News about Toowoomba, Australian bishops

Remember Toowoomba?  The Holy Father accepted Bishop Wm. Morris’s un-proffered resignation after years of misguidance of the diocese.

From CNA with my emphases and comments:

Australian bishops to issue Toowoomba statement
By David Kerr

Vatican City, Oct 19, 2011 / 06:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The bishops of Australia will issue a joint statement on the troubled diocese of Toowoomba, and it may be published as early as this weekend.

“I don’t think anybody has a magic wand that is going to immediately heal the wounds of division,” Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Canberra said to CNA. At the same time, he said the bishops “are preparing a statement which I think will be an important moment and we will offer to everyone the fruits of our discussions and reflections here.”

Archbishop Coleridge is currently in Rome along with the majority of his fellow Australian bishops for their regular “ad limina” meeting with the Pope at the Vatican, Oct. 10-22.

In May 2011, Pope Benedict dismissed Bishop Bill Morris of Toowoomba for his long track record of dissent from Catholic teaching and practice. The diocese is currently without a bishop.

Over the past week the Australian bishops have held discussions regarding the situation in Toowoomba with both Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, and Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Archbishop Coleridge said the talks “went very positively” and “surpassed” their expectations.

Some of the older hands among the bishops said they were the most substantial, serious and candid discussions they can remember in all their years of coming to ad limina visits,” he said. [It is interesting what happens when people stop blowing happy gas around and actually discuss something frankly.  The “crisis” which evolved down under resulted in a constructive meeting.  That, however, can’t be the end of it.]

The subsequent statement, which he hopes can be produced by the end of this week, will now “try to offer the fruits of those discussions” both in words and in “pastoral action” to be implemented upon the bishops’ return to Australia.

He said he did not want give too many details about what the statement will contain but he did confirm that the Vatican discussions focused on “the nature of the communion of the Church, and in particular, the communion that exists between the Pope and a diocesan bishop.”

In recent weeks, several lay Catholics in the Toowoomba have contacted CNA to express surprise that Bishop Morris still seems to have a high profile in the diocese. His activities have included giving a public lecture, in-service talks to teachers and officiating at parish anniversaries.

“I hope that won’t continue,” said Cardinal George Pell of Sydney to CNA. “And if he is a loyal man of the Church he’ll realize that this is totally inappropriate and that won’t continue. That is my hope.”

As for priests in the Toowoomba diocese who are keen to continue dissenting, Cardinal Pell said he hopes “that Bishop Morris will remind them of their duties to get on with life and serve the people” when their next bishop is appointed. No timescale has been given for that appointment.

Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide, President of the Australian Bishops’ Conference, said he didn’t want to “comment personally on Bishop Morris in terms of his future,” except to say that “he (Bishop Morris) is still a bishop of the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Wilson said that they would now have to “dialogue about his future” and do so “in terms of love.”

The Australian bishops will meet collectively with Pope Benedict XVI on Oct. 20.

Posted in Brick by Brick, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , ,
21 Comments

QUAERITUR: More than one language during Mass. Fr. Z rants.

It fascinates me how often questions on a similar idea come in at the same time.

From a priest and from a student (edited):

Here in Ireland, it sometimes happens that, when Mass is being
celebrated in English, some parts are prayed in Irish, such as the Our
Father. In most places, people would not understand enough Irish to
want the full Mass in Irish, but most people know basic prayers like
the Our Father in Irish. So, is it OK to mix languages in this way or
ought a priest stick to one Missal language translation at a time?

And…

I go to the University of ___. We had a visiting a priest who
usually serves as a missionary in Pakistan celebrate Mass. He informed
us beforehand that as a way of praying for those in Pakistan, he was
going to sing the words of consecration in Urdu (language of
Pakistan). This made me a little uncomfortable. Is it licit? Or, I
hope, valid? Am I just being paranoid or was that uncomfortable
feeling an appropriate response?

We are obviously talking here about the Novus Ordo, or Ordinary Form wherein seemingly anything goes when it comes to languages.

