Episcopal Church nuns received into the Catholic Church

Posted on 9 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE: I posted a request to readers HERE about writing to the sisters to welcome them into formal communion.

___

I enjoyed this story in the Baltimore Sun:

Archdiocese of Baltimore welcomes new order of nuns

All Saints’ Sisters of the Poor left the Episcopal Church two years ago

The Archdiocese of Baltimore added a new religious order of nuns Tuesday, its first in decades and one that began as an Anglican community.

The All Saints’ Sisters of the Poor left the Episcopal Church for the Roman Catholic Church two years ago. By a decree from the Vatican, they are now an official diocesan priory, or order, the same designation carried by the School Sisters of Notre Dame or the Daughters of Charity.

“We feel we have broken ground,” said Mother Christina Christie, leader of the community and a nun since 1966.

Yesterday, All Saints’ Day, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, all 10 members of the Catonsville convent individually professed perpetual vows of poverty, chastity and obedience “for the rest of my life in this world.” Then each signed her profession at the altar before nearly two dozen priests and bishops.

Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien chose Nov. 1, the sisters’ patronal feast day, to officially receive the community into the archdiocese.

“This is a great day and a great gift to the church in Baltimore,” O’Brien said to the congregation. “Few bishops have had such an opportunity.”

[…]

Read the rest there.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Just Too Cool, Non Nobis and Te Deum, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged
13 Comments

QUAERITUR: Priest lost use of arm. Is Mass still valid?

Posted on 9 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

A priest I know has temporarily lost the use of his left arm because of surgery and has been saying Mass using his right arm only. He keeps his left arm under the chasuble, and someone else helps him distribute communion. I know a priest has to have both hands to be ordained, so is the Mass still valid (or licit) if he’s only using one?

Hopefully Father will make a full and swift recovery.

Validity of Mass, or any other sacrament, does not depend on the number of limbs the priest can use. Furthermore, I don’t believe that there is still a requirement that a man have both hands or his thumb and index fingers to be ordained. That was the case in the past, however.

So, Mass is still both valid and licit in this case.

I wouldn’t give this a second thought.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box |
15 Comments

Archd. of New York’s particular law forbidding Catholic ministers any participation in same sex “marriage”

Posted on 9 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Canonical Defender, Prof. Ed Peters, author of a useful book on “annulments” (paperback and Kindle) has posted at his excellent blog In The Light Of The Law about particular laws for the Archdiocese of New York issued by Archbishop Dolan.

This merits attention because, as I see recent developments, the harshest attacks on the Catholic Church are going to come, not from the pro-abortion industry, but from homosexuals.  Also, Peters says that “other bishops” have issued similar decrees. Therefore, priests should double check the state of the question in the dioceses where they serve and also inform their employees about this matter.

Thus, Prof. Peters:

I understand that other bishops have issued decrees similar to the one issued by New York Abp. Timothy Dolan a few days ago, but anything that New York does inevitably serves as a reference for other local Churches, and so “Dolan’s Decree”, as it has been dubbed, against formal ecclesiastical cooperation with so-called “same-sex weddings”, deserves a closer look. Catholics striving to think with the Church will, I think, like what they see.

Preambulatory matters

Most of the first paragraph of the decree is taken directly from Canon 1055 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The last sentence of the paragraph resonates strongly with Canon 747 § 2.

The second paragraph recites facts not in serious dispute.

The third paragraph begins with themes enunciated by Canon 386 § 1 and, drawing on episcopal authority recited in Canons 381 § 1 and 392, proceeds to enact particular legislation for the Church of New York. My lone quibble with the decree is here, with +Dolan’s use of the word “moral” to describe the authority he has over those subject to this decree. I would have suggested that he say “canonical” authority, as its meaning is clearer in this context, but “moral” works too.

Disciplinary matters

Norm 1. Catholic clergy belonging to or working within the AONY are expressly forbidden from taking any part, at any time, in “same-sex wedding” ceremonies. While ministry to homosexual persons, even those claiming to be married to a same-sex partner, is not prohibited, of course, I would take the decree to prohibit clergy’s mere attendance (as a type of ‘advantage’) at a “same-sex wedding”. Canon 209 § 1 is also relevant here, as is, of course, Canon 273.

