Vatican Radio: Cheri Blair as “devout Catholic”. Interesting.

Marconi also nods.

From Catholic Culture on something from Vatican Radio, still under the director of the papal spokeman Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ.

Vatican Radio pays tribute to ‘devout Catholic’ Cherie Blair
October 18, 2011
In an interview devoted largely to Cherie Blair’s charitable works, Vatican Radio characterized the wife of the former British prime minister as a “devout Catholic” and neglected to refer to her repeated criticism of Catholic moral teaching.

During the 15-minute interview, Blair discussed the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women, called for a greater role for women in the Church, and paid tribute to missionary and teaching sisters.

This Cheri Blair?

Cherie Blair

Posted in Lighter fare, The Drill | Tagged , ,
22 Comments

My nightmarish return to the USA

I had a wonderful time in England seeing friends and meeting new people.  It was also great to use the new, corrected English translation of Mass.  Mind you, I would rather use the 1962 Missale Romanum, but the new translation is a vast improvement. I now have both experiential knowledge as well as theoretical knowledge.

The flight home to the US was just what you want from an intercontinental flight over the icy North Atlantic: boring.

However, on my arrival home the nightmare began.

First, I had a real nightmare of an exorcism that goes very wrong and wouldn’t end.  Very nasty indeed.

Second, after touching down I had great Chinese food for supper with one of my best friends of many years, but I, predictably, got a platitude cookie again.  I hate platitude cookies.

20111018-184303.jpg

Third, and worst, I had to use the lame-duck ICEL translation for Mass this morning.  Brrrr.

Oh Lord, have mercy.  Give me rest and peace and save us from platitudes!

27 November cannot come swiftly enough.

In the meantime, here is shot of Greenland, which most of us don’t see everyday.

20111018-184208.jpg

20111018-184237.jpg

20111018-184257.jpg

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
23 Comments

QUAERITUR: The Sin of Presumption and You: How to go to Hell in an Uneasy Lesson.

From a reader:

I greatly appreciate your time and work you do with this blog, it has inspired me at various times to strive for fortitude and perseverance, especially in the sacrament of penance.

I have been studying the sins against the Holy Ghost in the various writings and St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure. In reading their works, it seems that the sin of presumption, as being a sin against the Holy Ghost, is unforgivable. Is this true? Am I misinterpreting some aspect of these writings? This is particularly important because I have on many occasions committed this sin, which led to further mortal sins.

Yes, the sin of presumption is a mortal sin which separates you from God and usually leads to other serious sins. Presumption is a bad habit we call a vice.  Presumption is a serious, and I mean really serious sin that leads to the loss of heaven.

Let’s have some basic catechism which every Catholic needs to know.

All Christians, all of us poor sinners, live in hope. Hope, along with faith and charity, are gifts from God infused into us with baptism. They are called the theological virtues. Since they are virtues, they are habits. They are habits because, as the Latin word “habitus” (think of English “habitat”) suggests, they “dwell” in us in a stable way. Hope, along with faith and charity, are part of us unless we drive them out with acts and intentions against them.

Because all virtues are balance points between extremes, the virtue hope also has its extremes, which are vices, sins. The extremes most opposed to the virtue of hope are despair and presumption.

By hope we mean the theological or supernatural virtue which disposes us to aspire to God as our best end and, therefore, towards all the means we need to pursue to attain that end, because we know that we cannot do it or merit it on our own without God’s help. Hope is necessary for our salvation because it is, in itself, one of those necessary means for that salvation. God Himself is the object of our hope. Rejection of object of hope results in the rejection of heaven.

By despair we do not live in hope, we reject hope. Despair, the vice, is a willful rejection of hope because we think the things we need to do to obtain eternal life are impossible. It is a venial sin when it comes from melancholy or from timidity or fear of one’s own weakness. It is a mortal sin when it involves distrust or disbelief in God’s goodness or His revealed promises. As a result we stop praying to God for mercy and graces, and we do not ask for forgiveness for our sins. The result is the loss of the virtue of charity and the state of grace and, as a consequence God’s friendship and a share in the kingdom of heaven.

By presumption we do not live in hope, we live in a sense of false certitude. Presumption is the vice whereby we expect to gain eternal life by our own merits or that pardon is given without your repentance. It is a mortal sin in most every circumstance. As a result we stop praying to God for mercy and graces, and we do not ask for forgiveness for our sins. The result is the loss of the virtue of charity and the state of grace and, as a consequence God’s friendship and a share in the kingdom of heaven.