Commonsense isn’t always applied in liturgical decisions, of course. That said, it seems to me that, if a text in language X has been approved for liturgical use, then it can be used in liturgical worship. We see all the time the Babel Tower principle in effect in some large international gatherings wherein many languages are used in the context of one rite, usually Mass.

It seems to me that if one is in a country with a modern official language and an old regional language, there is greater justification to have a mix of languages in certain parts of the Mass. A Gaelic Our Father in the Gaeltacht in Ireland makes certain amount of sense. However, a consecration in Urdu (are there approved texts in Urdu?) for students just because, as a kind of “show and tell”, seems to me a strange liturgical decision unless many of the students in the congregation were of Pakistani descent.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you clever-boots shout as you leap around with arms waving, “You think you are so smart! Don’t you realize that you just argued against the use of Latin?!? After all, none of us are ancient Romans and no one speaks it! Therefore, it shouldn’t be used!”

Wrong.

First, Latin is the language of our liturgy in the Latin Church. It is part of our identity even if is has fallen into desuetude in many places. It was mandated for use by the Second Vatican Council in a way far more authoritatively than any modern language. If we have forgotten our Latin liturgical roots, that is a bad thing. It isn’t a bad thing if people who have no connection with Pakistan don’t pray in Urdu. The purposeful undermining of Latin is an abuse of the members of the Latin Church which calls for correction.

The Ordinary Form allows for some flexibility, it seems to me. I am not aware of any restrictions in liturgical on the use of more than one language in the celebration of Mass, so long as the texts are approved. That said, a lack of restrictions doesn’t mean that mixing many languages into Mass is a good idea.

Something of this problem arises, if I understand things rightly, in some places in Africa. In some African nations there are hundreds of languages, each rooted in a culture. I have been told by African prelates and priests that Latin is often appreciated by people because Latin doesn’t favor one tribe’s language over another. When Latin is used there is less of a possibility of causing offense by exclusion or by appearing to favor one group or another. Latin offers a possibility of unity.

I have been in a parish where Mass was celebrated on Sundays in English, Spanish, Korean and Latin. Which language offered the greatest possibility of unity in common worship?

Everywhere I have been where Masses are offered in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form, I have seen that the Extraordinary Form is the most ethnically diverse.

This isn’t rocket science. We need more Latin. We need Latin because it is the liturgical language of the Latin Church and is therefore an important dimension of our Catholic identity, and we need more Latin because we have an ever more diverse global village to tend. Latin unites us with fellow Catholics diachronically, across the ages, and globally, across the planet.

And, just as baseball is the game that pleases God the most, Latin is the language that pleases God the most. The back of my hand to your football and rugby, your Hebrew and your Greek. Since the liturgy of heaven is obviously in Latin, Latin unites us with the saints and angels before the throne of God.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , ,
30 Comments

Warriors of the Night

With a tip of the biretta to CMR:

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
16 Comments

QUAERITUR: Can we go through a “haunted house”?

From a reader:

Is it okay for a believing Catholic to go through a “Haunted House”
during Halloween time?

Hmmm… I guess so. I am not sure why someone would want to do that, but, okay.

I suppose it would matter who sponsored it and why and what was in it.

Let us, however, keep our eyes on the fact that Halloween is for Christians All Hallows Eve, the Vigil of the Feast of All Saints.

I think one could design a pretty scary “haunted house” taking a cue from Dante. It might be helpful for people’s repentance and conversion.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
30 Comments

Op-Ed in Kansas City Star about Bp. Finn

The ultra-liberal Kansas City Star in KC, MO has been gunnin’ for Bishop Robert Finn since he arrived.  Now that some chum is in the water, they and their chums have been biting.

Therefore, I was surprised and pleased to see an op-ed in the Star by one Frank Kessler.

The charges against Bishop Finn should be dropped

By FRANK KESSLER
Special to The Star

As I read the article on Bishop Robert Finn in the Saturday Kansas City Star, it occurred to me that the NFL throws a flag for piling on when someone is already down.

Bishop Finn already apologized a number of times for his poor administrative judgment involving the supervision of one of his priests, Father Shawn Ratigan. The decision to indict Finn and the entire diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph on misdemeanor charges was highly questionable.

