disaster.

The final report noted the need for “sensitivity to the positive aspects” of civil marriages and, “with obvious differences, cohabitation.” The Church, it says, “needs to indicate the constructive elements in these situations.” The paragraph, number 41, passed the requisite two-thirds majority. Do you find it disturbing that this paragraph gained a two-thirds majority among the bishops?

The language is at best confused, and I’m afraid that some of the Synod Fathers may not have reflected sufficiently on the implications of that, or maybe because the language is confused, didn’t understand completely what was being said. But that is disturbing for me. And then the whole matter: that even though [certain] paragraphs were removed, and rightly so, although contrary to practice in the past the document was printed with those paragraphs included, and one had to go and look at the votation to see that certain paragraphs had been removed. It’s disturbing to me that even those sections which were voted to be removed still received a substantial number of votes.

Juridically, when those three paragraphs did not receive the two-thirds majority, were they to be removed from the document?

Absolutely. We couldn’t have any discussion on that text, but we voted paragraph by paragraph, and what’s the point of voting paragraph by paragraph except to either accept a paragraph of have it removed. This is just one more disturbing aspect about the way in which Synod of Bishops was conducted.

Do you see this agenda continuing through the coming year? They aren’t going to change course?

No, because the General Secretary [the former titular Archbp. of Diocletiana, Card. Baldisseri] has identified himself very strongly with the Kasper thesis, and he is not hesitant to say so and has gone around also giving talks in various places. He’s less outspoken than Cardinal Kasper but nevertheless it’s clear that he subscribes to that school. So no, this is going to go on and that’s why it’s important that we continue to speak up and to act as we are able to address the situation.

[…]

Now that Card. Burke is no longer the head of dicastery, it is doubtful that he will be appointed by Pope Francis to the next Synod in 2015.

That does not mean that he has been silenced.

I, for one, congratulate Card. Burke on his appointment and for the loosing of his leash.

Posted in Francis, The Coming Storm, The Drill | Tagged Card. Burke, Knights of Malta, Synod of Bishops
38 Comments

Another funny video from Lutherans

Posted on 7 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Not all explanations have to be dry.

A funny video from the guys at Lutheran Satire:

I think I should commit to memory that last quickly delivered blast response to why the “preacher”‘s floating interlocutor has never heard any of his explanations (thus suggesting that they aren’t to be believed).

Guys this smart…. you’d think that… well….

Posted in Liberals, Sin That Cries To Heaven | Tagged homosexuality, Lutheran Satire
13 Comments

A Sin That Cries Out To Heaven: Sodomy, Homosexual Acts

Posted on 7 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Over at St. Peter’s List there is a great explanation of the Sins That Cry Out To Heaven, namely willful murder (the blood of Abel), the sin of Sodom (the sin of Sodom), oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their wages.

I bring to your special attention the description of the Sin of Sodom, which concerns homosexual acts. Yes, it does. The point is made is that the Sodomites did commit other sins, but God destroyed Sodom because of sodomy, homosexual acts, which are an “abomination” deserving of punishment from God. St. Peter’s List makes use of some material by my friend Msgr. Charles Pope.

I warmly recommend a complete reading of the whole post, but here is the section on Sodomy, homosexual acts, which are Sins That Cry Out To Heaven:

2. The Sin of Sodom

And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. – Gen. 18:20-21

The “Sin of Sodom” is described as “carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.”3 Given modernity’s substitution of God and Nature with the will of the individual as an autonomous moral universe, sodomy – more specifically active homosexuality, not orientation – has become part of the new post-Christian norm. [norm! Go against that “norm” and you will receive threats of violence. You will be persecuted and hounded, from outside of the Church and, now, within.] Neither Divine Law nor Natural Law form an external guide for the modern man; thus, the only boundary of autonomous individual is the autonomy of another. The boundary for what is and is not moral appears to be consent. Consequently, moral dialogue has been flattened to mere platitudes, [well put] e.g., this isn’t hurting anyone, [it is does] it’s my body [your body isn’t your “property”] and my choice, love is love. [It isn’t love.] Many often comment on the modern West’s apparent lack of morality, but few comment on the fact the West has lost the vocabulary to even discuss on morality.4 [As Chesterton put it, modern man has not only lost his way, he has lost his address.]