Presumption and despair each have as a consequence a turning away from God such that we do not ask for graces and forgiveness, which means that we will not be forgiven. This is why presumption and its flip-side despair, the enemies of hope, are called the unpardonable or unforgivable sins: they are so because we don’t ask. They are sins against the Holy Spirit and because they do not result in asking forgiveness, they are unpardonable.

There is nothing that we little finite mortals can do that is so bad that God will not forgive, provided we ask for forgiveness. It is there for the asking, always, until the time we die and can therefore ask no more.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill |
16 Comments

FSSP stats

I picked this up from our friends at Rorate Coeli:

As of 1 October 2011, the FPPS has 392 members, including 228 Priests, 10 Deacons, and 154 non-diaconal Seminarians.

Posted in Brick by Brick | Tagged
11 Comments

Pope announces a “Year of Faith” for 2012-13

The other day the Holy Father celebrated a Mass a Mass for participants in an event hosted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization, during which he also used a raised platform to move from one end of the basilica to the other.

He said:

I would like to announce in this Eucharistic Celebration that I have decided to declare a “Year of Faith,” which I will illustrate with a special Apostolic Letter. This “Year of Faith” will begin on Oct. 11, 2012, on the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, and will end on Nov. 24, 2013, Solemnity of Christ the King of the Universe.

Click HERE for the text of his sermon, which has at the top a link to the VIDEO of Mass (you can see the new platform in action.)

Venerable Brothers,

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

With joy I celebrate today this Mass for you who are committed in many parts of the world on the frontiers of the New Evangelization. This liturgy is the conclusion of the meeting that gathered you yesterday to address the realms of that mission and to listen to some significant testimonies. I myself wish to present some thoughts to you, while I break for you today the Bread of the Word and of the Eucharist, in the certainty — shared by all of us — that without Christ, Word and Bread of life, we can do nothing (cf. John 15:5). I am content because this conference is situated in the context of the month of October, in fact one week before World Mission Sunday: this puts the New Evangelization in its specific dimension, in harmony with that of the mission ad gentes.

I address a cordial greeting to all of you who accepted the invitation of the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization. In particular I greet and thank the president of this recently established dicastery, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, and his collaborators.

Let us turn now to the biblical readings in which the Lord speaks to us today. The first, taken from the Book of Isaiah, tells us that God is one, He is unique; there are no other gods besides the Lord, and even the powerful Cyrus, emperor of the Persians, forms part of a greater plan, which only God knows and carries forward. This reading gives us the theological meaning of history: the changes of epochs, the succession of great powers, are under the supreme dominion of God; no earthly power can put itself in His place. The theology of history is an important, essential aspect of the New Evangelization, because the men of our time, after the terrible period of the totalitarian empires of the 20th century, need to rediscover a global vision of the world and of time, a truly free, peaceful vision, the vision that the Second Vatican Council transmitted in its documents, and that my Predecessors, the Servant of God Paul VI and Blessed John Paul II, illustrated with their Magisterium.

The second reading is the beginning of the First Letter to the Thessalonians, and this is already very thought provoking, because it is the oldest letter that has come down to us from the greatest evangelizer of all times, the Apostle Paul. He says to us first of all that one does not evangelize in an isolated way: In fact he also had Silvanus and Timothy as collaborators (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1), and many others. And he immediately adds another very important thing: that the proclamation must always be preceded, accompanied and followed by prayer. He writes, in fact: “We give thanks to God always for you all, constantly mentioning you in our prayers” (v. 2). The Apostle says he is very conscious of the fact that he has not chosen the members of the community, but God has: “They were chosen by Him,” he states (v. 4). Every missionary of the Gospel must have this truth always present: It is the Lord who touches hearts with his Word and his Spirit, calling persons to faith and to communion in the Church. Finally, Paul leaves us a very beautiful teaching, taken from his experience. He writes: “for our Gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (v. 5). To be effective, evangelization needs the strength of the Spirit, to animate the proclamation and infuse in the one who bears it that “full conviction” of which the Apostle speaks. This term “conviction,” “full conviction” in the Greek original is pleroforia: a term that does not express so much the subjective, psychological aspect, but rather the plenitude, the fidelity, the completeness, in this case of the proclamation of Christ. A proclamation that, to be complete and faithful, must be accompanied by signs, by gestures, as the preaching of Jesus. Word, Spirit and conviction — thus understood — are, hence, inseparable and thus concur to make the evangelical message spread efficaciously.