Church lay and religious employees acting in the course of their duties are also prohibited as above, but it’s not easy to think of how they might actually be involved in such ceremonies, except as specified in norm 2, below.

The reference in the last sentence of norm 1 to canon law expressly prohibiting ecclesiastical solemnization or celebration of “same-sex marriages” comes about, I suggest, as follows:

Canon 1055 defines marriage as a consortium between a man and a woman, and Canon 1066 requires Catholic ministers to assure themselves, before any wedding is celebrated, that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration. Such could never be verified of a “same-sex wedding”, of course, so a Catholic minister could never lawfully participate in such a ceremony. Indeed, to attempt to do so under these circumstances would be to violate Canon 1389. Moreover, among Catholics (and for that matter, among baptized persons), marriage is a sacrament (c. 1055 § 2) and, where a wedding would be null on its face (as would the case of two persons of the same sex attempting marriage), to attempt that wedding would be to simulate a sacrament, an action forbidden by Canon 1379. For the ecclesiastical would-be officiant, such would again be a violation of Canon 1389.

Norm 2. Specification of directives contained in norm 1.

Norm 3. In part, a specification of directives contained in norm 1, but also an application of Canon 1376.

Norm 4. It is not necessary, for the enforcement of most canonical penalties, to recite this kind of warning, but it serves to underscore the gravity of formal cooperation with actions forbidden by divine and canon law.

Finally, the decree became effective as soon as it was issued (as opposed to after 30 days, per c. 8 § 2), another sign of the immediacy of the problem that the Church is confronting here.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , ,
20 Comments

QUAERITUR: Is “I absolve you” alone sufficient for validity?

Posted on 9 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

Dear Fr. Z
I recently went to confession, the priest said everything correctly (atleast, im pretty sure he did anyway) up until the part where he is suppose to say “I absolve you of you’r sins.” but, all he said was “I
absolve you.” I know its really just 3 words…but is it enough to tamper with the validity?

This is another example of why priests should SAY THE BLACK and DO THE RED.

People should never have to doubt that they were validly absolved, even for a moment.

Why on earth do priests fool around with the words of absolution?  Why? WHY
do they do something so abysmally stupid?  WHY would they want to run even the slightest risk of leaving a penitent in doubt about being absolved?  WHY?

If what you report is true, that was illicit as a form of absolution though probably it was a valid formula for absolution of sins.  That said, it seems to me that the absolution should refer to what is being absolved. He isn’t absolving a censure, after all.  The confessional is the place to confess, primarily, sins, though censures are also absolved.  From this it can be argued that you don’t have to mention sins explicitly.

The formula in its short form is “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris +, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti… I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father +, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”   This is the very last part of a longer formula, “God, the Father of Mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”  The short version suffices by itself in a pinch.  More priests these days are using the older, traditional form of absolution as well.

That said, St. Thomas Aquinas argues (though his opinions are not the equivalent of the Church’s Magisterium – never forget that) that “Ego te absolvo”  is the form of the sacrament (ST III, Q. 84, Art. 3).  If he is right, then that may suffice.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, reliable and surely an expression of the Church’s Magisterium, and surely working from Aquinas has this:

Pastors should not neglect to explain the form of the Sacrament of Penance. A knowledge of it will excite the faithful to receive the grace of this Sacrament with the greatest possible devotion. Now the form is: I absolve thee, as may be inferred not only from the words, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, but also from the teaching of Christ our Lord, handed down to us by the Apostles.

That said, it seems to me that these days the minimum form in the Latin Church (the Eastern Churches have their own somewhat different practices) is “Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis… I absolve you from your sins.”  As far as I can tell, this is what most authors stand by.  Because I am an Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist, I consulted several manuals (e.g., Tanquerey, Prümmer, Sabetti Barrett).  They all come to the same basic conclusion.  “Absolvo te a peccatis tus” is certainly valid, and “Absolvo te” is probably valid, but if possible the longer form should be repeated to be sure.

Part of the problem I see in this whole discussion – aside from the arrogance of priests who screw around with the form of absolution – is the notion of what the bare minimum is, as if to suggest that perhaps the rest is not so important.