A few distinctions. [Qui distinguit bene docet.] First, the issue of same-sex marriage is not a religious issue, [nor is it a civil rights issue!] it is a rational and philosophical one. Considerations of marriage as a natural institution, the moral import of natural law, and the harmony between unity and procreation in sex are all within the purview of the natural virtues and reason; however, as geology and astronomy may both tell us the Earth is round, so too can the two sciences of theology and philosophy tell us the same thing.5 For example, no one holds that the commandment thou shall not murder was unknown before God revealed it on Mt. Sinai. It was revelation confirming reason, a demonstration of the greater truth that grace perfects nature.

The discussion for this list is less about same-sex marriage and more about a proper interpretation of Scripture. It is a conversation about those who do see Sacred Scripture as a moral authority, but attempt to harmonize their modernist views on sexuality with the Holy Bible. [That is, to twist Scripture to the point that it becomes unrecognizable.] Typically, this leads to “new” interpretations of Scriptures on homosexuality. These interpretations are often weak and out of context, but since they serve the end that people want people follow them. A tenuous intellectual argument will always serve as long as it achieves the end people desire, especially if that end is wrapped in autonomy and sexual gratification. [That’s what it comes down to.]

On the Interpretation of Hospitality Violations

[NB. This is what we got in seminary.] Those who argue that Sodom and Gomorrah should be understood outside any homosexual context often submit that the divine judgment of those cities was due to violations of Ancient Near East hospitality laws. In The Sin of Sodom & Gomorrah is not about Hospitality, the good Msgr. Pope offers a strong rebuttal. In part:

First there is a text from Ezekiel:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Now this is the text used most often by those who deny any homosexual context in the sin of Sodom. And, to be fair, it does add a dimension to the outcry God hears. There are clearly additional sins at work in the outcry: pride, excess or greed, and indifference to the poor and needy. [Thus, the Sodomites were sinning in other ways as well.] But there are also mentioned here unspecified “abominations.” The Hebrew word is תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) which refers to any number of things God considers especially detestable, such as worshiping idols, immolating children, wrongful marriage [! such as incest and adultery] and also homosexual acts. For example, Leviticus 18:22 uses the word in this context: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.6 [How is this difficult?]

But of itself, this text from Ezekiel does remind us that widespread homosexuality is not the only sin of Sodom. And while the abomination mentioned here may not be specified exactly, there is another Scriptural text that does specify things more clearly for us. It is from the Letter of Jude: [the inspired Word of God…]

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

And thus it is specified that the central sin of Sodom involved “sexual immorality (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and perversion (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας – literally having departed to strange or different flesh).” And this would comport with the description of widespread homosexual practice in Sodom wherein the practitioners of this sin are described in Genesis 19 as including, “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old.”

Hence we see that, while we should avoid seeing the sin of Sodom as only widespread homosexual acts (for what city has only one sin?), we cannot avoid that the Scriptures do teach that homosexual acts are central to the sins of Sodom which cry to heaven for vengeance, and for which God saw fit to bring a fiery end.

Genesis 19 speaks plainly of the sin, Ezekiel 16 broadens the description but retains the word “abomination,” and Jude 7 clearly attests to sexual perversion as being the central sin with which Sodom and Gomorrah were connected.

One of the takeaways from the good monsignor’s commentary is that sexual perversion is not the only sin of which Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty. [NB] Many allow themselves to be confused by arguments that attempt to replace the primary sin (sexual perversion in a homosexual context) with the secondary sins.7 And while the discussion here is not necessarily why homosexuality is a sin that cries to heaven, it should serve to clarify that it is impossible to read the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative outside a homosexual context. [Commit that to memory.]