Some in the Kansas City Catholic community were critical of Finn from the day Pope Benedict appointed him. He proclaimed church teaching as championed by the Holy Father. This made him suspect to some. Father Thomas Reese of Georgetown was quoted in The Star article saying the case against the bishop was “historic.” Father Reese was encouraged to resign from America magazine because of his public dissent from church teachings on marriage and abortion, among other issues. The New York Times characterized Finn as “staunchly conservative.”

There are those who want to paint Finn as a poster boy for the clerical abuse scandals. That just does not pass the smell test. He did not move priests around but in the Ratigan case removed him from parish life. Diocesan supervision after the fact was deficient and the bishop acknowledged that.

It is hard to accept the assertion that this was not about the Catholic faith. Since the diocese hired an independent lawyer to put together a 141-page report on needed changes and was cooperating with law enforcement, what had the prosecutor to gain?

Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker may well have let her years working with CASA color her judgment. Who could fault her for that? Still, she surely knew that some could see it as an attack on the church, which had already gone to great pains to rectify the situation.

I have not seen the indictment so I don’t know exactly what standards were used to determine that an indictable crime had been committed. In one place the “reasonable suspicion” test seemed to be applied, and in another, “reasonable cause” (to suspect). “Reasonable cause to suspect” is a very low standard. As the saying goes, a good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Likewise, if a prosecutor wants a conviction, it is best not to overcharge.

Finn is being prosecuted for lapses in judgment and missing what went on below him. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is being investigated for lapses leading to deaths involving Operation Fast and Furious. Should he be prosecuted? I would say no unless there is evidence that he lied or willfully disobeyed the law. He deserves the benefit of the doubt as does Finn.

When prosecution can be perceived as rooted in politics, it can ruin the good name of the target, cheapen the moral authority of government and tarnish respect for the rule of law.

These charges should be dropped forthwith.

Frank Kessler is an emeritus professor of government at Missouri Western State University in St. Joseph and teaches at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. He lives in Overland Park.

A reader sent me an email with the comment that Finn “was the bishop who publicly criticized radical pro-abort Kathleen Sibelius when she was governor of KS”.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Brick by Brick | Tagged , , ,
33 Comments

The key to pumpkin carving

A reader sent a link to a photo.

Someone is having fun with punkin’s.

Hint: There is a photo of it lit up, too.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Lighter fare |
11 Comments

OOH-RAH! by OOH-RAH!: TLM in Afghanistan

Over at Rorate there is a note about a priest serving as a military chaplain who offers also the Extraordinary Form.

A great juxtaposition of materials.  More photos over there.

I like the votive candle rack and the intentions tacked up on the board.

OOH-RAH!

Posted in Brick by Brick | Tagged , ,
14 Comments

QUAERITUR: Minister, ministry, apostle, apostolate…

From a reader:

I’m on the pastoral council at my parish. I hear people using the term “Ministry” for all kinds of activities. Pretty much all of these folks are lay Catholics.

I’m kind-of a stickler for terminology, because muddled language leads to muddled thinking….:) Which leads to my question: When is it proper for lay people to use the term “ministry”?

My gut tells me that “Ministry” has to do with work of the ordained (e.g. bishops, priests, deacons,) but my gut is not even close to sufficient to answer this question. Could you give me some clarification on this question?

I think the key may lie in the 1997 inter-dicasterial document entitled Ecclesia de mysterio… or… Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priests.

This document makes some distinctions about what “ministry” is, quoting Apostolicam actuositatem 5: “the lay apostolate and the pastoral ministry complete each other”.

Ministry is rooted in sacred orders, which aim at the service to the whole Church of preaching, governing and sanctifying. Lay people can collaborate in important ways in the ministry of the clergy in those matters which don’t require holy orders.