We now pause on the passage of the Gospel. It is the text on the legitimacy of the tribute that must be paid to Caesar, which contains Jesus’ famous answer: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). But before coming to this point, this is a passage that can refer to all those who have the mission to evangelize. In fact, Jesus’ interlocutors — disciples of the Pharisees and Herodians — address Him with an expression of appreciation: “We know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men” (v. 16). And it is in fact this affirmation, though arising from hypocrisy, which must call our attention. The disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians do not believe what they say. They affirm it with a captatio benevolentiae so that they will be listened to, but their heart is very far from that truth; rather they want to lay a snare for Jesus to be able to accuse him. For us, instead, that expression is beautiful and true: Jesus, in fact, is true and he teaches the way of God according to the truth and he is not subject to anyone. He himself is this “way of God,” which we are called to follow.

We can recall Jesus’ words in John’s Gospel: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” (14:6). In this regard, St. Augustine‘s commentary is enlightening: “It was necessary for Jesus to say: I am the Way, the Truth and the Life” because once the Way was known, the end had to be known. The Way led to the Truth, it led to the Life … and we, where are we going if not to Him? And by what Way do we go if not by Him?” (In Ioh 69:2). The new evangelizers are called to walk first on this Way that is Christ, to bring others to know the beauty of the Gospel that gives Life. And on this Way, one never walks alone but in company: an experience of communion and fraternity that is offered to all those we meet, to make others participants of our experience of Christ and of his Church. Thus, witness, together with proclamation, can open the heart of those who are seeking the truth, so that they can discover the meaning of their lives.

A brief reflection also on the central question of the tribute to Caesar. Jesus answers with astonishing political realism, linked to the theo-centrism of the prophetic tradition. The tribute to Caesar is paid, because the image on the coin is his; but man, every man, bears in himself another image, that of God, and hence he is His, to whom each one owes his existence. The Fathers of the Church, inspired in the fact that Jesus refers to the image of the Emperor coined on the coin of tribute, interpreted this step in the light of the fundamental concept of man as image of God, contained in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.

An anonymous author writes: “The image of God is not imprinted on gold but on the human race. Caesar’s coin is gold, God’s is humanity … hence, give your wealth to Caesar, but keep for God the unique innocence of your conscience where God is contemplated … Caesar, in fact, has engraved his image on each coin, but God has chosen man, whom He has created, to reflect his glory” (Anonymous, Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 42). And St. Augustine used this reference many times in his homilies: “If Caesar claims his own image engraved on the coin,” he affirms, “will God not exact from man the divine image sculpted in him? (En. In Ps., Psalm 94:2). And still: “As the coin is returned to Caesar, so the illumined soul is returned to God imprinted by the light of his face … Christ in fact dwells in man’s interior” (Ivi, Psalm 4:8).

This word of Jesus is rich in anthropological content, and it cannot be reduced solely to the political realm. The Church, therefore, does not limit herself to remind men of the correct distinction between the sphere of Caesar’s authority and God’s, between the political and the religious realm. The mission of the Church, as Christ’s, is essentially to speak of God, to remind of his sovereignty, to remind everyone, especially Christians who have lost their identity, of God’s right over what belongs to Him, that is, our life.

Precisely to give renewed impulse to the mission of the whole Church to lead men out of the desert in which they are often found to the place of life, friendship with Christ who gives us his life in plenitude, I would like to announce in this Eucharistic Celebration that I have decided to declare a “Year of Faith,” which I will illustrate with a special Apostolic Letter. This “Year of Faith” will begin on Oct. 11, 2012, on the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, and will end on Nov. 24, 2013, Solemnity of Christ the King of the Universe. It will be a time of grace and commitment to en ever fuller conversion to God, to reinforce our faith in Him and to proclaim Him with joy to the men of our time.

Dear brothers and sisters, you are among the protagonists of the New Evangelization, which the Church has undertaken and carries forward, not without difficulty, but with the same enthusiasm of the early Christians.

In conclusion, I make my own the expressions of the Apostle Paul that we have heard: I thank God for all of you. And I assure you that I keep you in my prayers, conscious of your commitment in faith, your diligence in charity, and your constant hope in Jesus Christ our Lord.