___ NOTES ___
3. Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649, Q. 928 – Thank you to Taylor Marshal for posting this excerpt on his blog. Marshall makes the point that America has failed “four for four” on these sins that cry out to heaven. [?]
4. Moral Vocabulary: When he was Archbishop of Denver, His Excellency Chaput gave a talk that incorporated the problem of the lost moral vocabulary. Repentance & Renewal, 2010. [?]
5. Theology as a Science: For an introduction to understanding Sacred Doctrine as the Queen of the Sciences and how she orders those sciences, see Queen of the Sciences and Queen of the Sciences II. [?]
6. SPL Note on Leviticus & Homosexuality: When Lev. 18:22 is cited as an undeniable condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture, it is often met with certain sophist rebuttals, e.g., Leviticus also outlaws shaving, tattoos, and eating pork. First note that these statements are an assertion, not an argument. The underlying argument that is needed on both sides is how one decides what is still valid law and what is not. In short, as Catholics we know that the OT is perfected in the NT and the NT is foreshadowed in the OT; thus, we see in Scripture Christ’s intent to perfect the law, not abolish it. Certain laws, however, demand a change in order to be perfected. For example, the OT law of circumcision was perfected in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Levitical laws on purity are a subject we see both St. Peter and St. Paul address. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was restated as a sin by St. Paul. In reverse, one could always ask those who use this argument against Leviticus what their hermeneutic for understanding the OT and NT is. It will, inevitably, be their own autonomous will. For more see Catholic Answers on the subject. [?]
7. Further Commentary on the Hospitality View: In addition to Msgr. Pope’s article, Catholic Answers addresses it in their treatment of homosexuality in general and Fr. Longenecker comments on it in his article The Sin of Sodom. In related studies, the good Msgr. Pope has written about the wrath of God and several other articles on homosexuality (Biblical Teaching on Homosexuality, the “Lost Generation of the Church,” and a Pastor’s Attempt to Teaching the Bible on Homosexuality). Catholicism holds that the laws of the State are drawn from the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are distinct from the divine laws in Scripture. To understanding the relationship of laws and the context in which Catholicism advocates for the legal defense of natural marriage, see Think like a Catholic – 7 Questions on the Four Laws. A collection of Catholic documents on sexuality and the pastoral care of homosexually oriented person is found at 5 Catholic Documents on Family, Sex, and Homosexuality. Those who still question the traditional interpretation of the Church on homosexuality may reference Early Church: 12 Quotes on Homosexuality & Other Sexual Sins. [?]

Read about the other three heinous sins over at St. Peter’s List.

Are you involved in such sins? Examine your conscience and GO TO CONFESSION.

There is no sin that a person can commit that God will not forgive, in the Sacrament of Penance, provided you ask for forgiveness. Then, you will need to pray for graces and develop the virtue of Courage, especially to suffer when you have temptations.

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in GO TO CONFESSION, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven | Tagged homosexuality, Msgr. Charles Pope, Sin of Sodom, sins that cry to heaven, Sodomites, sodomy
11 Comments

More on that “Rescript” concerning the “resignation” of office holders

Posted on 7 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Marco Tosatti has won from me the adjective “intrepid” which I have stripped from Tornielli (what’s up with him, anyway?). He has piece about the recent odd Rescript “edict” about bishops and cardinals and other office holders resigning or being dismissed from their offices. HERE

Tosatti muses that perhaps the new norms are aimed in part at Benedict XVI’s former Secretary of State and present Camerlengo, Card. Bertone, who turns 80 on 2 December. Could be.

He also points out a change in language. Bishops and cardinals are now “bound” (tenuti) rather than merely “invited” (invitati) to turn in their resignations at 75. The Pope is still the one who decides to accept them or not, so nothing changes there. But there is greater pressure now to turn in the resignation. Are there some who don’t?

Tosatti also gives a short list of prelates who are over 75 but still functioning, which leads me to wonder what the landscape would look like were they out of the picture.

Card Amato: 76, Saints
Card. Vegliò: 77, Migrants
Card. Grocholewsi: 75, Education – perhaps to be replaced by the Pope’s friend Archbp. Fernandez from Argentina
Card. Caffara: 76, Bologna – who contributed to the “Five Cardinals Book”
Card. Romeo: 76, Palermo
Card. Lehmann: 78, Mainz – Prefect of CDF Card. Müller is from Mainz, though I am told that his position seems to be secure
Card. Acerbi: 75, Knights of Malta – usually they end office at death, but Pope Francis told Card. Burke that that’s where he wants to put him
Card. Sodano: 87, Dean – enough said

Clearing out the Curia’s old guard and replacing them with men who are more clearly onside, would also have an impact on the next Synod of Bishops in 2015. Dicastery heads, such as Card. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, participate in the Synod ex officio.

Anyway… just FYI.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged rescript, resignation
11 Comments

For love of the Eucharist, civilly married couple abstained from sex

Posted on 7 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

We are not brute beasts.

It seems to me that much of the debate about Communion for the divorced and remarried, and about homosexuals, is founded on the false premise that people simply cannot not have sex, as much as they want, in whatever way they want. They can’t help themselves. “No”, isn’t to be imagined.

Not so. God made us in His image and likeness.