Certainly we need to know what constitutes a valid absolution. In some cases of emergencies that can be important. In most cases, in most confessionals, there is no need to reduce the form of the sacrament to the bare minimum.  If there is need to save some time because of long lines, etc, or even if he simply wants to adhere to the old stricture of not delaying absolution the priest can always start with the whole formula while the penitent is saying the Act of Contrition, reserving the core of the form of absolution for when the penitent is finished.

I caution against reduction of sacramental forms or the administration of sacraments with the bare minimum.  It seems to me this leads to all manner of liturgical abuses over the past few decades.  “So long as we do this minimum part right, its valid!  The rest we can fool around with.”

If you confess to a priest who regularly does something dodgy with the form of absolution, I would politely bring it up. People are within their rights to have the form of absolution spoken as it is in the book. Ask the priest to give you absolution with the proper form. Do not be nasty or aggressive about this.  If that doesn’t help, talk to the pastor of the parish and/or the local bishop. If that doesn’t produce results, send a copy of your correspondence to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (not Divine Worship) and seek a clarification.

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

USCCB Media Blog: anti-Catholic bias at HHS (Obama Administration)

Posted on 8 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Over at the USCCB’s Media Blog, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh has an interesting post.  Here is the first part.

This gives us another example of how the war on the Catholic Church is manifesting itself in the public square:

HHS Exec Rivals Nixon With Line: ‘I am Not Trying to Get Anyone Off the Hook

The most memorable line since Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook” has just come out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Ta da: “ I’m not trying to get anyone off the hook here.”

That telling quote comes from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families. Sheldon offered his defense to Washington Post writer Jerry Markon for a front page story in the Post November 1.

Markon’s story investigated how the grant process at HHS was manipulated to keep an office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) from receiving an award to serve victims of human trafficking. USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) had scored high enough to be awarded a federal grant to continue its very successful anti-trafficking program. But the decision was “overturned,” so to speak, when Sharon Parrott, a top adviser to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, stepped in to “have a dialogue” (her words) in the process because the award would go through a Catholic agency. Their problem?: the Catholic Church—though providing food, shelter, and legal and other medical services for trafficking victims more effectively than any other—is forbidden by conscience from referring those victims for abortion, sterilization or contraceptives. So much for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal legislation that protects conscience—not to mention ordinary fair-play in picking grant recipients.

[…]

Posted in The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , ,
19 Comments

CNS: Fordham U. Prof. defends late-term abortionist Tiller as “compassionate”

Posted on 8 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From the Cardinal Newman Society:

Fordham Prof. Defends Late-Term Abortionist Tiller As “Compassionate.”

A professor at a Catholic college, who also sits on the board of a pro-abortion rights organization, described late term abortionist George Tiller as “compassionate” and said she believed working at a Catholic institution as well as a pro-abortion rights organization is “consistent.”

Fordham University Sociology Professor Jeanne Flavin, who moonlights as President of the Board of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, an organization committed to “advancing reproductive and human rights for all women and families” wrote a piece in which she defended late term abortionist George Tiller as “compassionate.”

In Footnotes, a publication of the American Sociological Association, Flavin wrote that she believed late term abortionist George Tiller delivered “compassionate” care.

[…]

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged , , , , , ,
26 Comments

Catholic League on The curious choices of The Star and SNAP

Posted on 8 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From The Catholic League:

CATHOLIC LEAGUE

FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHT
KC STAR OMITS STORY ON TOP EPISCOPAL BISHOP

November 8, 2011

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Yesterday, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) held a press conference in front of the Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph to bring attention to a case involving an Episcopal priest, Bede Parry, who is being charged with molesting young boys while he was studying to be a Catholic priest. Parry was thrown out of the Benedictines of Conception Abbey in Missouri back in 1990; then he left for Las Vegas; eventually he became an Episcopal priest there. The person who knew about his record of abuse and still allowed him to join the clergy of the Episcopal Church was the Episcopal Bishop of Nevada, Katharine Jefferts Schori; today she is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the U.S., located in New York City.

