Benedict XVI: saving on life cannot justify destroying another

Posted on 14 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From VIS:

SAVING ONE LIFE CANNOT JUSTIFY DESTROYING ANOTHER

VATICAN CITY, 12 NOV 2011 (VIS) – This morning in the Vatican, the Holy Father received a group of 250 participants in an international conference entitled “Adult Stem Cells: Science and the Future of Man and Culture“, promoted by the Pontifical Council for Culture in collaboration with the U.S. Stem for Life Foundation. The three-day meeting examined the use of adult stem cells in medicine, both from the perspective of science, and from that of its cultural, ethical and anthropological implications.

Extracts of Benedict XVI’s English-language remarks are given below:

“Since human beings are endowed with immortal souls and are created in the image and likeness of God, there are dimensions of human existence that lie beyond the limits of what the natural sciences are competent to determine. If these limits are transgressed, there is a serious risk that the unique dignity and inviolability of human life could be subordinated to purely utilitarian considerations. But if instead these limits are duly respected, science can make a truly remarkable contribution to promoting and safeguarding the dignity of man”.

“In this sense, the potential benefits of adult stem cell research are very considerable, since it opens up possibilities for healing chronic degenerative illnesses by repairing damaged tissue. … The improvement that such therapies promise would constitute a significant step forward in medical science, bringing fresh hope to sufferers and their families alike. For this reason, the Church naturally offers her encouragement to those who are engaged in conducting and supporting research of this kind, always with the proviso that it be carried out with due regard for the integral good of the human person and the common good of society.

“This proviso is most important. The pragmatic mentality that so often influences decision-making in the world today is all too ready to sanction whatever means are available in order to attain the desired end, despite ample evidence of the disastrous consequences of such thinking. When the end in view is one so eminently desirable as the discovery of a cure for degenerative illnesses, it is tempting for scientists and policy-makers to brush aside ethical objections and to press ahead with whatever research seems to offer the prospect of a breakthrough. Those who advocate research on embryonic stem cells in the hope of achieving such a result make the grave mistake of denying the inalienable right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death. The destruction of even one human life can never be justified in terms of the benefit that it might conceivably bring to another. [Tell that to Call to Action and Sr. McBride! Tell that to the CHA and LCWR!  Tell that to the Magisterium of Nuns and their acolytes.]

“Yet, in general, no such ethical problems arise when stem cells are taken from the tissues of an adult organism, from the blood of the umbilical cord at the moment of birth“.

“Dialogue between science and ethics is of the greatest importance in order to ensure that medical advances are never made at unacceptable human cost. The Church contributes to this dialogue by helping to form consciences in accordance with right reason and in the light of revealed truth. In so doing she seeks, not to impede scientific progress, but on the contrary to guide it in a direction that is truly fruitful and beneficial to humanity, … with a particular regard for the weakest and most vulnerable.

“In drawing attention to the needs of the defenceless, the Church thinks not only of the unborn but also of those without easy access to expensive medical treatment. … Justice demands that every effort be made to place the fruits of scientific research at the disposal of all who stand to benefit from them, irrespective of their means. … Here the Church is able to offer concrete assistance through her extensive healthcare apostolate, active in so many countries across the globe and directed with particular solicitude to the needs of the world’s poor”.  [And to think that certain administrations of certain large white houses, by their relentless undermining of religious liberty, are undermining the Church’s ability to serve the poor.]

“I pray that your commitment to adult stem cell research will bring great blessings for the future of man”.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
5 Comments

TO ALL U.S. BISHOPS! For your November meeting, read this.

Posted on 14 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE 14 Nov 1933 GMT:

Archbishop Nienstedt was elected.

___

Your Excellencies,

That bastion of support for your ecclesiastical authority, the National catholic Fishwrap, is lobbying against the election of Archbishop John Nienstedt (St. Paul and Minneapolis) as Chairman of the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee.

If bishops needed another reason to support Archbishop Nienstedt, fear on the part of the Fishwrap should tip the scale in His Excellency’s favor.

Of course His Excellency might not want more work. Do you want more work? He already has a lot on his table. With the Minnesota Catholic Conference he is leading a concrete effort in support of a defense of marriage amendment to the Minnesota state constitution.