From the Catholic Sentinel in Portland:

Couple abstained for 19 months for love of Eucharist

TIGARD — Steve and Shaina Purves don’t consider themselves heroic. They say they simply lived out what the church teaches — and it was fantastic.

For 19 months after Shaina entered the Catholic Church, the civilly-wed couple refrained from sexual contact while church authorities looked over their past marriages to see if they could be declared null. According to church law, a declaration of nullity, or annulment, of those past attempted marriages would be necessary before Steve and Shaina could be considered married. Not wanting to risk serious sin, and wanting to receive the Eucharist, the couple lived a life of abstinence while awaiting word.

“God is more important than sex for us,” Shaina says.

It took longer than they hoped, but the period proved a boon to their relationship.

“It helped us realize what is truly important,” Shaina says.

“My mind went crazy sometimes,” admits Steve, who was in “total agreement” with the abstinence plan. “But you’d be amazed the strength God gives you. It was not that bad, and in a way we got to start all over again as a couple. When we came out the other end, we saw that this idea that sex is so important to relationships is a lie.”

[…]

Read the rest there.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged civil marriage, Communion, Synod of Bishops
31 Comments

YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS

Posted on 7 November 2014 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 |
29 Comments

GUEST POST: “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” became the “liturgy” – POLL

Posted on 6 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I was sent some text from “From the Pastor’s Desk” column of the 9 November Bulletin of Our Lady of Grace Church. I share it here below with my emphases and comments:

The Pastor’s Message

“Laudetur Jesus Christus!” (Praised be Jesus Christ!)

I became the organist at my parish church when I was in the 6th grade. The year was 1975, and I remember looking at the flood of magazines about the “liturgy” that were marketed toward the amateur organist (now called the “pastoral musician”). In that generation following the Second Vatican Council, the vocabulary that had for centuries been customary suddenly changed overnight in an effort to be more “relevant” to modern men and women. “Holy Mass” or “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” became the “liturgy” or just “Eucharist.” No longer did the priest offer the Holy Sacrifice. Instead, we gathered as a community and “did” liturgy together—especially in the “hip” or “mod” parishes. [This is an important point: it Mass isn’t Sacrifice, then you don’t need a priest. Priests are for Sacrifice and Sacrifice is performed by priests. If it not Sacrifice, then anyone can do it.] Please understand that this is not meant to denigrate these parishes, only to draw a distinction between the myriad of experiences most folks had in various parishes. During this time, a great emphasis was placed upon having everyone EXCEPT the priest involved in “planning liturgy,” as if this no longer was the sole domain of the priest. I can remember in the Jesuit high school I attended, the weekly “planning sessions” where arguments broke out among the participants about which song to sing and when. Why do I mention this past history?

On occasion a question is asked about why a certain thing is done the way it is. At this time, I’d like to spend a few moments and answer why we follow the practice of chanting the Communion Antiphon and verses and do not substitute another “song” as folks come up to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. [We must return to using the Church’s “liturgy” during Mass!] To begin, the first and ultimate authority regarding the way Mass is offered is the Church herself. It is her prerogative to govern and control how, why and when the Mass is offered the way it is. These norms are found in the document called “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal” (GIRM, for short). As such, they are not just suggestions, but are authoritative rules and regulations that are to be followed whether the individual priest, deacon, bishop or member of the laity like, dislike, agree with or disagree with them. For some today, this concept is very difficult given our subjective and “option oriented” culture. With the promulgation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal in 2011, a new more accurate translation of the GIRM was promulgated.

In the new GIRM are changes with regard to what is sung at Mass and when. Paragraph 87 states: “In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options [Ahhhh… the options!] for singing at Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex of the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) some other suitable liturgical chant approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.”

[NB] The thing to note is that the four options are listed in order of preference by the Church, meaning that Option One is the ideal and is meant to be the norm. If for serious reason, that norm is not attainable (in parishes with no musicians or musicians with lesser degrees of skill), then Option 2 should be normative, and so forth down the line. Our Lady of Grace is blessed to have the skilled musicians which make it possible for us to make Option One normative at our weekend Masses. All are encouraged to lift their voices in the chanting of the Communion Antiphon (which is found in the bulletin). One of the many spiritual benefits that I have noticed as a result of our doing the mind of the Church is a marked increase in reverence during Holy Communion. I personally attribute this to the beauty of hearing the words of Sacred Scripture echoing throughout the Church as we, God’s People, dare to approach the Altar to receive Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Holy Communion. One final note: I know that some folks will be tempted to bring up that at “St. Slippers By the Bedside” [HA!] parish or any other parish they know, they don’t follow the directives of the GIRM. I can only say that I am not the Pastor at any of these parishes and that those entrusted to the Pastoral Ministry at these parishes will have to answer to God, as will I have to give an account for my pastoral care of the souls entrusted to me here at Our Lady of Grace. [OORAH! Yes. I can’t answer for others and their weird ideas and deeds. I must defend doctrine and uphold the Church’s discipline.] I hope this has been helpful for us all to learn the how and why of what we do during Holy Mass.
Oremus pro invicem! (Let us pray for one another)