May the Virgin Mary, who was not afraid to answer “yes” to the Word of the Lord, and, after having conceived Him in her womb, went out full of joy and hope, always be your model and your guide. Learn from the Mother of the Lord and our Mother to be humble and at the same time brave, simple and prudent; balanced and strong, not with the force of the world, but with that of truth. Amen.

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
6 Comments

QUAERITUR: Can a lay man impersonate a priest for drammatic presentations?

From a reader:

Is it permissible to portray a priest as a reenactor? I have been
asked to portray a Catholic chaplain of the 69th New York in 1862. I
know a few poeple who have done so, but none are Catholic. Provided
that I do not attempt to offer Mass or hear real confessions, is it
permissible? I believe that it could offer a fascinating glimpse into
a facet of life in the Irish Brigade that is seldom seen. Thank you,
in advance.

Yes.  As a matter of fact I impersonate a priest all the time.  Of course it is easier for me, because I actually am one.  Come to think of it, because of ordination I also im-person-ate the High Priest, too, since I act in persona Christi.

For the sake of a dramatic presentation a lay man may impersonate a priest.  Never do anything which would confuse people into thinking that you are a priest and don’t go about in priestly garb.  Don’t pretend to say Mass or hear confessions outside of the specific dramatic presentation you are in.  That would be a grave involving a serious censure.

Remember: there is a qualitative difference between the priesthood of lay people which comes from baptism and the priesthood of priests which comes from sacred ordination.  Because the priesthood, with the sacraments only priests can administer or confect, are so central to the life of the Church as a Church, it is important that they never be simulated in a way that might confuse people.

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

US Catholic promotes reception of Protestant “communion”? Fr Z really rants.

A reader alerted me to an article in US Catholic suggesting that Catholics can receive “communion” in Lutheran (read: Protestant) services.

Sound right to you?

Good… thought not.

Let’s have a look with my comments and emphases.

Should you pass on communion at a Lutheran church or participate fully?

You are at the wedding of a beloved family member or friend, which is taking place at a Lutheran church. You gladly accepted the invitation to celebrate this happy day with the bride and groom. But then there is a call to come to the table of the Lord’s Supper, to receive communion. This is the awkward moment you knew was coming.

Can you, and should you, a practicing Catholic, accept the invitation?  [This is where you are to say, “No. Of course not.”]

According to the Code of Canon Law, receiving communion in a Protestant church is generally not permissible. [generally?] According to canon 844, “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.” [Hmmm… isn’t there actually a bit more text to that canon?] The key term here is licit. If a Catholic receives communion from a Protestant minister, it is generally considered “illicit” or unlawful. [Not to mention it a blasphemous act of idolatry.  We are not talking a here about an ancient and apostolic Church with valid orders and sacraments, such as an Orthodox Church.  Protestants have “ecclesial communities”, but not Churches, as the clear document from the CDF teaches.  They have no valid orders or Eucharist.  They have an entirely and heretical notion of the Eucharist.  Reception of their “communion” is wrong.]

The reason for the Catholic Church’s general rule against sharing in the Eucharist with other churches is that a person can only be in full communion with one church. As a Catholic, the core of one’s union with Christ is union with the church. The center of this union lies in the reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist during Mass, which is both a confession and embodiment of unity with the Roman Catholic Church.  [There is a bit more to it than that, but let that pass.  And it is always fascinating to see how some people reduce doctrinal points to “rules”, when “rules” are actually based on doctrine.]

But canon 844 includes an exception to the rule “whenever necessity requires or general spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided.” [A situation might develop when a Catholic cannot approach or be visited by a Catholic minister of a sacrament.  It is possible to receive a valid sacrament from a non-Catholic validly ordained minister in an emergency.  Protestants could give advice and comfort, but no valid Eucharist or absolution.]

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism said that, as a general rule, [there’s that language again] common worship and eucharistic and other sacramental sharing should “signify the unity of the church.” But it acknowledges that such sharing can also be seen as advancing unity. In fact, according to the decree, “the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends” it.  [squish…splat…]

Still, within the confines of canon law, the exceptions to the rule are rather limited, and receiving communion from a Lutheran pastor during a wedding would normally be seen as “illicit” for Catholic wedding guests. [I think it would be seen as the sin of blasphemy. Blasphemy involves words or gestures, also thoughts, which show contempt for God or dishonor God regardless of whether the person intends that contempt or dishonor or not. Blasphemy is against the virtue of religion and a mortal sin.] At the same time, some Catholics would like to, and do, receive communion on these rare occasions. [And they are wrong to do so.]