It seems to me that a problem derives from the vagaries of the language we use. “Apostolate”, deriving from the Greek for “send”, can aim our minds directly to the Sent Ones, the Apostles chosen by Christ and their successors the bishops, or can suggest any person with some good and directed undertaking. “Minister”, from the Latin for “lesser”, is someone who acts on behalf of another, as in the case of all clerics who by Holy Orders act on behalf of the Lord in carrying out His three-fold munera, offices, of teaching, governing and sanctifying. More loosely, minister is someone who does something with authorization, which in many cases could be any of the baptized, while traditionally some things are reserved to men alone, because only men can be ordained. Thus, a ministry or an apostolate can be specifically a matter for the ordained or could by extension apply also to what lay people can do in and for the Church in coordination with the ministry and apostolate of the ordained.

In general, I suggest that we begin restricting our use of “minister” and “ministry” to the person of and activity of the ordained, in the first, place, and then those with a specific role coordinated by the clergy. Apostolate may have a somewhat less immediate clerical oversight, but it cannot be independent.

Perhaps some of you who are well-informed can jump in if you know about any other documents or resources which can shed light on this matter.

In any event, we have to get away from calling everything and everyone a minstry and a minister.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Brick by Brick, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
23 Comments

The wit and wisdom of Susan Sarandon

Many people have written to me about the fact that actress Susan Sarandon, who grew up in a Catholic family and was in Catholic schools all the way through Catholic University in Washington DC, recently called Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi.

You can stop writing to me about this now unless we hear that she has apologized. Thanks in advance.

Really, friends. Do we care what Susan Sarandon thinks about anything having to do with the Church?

In matters Catholic, how good could her judgment be?

Sarandon has in the past freely chosen to accept the roles of mother of a child prostitute (Pretty Baby), had a lesbian sex scene (the Hunger), was a witch (The Witches of Eastwick) and seasonally slutty groupie (Bull Durham). Well… a gal gotsta buy groceries, right? This Catholic girl has also been a contributor to Emily’s List.

Still and all, she chose her path. No one was holding a gun to her head or menacing her family back in the day unless she joined up, played the Hollywood game, and betrayed her faith and Church.

Pope Benedict and his family, on the other hand, weren’t exactly dealing with the brutal Screen Actors Guild.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage |
28 Comments

QUAERITUR: Sunday obligation and TV Masses

From a reader:

I was chatting with someone and she told me the priest in the parish
where she is a member gave her permission, due to her ill health and thus difficulty in attending Mass on Sunday, to “attend Mass by
watching on TV” to fulfill her Sunday Obligation.
This is normally not a fulfillment of the Sunday Obligation but does a priest have the authority to replace the physical attendance at Mass with a TV viewing in a case such as ill health?
She was so sincerely convinced that he did have that authority and
that it was a marvelous solution that before I say anything more, I
need to know if such an exemption is possible. Thank you!

Look, friend,… if someone cannot go to Mass, truly cannot, then that person’s obligation is suspended.

You don’t, can’t, fulfill your Sunday obligation, by watching Mass on TV.

If you can go, you go. If you can’t you can’t. God doesn’t ask the impossible.

If you are sick, you don’t have to fulfill the obligation. If you are old and afraid to go out alone, or that you might slip on the ice, you don’t have to fulfill the obligation. If you are far from a church while travelling and don’t know where to go or can’t get to a church, you don’t have to fulfill the obligation.

You don’t fulfill the obligation by watching TV and priests shouldn’t tell you you can. That response is not compassionate, which is what they intend it to be. It is better to tell them the truth: you don’t have to fulfill the obligation.

Of course, if a person really can go to Mass, and doesn’t… well… don’t get hit by a truck.

And while watching Mass on TV doesn’t fulfill the obligation, it can nevertheless be good and edifying (depending on the Mass, of course) and even consoling. I am not saying don’t watch TV Masses. I am saying that they don’t fulfill an obligation.

Finally, and this is a point in favor of the priest in the question at the top, while watching Mass on TV does not fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, in can. 1245 gives to pastors (in England “the parish priest”) the right to grant a dispensation from the obligation in individual cases or else he can commute the obligation into other pious works. You can debate whether or not watching Mass on TV counts as a “pious work”. However, the priest in the story above, if the person’s pastor, might have been dealing with a person wrestling with scruples.

What this question brings out is the great flexibility provided by the Church’s Law, based on Christian doctrine and the practical experience of centuries, as well as how serious our obligation is to seek Holy Mass on days of precept.

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