Rev. Fr. Eric L. Kowalski
[Pastor, Our Lady of Grace Church, Greensboro, NC]

Fr. Z kudos to Fr. Kowalski

Let’s have a poll.

Pick your best answer. I have tried to allow for up to TWO choices so you can also indicate organ, etc.

Posted in HONORED GUESTS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged GIRM, music, options, Pastor's Page, poll
33 Comments

Pope Francis dismissed pedophile priest in Argentina from clerical state

Posted on 6 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Via AP

Pope excommunicates pedophile Argentine priest [Perhaps he was just dismissed from the clerical state? On the Diocesan site we read: El Obispado de San Isidro comunica que el Santo Padre ha decretado la dimisión del Pbro. José Mercau del estado clerical. Por este decreto ha perdido automáticamente los derechos propios del estado clerical, quedando privado de todo el ejercicio del Ministerio sacerdotal.]

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Pope Francis has excommunicated a pedophile Argentine priest, a move applauded by advocates for victims of clerical abuse. [Was he also excommunicated?]

The pope’s decision was made public Wednesday by the bishopric [Diocese] of San Isidro on the outskirts of the Argentine capital.

Many welcomed the news, but victims and advocates of clergy sex abuse said the Roman Catholic Church still needs to be more determined, effective and severe when it comes to punishing such crimes in Argentina. [I don’t think that an auto-da-fé is an option anymore, except perhaps for those who insist on defending the Church’s tradition and doctrine. Really. What more can the Church do but perhaps impose excommunication? The Church can’t imprison anyone.]

“The church still has a long way to go,” said Sebastian Cuattromo, director of an advocacy group called Adults for the Rights of Infancy.

The policies of Pope Francis “are being carried out because of the long fight by the victims,” said Cuattromo, who was sexually abused by a priest in Buenos Aires at age 13. [NB: No credit to Pope Francis. It’s the victims who made it happen. However, the norms seem to be those of Benedict XVI.]

His advocacy group includes several adults who were abused by clergy when they were underage and who now try to raise awareness and protect children from predator priests. Cuattromo made his case public in 2012 after the priest who abused him was sentenced to 13 years in prison. “I’ve felt abandoned by the church,” he said.

Abuse victims and their advocates have long demanded that higher-ups be made to answer for the decades-long cover-ups of rape and molestation of youngsters in a scandal that has rocked the church and dismayed its worldwide flock of 1.2 billion.

Earlier this year, Pope Francis begged forgiveness in his first meeting with Catholics sexually abused by members of the clergy and went further than any of his predecessors by promising [went further?] to hold bishops accountable for their handling of pedophile priests.

The decision to punish Mercau “has taken way too long,” said Patricia Gordon, a psychologist for EnRed, a group that focuses on victims of violence and sex abuse. “But it’s still important because of the reparation to the victims, meaning that their words are taken as the truth.” [It’s reparation that means “we believe you”, and not the public words “we believe you”?]

Both Cuattromo and Gordon still criticized the Vatican for failing to excommunicate Julio Cesar Grassi, a pedophile priest who was sentenced to 15 years in jail in 2009.

I am glad that these ******** are being dismissed from the clerical state and maybe also excommunicated, though it seems that the news report got that wrong. Big surprise there. At the same time, we know that, no matter what the Church does, some will never be satisfied. Sad.

Posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse, Francis | Tagged excommunication, Pope Francis
11 Comments

VIENNA – Card. Burke calls on Catholics to “speak up and act”. Interview.

Posted on 6 November 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At Breitbart there is a new interview piece by Edward Pentin with His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke. As you will recall, during the Synod, Pentin was the one who outed Card. Kasper’s attitude toward the African Church. That was a turning point.