These Catholics, after a careful examination of their conscience, [Huh?  Is he psychic?] find compelling reasons to “gain a needed grace” by receiving communion in a Protestant church. [] And it is also true that eucharistic sharing has occurred at the highest levels of the church. Even Jesus occasionally broke the religious law of his day, though he did so to fulfill the “spirit” of the law.  [Ahhh…. I seeeeee…. the old “what would Jesus do?” argument as a way to justify something just plain wrong.]

So it is possible that one could follow Jesus’ lead. In our example a compelling reason might be to demonstrate one’s deep love and commitment to nurturing the relationship of the newly married couple. [In other words, do something blasphemous to make them feel good?] Intercommunion could be a “yes” to God by witnessing to God’s presence in the marriage and committing to God’s work of salvation in their lives.  [And treat a piece of bread and sip of wine as if they were God.]

In the end, this may be fulfilling the “spirit” of canon law while going against the letter.

By Kevin Considine, a Ph.D. candidate in theology at Loyola University in Chicago. This article appeared in the October 2011 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 76, No. 10, page 46).

Mr. Considine is perhaps just trying to be too clever by half in engaging in this kabuki dance with law and ecumenism.

I don’t think he is being purposely duplicitous by not giving his readers the full benefit of the text of canon 844.

The second paragraph of canon 844 states,

“Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”

Note that last little phrase “in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Validity matters.  The community, or Church the minister belongs to matters.

Protestant ecclesial communities (they are not Churches, properly understood – cf. HERE.) lack valid ordination, correct theology and intention, and therefore  cannot validly consecrate Eucharist for their communion.  They are therefore excluded by can. 844.

Canon 844 is really about our separated brothers and sisters of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Polish National Catholic Church, pre-Calcedonian Churches and so forth. These are the Churches, fully and properly so-called. They have valid orders and Eucharist.

Can. 844.2 says that it is morally and canonically proper for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist from (and to confess to and be anointed by) a priest, deacon or bishop of one of those real Churches.

Can. 844 cannot pertain to Protestant groups, such as Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.  They lack valid orders and lack a sacramental theology consonant with that of the Catholic Church.

Considine has pitted the Church against Christ, with the notion that we must “break the religious law of the day” to “fulfil the ‘spirit’ of the law.”

I hope he was just trying to be clever and creative.

Thanks, US Catholic, for another reason to spend our subscription budget money on The Catholic Herald and The Wanderer.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , ,
77 Comments

QUAERITUR: Things manipular. Wherein Fr. Z rants and ties on one.

From a reader:

For some reason unbeknownst to me I am intrigued by the maniple. My understanding is that when the maniple comes off, the Mass is suspended, hence the reason for permitting the reading of announcements just prior to the sermon. Without it the Mass is invalid.

So now in the OF Mass during which wearing a maniple is permitted, but not required, thus very rarely ever worn (I myself have never seen it, only read about it on here), is the Mass automatically suspended on its own right after the Gospel when the priest starts saying the homily and/or doing whatever else he likes to do during that time?

Now, assuming it doesn’t, if a priest chooses to wear a maniple during the OF and removes it before the homily, would this suspend the Mass, or in the OF is the wearing of a maniple merely a completely symbolic gesture having zero effect on the Mass?

I usually like/take questions with one clear point, but I’ll deal with several here.

1. When the maniple comes off, Mass is suspended.

Not quite.  In some schools of thought concerning the older form of Mass the sermon was not considered part of Mass.  The priest wears the maniple only during Mass.  Thus he removed it for the sermon.  The maniple comes off because Mass is supended, not the other way around.

2. Without it the Mass is invalid.

No.  Absolutely wrong.  A TLM would certainly be valid.  However, the maniple is a prescribed vestment for the TLM.  The priest must wear one if there is one.  Of course, the priest is not bound to the impossible.  If there is no maniple and not even a stoll can be adapted, then Mass goes ahead and that’s the way it is.

3. The maniple is permitted in the Ordinary Form.

Yes, it is.  The maniple is permitted as an option but not obligatory in the Ordinary Form.  The maniple is obligatory in the Extraordinary Form and is not an option.  There is some confusion about this point.  Some say that if in the GIRM the maniple is not mentioned, it cannot, must not be used.  I reject those claims with a dismissive wave of my hand and pursed lips.  Wrong, simply wrong and very wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong.