However, Archbishop Nienstedt has his background in moral theology, which is a good foundation. And who gets what they want?

The other bishop on the ballot is His Excellency Most Rev. Robert McManus of Worcester, who in the past has given support to the Extraordinary Form. He has also been appointed to help integrate Anglicans into formal communion with the Church according to the provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus.

WDTPRS asks Your Excellencies to remember that the Fishwrap doesn’t like Archbishop Nienstedt.

WDTPRS therefore likes him even more.

Posted in Brick by Brick, One Man & One Woman, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged , , , , , , ,
Comments Off on TO ALL U.S. BISHOPS! For your November meeting, read this.

QUAERITUR: Does coffee break the Eucharistic fast?

Posted on 14 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

My confessor (who is also a canon lawyer) told me that it is OK to drink coffee before Mass, within the sixty minute period before you receive communion. He says it’s OK to do this because “coffee has no nutrition. It’s just brown water.” He told me that he does it every day right before he celebrates Mass. Could you clarify this issue, please? It was my impression that you can’t have anything except water or medicine within the sixty minutes before you receive communion.

I hope this comes from your love of Mystic Monk Coffee!

First, let’s be clear about the law for the Latin Church.  The 1983 Code says in can. 919:

“One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion.”

The Eucharistic fast was shortened in 1957 by Pius XII from a complete fast after midnight until the reception of Communion, to three hours (1957) and again in 1964 by Paul VI to a mere one hour before reception of Communion.

The fast, according to the law, is one hour before the reception of Communion, and not the beginning of Mass!

Your confessor thinks that coffee is “brown water”.  That may be the way he drinks it, poor man.  You could not mistake the coffee I make for “brown water”.

So, I think the priest is wrong.  I think that coffee is a drink that is not water.  Coffee could be medicinal, in the case of a person who has worked a night shift and is therefore very tired before dragging herself to Mass.  People don’t generally say, “I’m really tired.  I’ll have me a nice cup of water to help me stay awake.”

That said, because I am an Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist who likes to check the opinion of experts, I look at manuals of moral theology.  BTW.. how cool would be to drink coffee from this mug while reading this answer?  I digress.

In Sabetti-Barrett I found really interesting quotes.  In the context of fasting for Lent and other days, the first interesting quote is “Liquidum non frangit ieiunium… liquid does not break the fast”. And this is followed by an explanation that drinks such as coffee and tea do not break the fast even if they have a little milk added, or a bit of sugar, or fruit juice, which in the case of tea might be lemon.  Going on, in a question about hot chocolate they say tea and coffee can be taken.  Remember, this concerns the old fast for Lent, etc., not the Eucharistic fast before Holy Communion.

Concerning the Eucharistic fast before Holy Communion, dear questioner, you will be alarmed, I’m sure, to know that the authors think your chewing of tobacco could very well break the fast if you are actually chewing.  You don’t, however, break your fast by gargling or brushing your teeth.  Great word for gargling in Sabetti-Barrett, by the way, “gargarisatio” and for brushing “pulverisatio“, since tooth powder was used, thus, you “pulverize” your teeth.  Nor does the mere tasting of food while cooking break the fast, according to these guys.  But please do gargarize and pulverize often.  Please?  Hmmm… I guess you could gargle with coffee, if you spit it out.

That said, back to coffee and tea and the Eucharistic fast.

The law says water and medicine may be taken.  Coffee is not water.  Water is used to make coffee, but once it’s coffee it isn’t water any more.

For valid baptism, true water must be used.  Coffee would be invalid matter for baptism.  It isn’t water.  Some moralists would say that very light coffee might be doubtful matter, but certainly strong coffee is not valid matter.  Making coffee infuses substances into the water so that it can no longer be considered water.  If you can recognize what you are drinking as coffee, and not as water with a few drops of coffee in it, don’t drink it before Communion.

I think the confessor is wrong.  Coffee breaks the Eucharistic fast and it may not be consumed except for a medical reason within one hour of reception of Holy Communion.

That said, buy Mystic Monk Coffee now.  Or Tea.

It will be interesting to find out if there are any official responses on this matter from the past which are floating around out there.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged , , , ,
71 Comments

Pontifical TLM in … Miami? Miami!