Cardinal Raymond Burke has said he is at the service of Pope Francis, has no personal animosity towards him, and those who claim the American cardinal is an opponent of the Pontiff are trying to discredit him.

The head of the Vatican’s highest court also told Breitbart Tuesday the Catholic Church risks schism if bishops are seen to “go contrary” to the Church’s established and unchangeable dogmas in the months ahead.

Click to PRE-ORDER

The Vatican prelate was speaking in Vienna Tuesday, at the launch of the German translation of Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a book to which he contributed. The work is a response to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to allow some remarried divorcees to have access to holy Communion. The Catholic Church has always barred such a possibility, based on Christ’s teaching that remarrying after divorce constitutes adultery. [Hard to squirm out of that one.]“Certain media simply want to keep portraying me as living my life as an opponent to Pope Francis,” he said. “I am not at all. I’ve been serving him in the Apostolic Signatura and in other ways I continue to serve him.”

The Wisconsin-born prelate was responding to comments he made in an interview he gave the Spanish weekly Vida Nueva last week. The article misconstrued him as criticizing the Pope–despite his stressing in the interview that he was not at odds with Francis.

He told the Spanish publication there is a “strong sense” the Church is like a “ship without a helm, whatever the reason for this may be.” But he made it clear in the interview he was not “speaking out” against the Pontiff. He said the Pope is right to call on Catholics to “go out to the peripheries” but added “we cannot go to the peripheries empty-handed.” [and without clear teaching, a coherent message.]

“I wasn’t saying that the Holy Father’s idea is this,” he explained, “but I’ve seen other people using his words to justify a kind of ‘accommodation’ of the faith to the culture which can never be so.”

Burke told Breitbart his wish is “to present the Church’s teaching around which there’s been a great deal of confusion.” He pointed to last month’s synod on the family in Rome as partly to blame, and said those who identify with a “so-called reformist agenda” of Pope Francis are now trying “to discredit what I say by attributing it to some personal animosity toward the Holy Father, and that’s not right.” [Sounds like Alinsky’s RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.]

Asked about the singer Elton John’s recent praise of Pope Francis as a hero of gay rights, Burke said the Church needs to be “diligent” in explaining “very carefully” her teaching, making proper distinctions between the sinner and the sin. [However, a large sector in the Church now want to freeze and polarize anyone who makes distinctions. As we know, Qui bene distinguit bene docet.] He also reasserted the Pope’s concern for people with same-sex attraction, one which “understands that even though they have this attraction, it is an attraction to disordered acts” and that they need to seek God’s “healing and grace” to deal with their “very profound suffering.”

Burke has been one of the most outspoken opponents of Kasper’s proposal, saying it is not Catholic, threatens the indissolubility of marriage, and is therefore unacceptable. “The Church must do everything she can when, once again, the integrity of marriage is under attack,” he told the Viennese audience.

He said he “often heard” prelates at last month’s two-week Synod on the Family in Rome say that because the culture has changed “so radically,” the Church “cannot teach as we had in the past.” [FAIL!] But Burke responded by saying such a view betrays a “loss of hope in Jesus Christ, Who alone is the salvation of the world.” He acknowledged that the culture is “very corrupt” but added that doesn’t mean “we go chasing after it, but rather bring to the culture that which will save it and be full of hope.”

Talk of possible schism has increased in the Catholic Church after the recent synod appeared to be leading the Church in a more “progressive” direction on moral issues. [It is waaaay premature to talk about formal schism of any large portion of the Church or local Churches over what is going on. After all, most Catholics today have to be pushed to admit that God is transcendent, that Christ is God, and that the Eucharist is Christ. Formal schism? De facto… that’s a different pot of bagna cauda.] A controversial document issued by bishops midway through the meeting (which Burke called a “total disaster”) pointed to radical changes in the area of homosexuals, divorce, and remarriage among other things, but the proposals were largely toned down or failed to reach a consensus in the final report.

Questioned about whether there is a genuine risk the Church might split, Burke said if, in the runup to a second synod on the family next October, bishops are seen to move “contrary to the constant teaching and practice of the Church, there is a risk because these are unchanging and unchangeable truths.” [If BISHOPS start denying openly the Church’s teaching, that’s another matter.] He also pointed out that the head of the synod of bishops, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, has “identified himself very strongly” with Kasper’s thesis and “subscribes to that school.”

Warning that this battle will continue, he called on Catholics to “speak up and act.”