Let maniples abound!  Let maniples multiply!  Let maniples be used by all priests of the Latin Church always and everywhere in both forms of the Roman Rite!

I wonder if the New Evangelization can take place without the maniple.

Think about this.

  • For there to be a New Evangelization, we must have a revitalization of our Catholic identity.
  • For there to be a revitalization of our Catholic identity, we must reclaim our liturgical heritage.
  • For us to reclaim our liturgical heritage, we need the fruits and influences of the older, Extraordinary Form.
  • For the Extraordinary Form to be helpful, if must be celebrated in more and more places.
  • For the celebration of the Extraordinary Form to take place in more and more places, we need more maniples.
  • Maniples are a quibus sine non, necessary for a successful promotion of the New Evangelization!

As I boldly proclaimed here some years ago, Fathers….

Tie One On!

The New Evangelization depends on you!

And don’t forget this.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Brick by Brick, Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged ,
19 Comments

Minnesota Bishops ask parishes to create grass-roots committees in defense of marriage

In my native place, Minnesota, the Catholic Bishops have banded together in a defense of true marriage against a redefinition of marriage to include something unnatural.  Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.  They are working together to support passage of an amendment to the state constitution in favor of real marriage.

It seems to me that a great many problems are going to be created for the Church and for practicing Catholics over this issue and its ramifications.

In the Minnesota Independent we find this.

Taking a page from efforts in California, Archbishop John Nienstedt sent a letter to all the priests of the Archdiocese asking them to create in all the parishes committees with a “captain” to coordinate efforts in defense of marriage.

Archdiocese plans anti-gay marriage committees in every Minnesota Catholic church

By Andy Birkey
Monday, October 17, 2011 at 6:00 am

Archbishop John Nienstedt sent a letter to every priest in the state at the start of October urging them to put every Catholic church in Minnesota tow work passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“It is imperative that we marshal our resources to educate the faithful about the Church’s teachings on these matters, and to vigorously organize and support a grass roots effort to get out the vote to support the passage of the amendment,” the letter read. It went out on Oct. 4 to every priest in the state.

The archbishop said it wants priests in every parish to identify a “church captain” in order to create an “ad hoc committee” in every church in the state. The “church captain” is a component of the Schubert Flint strategy used in 2008?s divisive Proposition 8 battle in California.

The strategy mirrors a similar one used by conservative Christians in California to pass Proposition 8 and end marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Schubert Flint was a public affairs firm at the heart of California’s successful push by conservative Christians to repeal marriage rights for that state’s same-sex couples. In a post-mortem, the firm wrote about it’s use of church captains:

We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools.

Schubert Flint has been active in Minnesota, in particular during the 2010 gubernatorial election when it created a series of ads attacking DFL and Independence Party candidates for their support of rights for same-sex couples.

According to Nienstedt’s letter, the church captains will be organized by the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic church, which will in turn report to the Minnesota for Marriage coalition for statewide efforts. Minnesota for Marriage is made up of the Minnesota Family Council, MCC and the National Organization for Marriage.

“A major issues will be placed before the State of Minnesota in the November 2012 election. a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Nienstedt wrote. “The sanctity of marriage and vital role of the family is at stake. It is a firmly-held teaching of our church that a marriage is a union of a husband and a wife, and that they together are the ones suited to be a father and a mother.”

He added, “To define it otherwise is a detriment to the common good of society.”

Here’s the full letter from Nienstedt — Attached

Posted in Brick by Brick, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , , , , ,
7 Comments

QUAERITUR: Proportion of communicants and ministers

From a reader:

Today, in a rather large church, there was only 20 in attendance at mass with 17 of us going to Holy Communion. Father had 3 EMHC assist him. One with the Body of Christ and two with the Blood of Christ.

Is there a definite rule as to when the EMHC should be used? I am obviously not versed in the use of EMHC, but in the above mentioned mass in was obvious to me that there was an abuse.

There is not a definite rule which spells out numbers and proportions of communicants to ministers. However, it seems to me that if Holy Communion is offered under both kind to that small a group, the priest and one person should suffice. More than that would constitute a violation of what is laid down in Redemptionis Sacramentum, et al.

It is wrong to have more ministers simply to “get more people involved”. If there is no real necessity, then it is an abuse.

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