Posted on 13 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I learn about this here.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami will be celebrate a Pontifical High Mass at Miami’s Church of the Epiphany (7:30pm) on 2 February 2012, Feast of the Presentation.

This will be the first time in over 40 years that a bishop has celebrated a Pontifical High Mass, according to the Missal of 1962, in the State of Florida. The Mass is part of a symposium jointly sponsored by both Nova Southeastern University and Church Music Association of America.

The symposium is titled “Gregorian Chant and Modern Composition for the Catholic Liturgy: Charles Tournemire’s ‘L’Orgue Mystique’ as Guide ” The Mass will feature the French composer and organist’s compositions for the Feast of the Presentation.

For more information about the Symposium, see here.

Posted in Brick by Brick, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged ,
12 Comments

What is this thing?

Posted on 13 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Okay, you smart people out there.

What is this thing?

Which I think it’s used in the kitchen.  Or maybe not.  A sewing thing?

No, it isn’t mine.  No, I don’t have a better photo.  No, I haven’t a clue.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Fr. Z's Kitchen, Lighter fare, Preserved Killick | Tagged
33 Comments

Soap Sisters Update – Potential Hijinx

Posted on 12 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

As time marches on, you may be thinking about your Christmas shopping already or about other gifts.

I noticed that the Dominican nuns in New Jersey who have Seignadou Soap, aka the  Soap Sisters (do they ever need an affiliate program, like the Wyoming Carmelites) now have shaving soap, mug and brush sets for men.  Good price, too.

Do not … not… confuse the shaving mug for a coffee mug…

… cappuccino, anyone?

Buy soap now and tell them Fr. Z sent you.

UPDATE:

  • Buy a razor strop HERE.
  • Buy an entry level straight razor HERE.
  • Buy a better straight razor HERE.
  • Buy a really nice straight razor HERE.

UPDATE 13 Nov 2245 GMT:

I received a note from Sister “Seignadou Soap” Manageress (my emphasis).

Looked at our orders and there was a huge list since last night! Could suddenly everyone be thinking that it was time to order from us? Then I saw your blog entry! THANK YOU! Your reward will be great in heaven!
We are especially grateful because we are dealing with some huge expenses repair our building so every order counts!

Thanks, readers!  You are helping the Nuns in New Jersey!

Posted in Lighter fare, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged ,
24 Comments

Catholic League: The ad the KC Star rejected, distributed to Catholic groups

Posted on 11 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From The Catholic League:

KANSAS CITY CATHOLIC GROUPS SENT KC STAR AD

November 11, 2011 by admin
Filed under Latest News Releases

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the latest developments regarding its battle with the Kansas City Star:

Yesterday, I was joined by Catholic League staff members and scores of Catholics from Kansas City (we never contacted any of them—they showed up after reading our news release on the event) at a press conference outside the Kansas City Star. We were delighted with the response: our goal is to energize the Catholic community in defense of Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn, and to educate everyone about the agenda of SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests) and its lawyers.

The SNAP-driven agenda to target Bishop Finn, aided and abetted by the Star, is one of the most startling examples of an activist organization pairing with a newspaper for political purposes. Indeed, the Star-SNAP alliance smacks of corruption.

Earlier this week, we mailed a few copies of the ad to nearly 100 Catholic churches in the area; nuns, brothers and order priests were also sent copies. We hope the pastors will make copies and distribute them to their parishioners this weekend. An informed public is what we need.

Today, we are mailing copies of the ad to every Catholic lay organization in the area. We feel confident that they will also distribute copies to their family and friends.

Next week we will continue our campaign to blanket the entire Kansas City, Missouri area with the ad the Star doesn’t want the public to read. We’re like a bad migraine—we’re not going away.

Contact Star publisher Mi-Ai Parrish: mailto:mparrish@kcstar.com

And there is THIS.

KANSAS CITY STAR LIES AGAIN

November 11, 2011

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an article posted yesterday on the website of the Kansas City Star:

The Star continued with its lies against the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph with a column by Barbara Shelly. Regarding the behavior of Fr. Shawn Ratigan, she writes of “hundreds of explicit images of children” found on the priest’s laptop last year. What she didn’t say is that none of the photos were pornographic. And while a police officer and an attorney were called immediately (the pictures were disturbing), no formal complaint with the authorities was made. That’s because no one calls the police about something that is not criminal. The Kansas City Star disturbs me. Should I call 911? [That would be interesting.]