The Kansas City Star, which has been relentless in its pursuit of clergy abuse by Catholic priests, said absolutely nothing about this case today. Is this because it involves another religion? Or is it because it implicates a woman clergyperson, thus getting in the way of the contrived narrative that Catholic bishops have some kind of special “old boy” network that inhibits them from being forthcoming? No matter, to think that the person who is the head of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is named in a cover up involving the sexual abuse of minors—and isn’t even mentioned in the Star—speaks volumes about its politically driven agenda against Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn.

Then there is the politics of SNAP. Can anyone believe that SNAP would hold a press conference in front of a Jewish synagogue about a case involving the sexual abuse of a minor committed by a minister? So why did it pick the most prominent Catholic cathedral in the Diocese for its press conference, especially when the issue has nothing to do with the Diocese? (Parry was never a priest there—he was an order priest.)

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

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Clerical Sexual Abuse, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty |
8 Comments

Must read: Archbp. Chaput’s address at U of Pennsylvania

Posted on 8 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Everyone should read the Most Rev. Charles Chaput’s (Archbp. of Philadelphia) 7 November speech at the University of Pennsylvania.

HERE.

Excerpt:

[…]

Most of us here tonight believe that we have basic rights that come with the special dignity of being human. These rights are inherent to human nature. They’re part of who we are. Nobody can take them away. But if there is no Creator, and nothing fundamental and unchangeable about human nature, and if “nature’s God” is kicked out of the conversation, then our rights become the product of social convention. And social conventions can change. So can the definition of who is and who isn’t “human.”

The irony is that modern liberal democracy needs religion more than religion needs modern liberal democracy. American public life needs a framework friendly to religious belief because it can’t support its moral claims about freedom and rights with secular arguments alone. In fact, to the degree that it encourages a culture of unbelief, liberal democracy undermines its own grounding. It causes its own decline by destroying the public square’s moral coherence.

That leads to my fourth and final point. The pro-life movement needs to be understood and respected for what it is: part of a much larger, consistent, and morally worthy vision of the dignity of the human person. You don’t need to be Christian or even religious to be “pro-life.” Common sense alone is enough to make a reasonable person uneasy about what actually happens in an abortion. The natural reaction, the sane and healthy response, is repugnance.

What makes abortion so grievous is the intimacy of the violence and the innocence of the victim. Dietrich Bonhoeffer—and remember this is the same Lutheran pastor who helped smuggle Jews out of Germany and gave his life trying to overthrow Hitler—wrote that the “destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

Bonhoeffer’s words embody Christian belief about the sanctity of human life present from the earliest years of the Church. Rejection of abortion and infanticide was one of the key factors that set the early Christians apart from the pagan world. From the Didache in the First Century through the Early Fathers of the Church, down to our own day, Catholics—and until well into the twentieth century all other Christians—have always seen abortion as gravely evil. As Bonhoeffer points out, arguing about whether abortion is homicide or only something close to homicide is irrelevant. In the Christian view of human dignity, intentionally killing a developing human life is always inexcusable and always gravely wrong.

Working against abortion doesn’t license us to ignore the needs of the homeless or the poor, the elderly or the immigrant. It doesn’t absolve us from supporting women who find themselves pregnant or abandoned. All human life, no matter how wounded, flawed, young or old, is sacred because it comes from God. The dignity of a human life and its right to exist are guaranteed by God. Catholic teaching on abortion and sexuality is part of the same integral vision of the human person that fuels Catholic teaching on economic justice, racism, war, and peace.

These issues don’t all have the same content. They don’t all have the same weight. All of them are important, but some are more foundational than others. Without a right to life, all other rights are contingent. The heart of the matter is what Solzhenitsyn implied in his Harvard comments. Society is not just a collection of sovereign individuals with appetites moderated by the state. It’s a community of interdependent persons and communities of persons; persons who have human obligations to one another, along with their human rights. One of those obligations is to not intentionally kill the innocent. The two pillars of Catholic social teaching are respect for the sanctity of the individual and service to the common good. Abortion violates both.