Shelly then says, “Not until five months later, when more disturbing images turned up, did officials alert the police.” Wrong again: no new photos triggered anything. What happened is that the cops were called even though there was no complainant and no crime had been committed; they were called because Ratigan violated an internal diocesan stricture limiting his movement. Had the Diocese acted like other institutions, no one would even know about this issue (it would have been handled internally the way the Star handles matters that are unethical, but not criminal).

Shelly is also wrong to say that this case involves child abuse: no, it involves the possibility that someone may have been abused. If Shelly were right, she would be able to identify the victim. She can’t.

Shelly is also wrong to make reference to Ratigan as a pedophile. In fact, he was officially diagnosed as suffering from depression, and was explicitly deemed not to be a pedophile. [?!?  Really?] Moreover, most of the acts committed by miscreant priests were homosexual in nature, [The photos were not of adults or, as far as I know, adolescents. So, this leaves me a bit confused.] so once again Shelly fails to tell the truth. The lies just keep on coming, and we will correct every one of them.

Contact Shelly: bshelly@kcstar.com

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

Posted in Biased Media Coverage | Tagged , , ,
27 Comments

Contradictory reports about the “white paper” of the Pont. Council “Iustitia et Pax”

Posted on 11 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I posted about the story on Chiesa that Card. Bertone, the Secretary of State, was blind-sided by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace controversial (dreadful) “white paper” and that, subsequently, he decided that all documents have to get the imprimatur of the Secretariat of State.

Now this comes from John Thavis of CNS who has a different take and, obviously, different sources:

[…]Sources we’ve spoken to offered a very different reading of the situation.

First, at the press conference presenting the document, Bishop Mario Toso, secretary of the justice and peace council, said the text had been “reviewed by the competent offices of the Secretariat of State” before publication.

Indeed, it would be very difficult to imagine that Cardinal Bertone was unaware of the document and its potential implications — for one thing, its release was announced five days ahead of time. [Kinda what I was saying in my post.  That puzzled me.]

Second, sources said Cardinal Bertone did issue a recent instruction regarding the Secretariat of State’s role in releasing documents, but it had nothing to do with the Justice and Peace text on economic justice. Instead, they said, it was provoked by an unrelated mistake that occurred the same week — the premature release of Pope Benedict’s annual message on migration, which was posted briefly on a Vatican Web site, apparently before the Secretariat of State had seen it. [The image of a Goat Rodeo comes to mind.]

Cardinal Bertone’s order, they said, simply stipulated that any documents bearing the pope’s signature must be released through his office. The Justice and Peace document did not fall into that category, even though its content was reviewed by the Secretariat.

Third, the sources denied Magister’s report that Professor Leonardo Becchetti, a professor of economics at the University of Rome, was the main author of the document. Becchetti, who has been described by online critics as a socialist ideologue, had little or nothing to do with preparation of the text but was called in to help explain economic issues at the press conference.  [Okay.  So… who did work on it?]

Finally, Magister’s assertion that the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, had “torn to shreds” the Justice and Peace document deserves a closer look. What the newspaper ran was an article by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, president of the Vatican bank, that analyzed current economic problems. It did not once refer to the Justice and Peace document, and focused its criticism on the financial decisions that have led to the current crisis. To call it a “repudiation” of the Justice and Peace document is more than a stretch.

What our Vatican sources did say is that the Justice and Peace document, which called for the creation of a world political authority to regulate financial markets and rein in the “inequalities and distortions of capitalist development,” has indeed sparked discussion and debate inside the Vatican.

But that’s to be expected, they said. The council’s president, Cardinal Peter Turkson, and other officials made clear that this text was a proposal, not a prescription, and aimed to generate reflection and discussion. They also emphasized that it was not a document of the magisterium, or official church teaching, and that it expressed the position of the pontifical council, not the Holy See.