[…]

Posted in Classic Posts |
22 Comments

NY Gov. Cuomo: opponents of un-natural “marriage” are “anti-American”

Posted on 8 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From LifeSite, a story from a few days ago:

New York governor: opponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ just ‘want to discriminate,’ are ‘anti-American’
BY PATRICK B. CRAINE
Wed Oct 26, 2011

NEW YORK, October 26, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An employee with the New York Archdiocese warned of an “impending persecution” after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called same-sex “marriage” opponents discriminatory and “anti-American” last week.

The governor, who was instrumental in the state’s passage of same-sex “marriage” in June, was asked at a New York Times forum which arguments against same-sex “marriage” he found compelling.

“None,” he said. “There is no answer from the opposition. There really isn’t. Ultimately, it’s, ‘I want to discriminate.’ And that’s anti-New York. It’s anti-American.”

Ed Mechmann of the Archdiocese of New York’s Family Life Office said it is “chilling” that the state’s top official would declare such a large segment of the population as “political pariahs.” He warned Catholics of an “impending persecution,” saying that Cuomo has effectively “declared us to be enemies of the state and nation.”  [And there you have it in one. WDTPRS kudos to Mr. Mechmann.]

“In reality, Mr. Cuomo doesn’t just disagree with our arguments, he denies their existence,” said Mechmann on the archdiocese’s blog. “He clearly believes that they are pernicious, beyond the pale of proper discourse, and motivated only by hatred.”

“That is why he has now declared that we are ‘anti-American’ — that is to say, enemies of our nation,” he continued.

“This is legitimately frightening. We all know what the power of the state can do to its enemies,” he added.

This week, Rev. Jason J. McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms issued an open letter calling the comments by Cuomo an “attack” on half of America’s population and demanding an apology.

In July, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan warned that, if experience in other jurisdictions was any indication, believers in the traditional family “will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction.”

Christians in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere have lost their jobs, been dragged through lengthy “human rights” proceedings, and faced steep fines for questioning the dangerous homosexual lifestyle, declining to facilitate gay “marriages,” or even failing to acknowledge “gay pride” events.

“Like St. Thomas More, we’re willing to take the heat and even lose our head from following a conscience properly formed by God’s revelation and the teaching of His Church, even if it is politically incorrect, and clashes with the King’s demands to re-define marriage,” said Dolan.

Immediately following the passage of same-sex “marriage”, New York state officials moved to force marriage commissioners to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

Reacting in July to the news that the first commissioner had resigned as a result, Cuomo insisted that commissioners must put the law above their religious beliefs. “When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get to pick and choose which laws,” he said. “You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law and I’ll enforce this law, or I don’t like this law and I won’t enforce this law’ – you can’t do that.”

“The laws would have to be paramount, and would have to be paramount to your religious beliefs,” he added.

New York was the sixth U.S. state to recognize homosexual “marriage,” in addition to the District of Columbia.

Bishops must take a stand and do something.  There are bishops in New York state.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
40 Comments

PRC CR & CTA – “Rebellion is Justified!”

Posted on 8 November 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Immediately after reading a story about Call To Action, I found an article at the History Blog about the discovery in some forgotten box of rare paper-cut posters from China’s Cultural Revolution.

One of the posters… is entitled Eliminating the “Four Olds”. Launched by Mao and General Lin Biao, Mae’s second-in-charge and designated successor in a speech from the Tiananmen Rostrum on August 18, 1966, the Destruction of the Four Olds was one of the first campaigns of the Cultural Revolution. The “Four Olds” are Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, Old Ideas, and the poster shows a brigade of Red Guards sledge hammering, trampling, burning, burying Chinese literature, film, religious iconography and cultural artifacts emblematic of foreign imperialism and China’s feudal past. The large flag in the foreground with the image of Mao on it reads “Rebellion is justified.”

破四旧 or Pò sì jiù

Pò sì jiù

From the CTA conference:

CTA banner

The analogy with Call To Action breaks down a bit when you consider the youthful and handsome aspect of the heroes of the Cultural Revolution. Scarce at the CTA conferences, I believe.

A CTA “Ministry Activism Dancer”

Wǒguó wúchǎnjiējí wénhuàdàgémìng

Call To Action

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , , ,
15 Comments