That doesn’t mean the document can be dismissed as insignificant, or that the conclusions of a pontifical council do not merit attention by Catholics. It would be good to keep in mind these words posted at the top of the Roman Curia web page, from the Second Vatican Council document Christus Dominus:

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

The story around this “white paper” gets interestinger all the time!

Posted in Goat Rodeos, Linking Back | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments

England: Court rules that priests are employees of bishops

Posted on 11 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Liberals and secularists rail against bishops who are too restrictive or who are perceived to be too controlling.  If a bishop actually seeks to govern, they accuse him of being authoritarian, mean-spirited, backward.  On the other hand, they think that bishops can and ought to control every possible aspect of the lives of priests and want to hold them liable for every thing a priest does… unless, of course, the priest is a good and faithful priest, sticking to the Church’s teachings and sound practices.

I read with a measure of horror that in England a court ruled that bishops can be help responsible for crimes priests might commit.  I wonder if a judge in England might be liable for the crimes committed by, say, a research assistant helping with cases.  The analogy is not perfect, but still I wonder about that.  Is a judge’s assistant employed by the judge?  A priest, however, is not generally employed by the bishop.  Most priests in the USA are, I think, self-employed.  I don’t know what the status is in England but I am guessing that it is similar.

From The Catholic Herald:

Court rules that Church is liable for crimes of priests

By Simon Caldwell on Thursday, 10 November 2011

A court has ruled that the Catholic Church can be held legally liable for the crimes of abusive clergy.

The ruling by the High Court in London for the first time defined in British law the relationship of a priest to his bishop as that of an employee to an employer, instead of seeing the priest as effectively self-employed.

This means that a bishop and a diocese can be punished for the crimes of a priest. Survivors’ groups hope that it will also mean that many people who claim to have been abused by clergy will be able to claim compensation more easily.

The court granted the trustees of the Diocese of Portsmouth extra time to appeal the decision.

The case involves a 47-year-old mother of three, referred to only by the initials JGE, who claims she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Fr Wilfred Baldwin as a seven-year-old girl in The Firs children’s home in Waterlooville, in southern England, in the early 1970s.

She claims that she also was attacked in the dressing room of a church on the day she made her first Communion.

Besides the Diocese of Portsmouth, she is also seeking damages from the English province of the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, which ran the home, because she said the nuns witnessed the abuse but did not intervene.

The court was not asked to judge the truth of the allegations but was specifically asked, as a preliminary hearing on the case, to rule on the question of whether the “relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship”.

Justice Alistair MacDuff said that although the priest had no formal contract of employment there were “crucial features” that made a bishop vicariously liable for his actions.

He said the Church gave Fr Baldwin the “premises, the pulpit and the clerical robes” and that he was given full authority and free rein in the community to “act as a representative of the church.”

“Whether or not the relationship may be regarded as ‘akin to employment,’ the principal features of the relationship dictate that the defendants should be held responsible for the actions which they initiated by the appointment and all that went with it,” said the judge.

[…]

Is this just an attack on religion in the public square?

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged
41 Comments

QUAERITUR: Pastor “refuses” to let visiting priest say funeral

Posted on 11 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

Is it right for a pastor to refuse a family’s request for a certain priest to say the funeral mass of a loved one?

There is no way to answer your question, given the lack of additional information needed to understand what is really going on.

The arrangement of funerals often must occur when people are under great stress. Emotions may be high and clear thinking may be low. It can happen in some cases that people think they should be able to have or do A, B, or C simply because they want A, B or C.

On the other hand, the Church and her ministers must maintain good order with the celebration of Holy Mass and with all her rites, including all rites having to do with her deceased members.

In general pastors of parishes will accommodate a visiting priest for a funeral or wedding. However, it may be that the circumstances in the diocese, diocesan policy, require the parish priest to be more restrictive. In those cases, the pastor is forced to say ‘no’.

The question, though it lacked details and is thus unanswerable, if I understand its tone correctly, was not without a measure of anger. Whatever else I can offer here, don’t work things through with the pastor in anger.

The most important thing is this situation is not so much your feelings – though they are not unimportant – but rather prayers for the person who has died. Funerals are to help the living, it is true, but they are mostly for the sake of prayers for the dead. It is possible to lose sight of that in the midst of the pain of loss of a loved one.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
18 Comments