The path we are on. A book that might help explain things.

If you want a book which can shed light on the trajectory we are on, from a philosophical view point, try 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn’t Help by Benjamin Wiker.

It is also available as an audiobook which you could listen to also on your Kindle.

This is a book pretty much everyone can read.  It might be good for bright highschool age students, but for sure give this book to every college student and seminarian and priest you know. No, really.

Wiker (pronounced like the letter Y + ker) also has others I haven’t yet read:

Posted in The future and our choices |
11 Comments

Irony. Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood addressed the KKK but the Obama Administration says that Catholics who defend marriage are like racists.

In another entry I posted about Archbp. Dolan’s letter to Pres. Obama warning him and his administration to back off from their project to equate those who defend true marriage with racists, as if the proponents of same-sex unions held the moral equivalent of black people seeking equality in the early 1960’s.

Even as I posted that, I found an email urging me to post about the time the founder of Planned Parenthood – supported enthusiastically by the Obama Administration – addressed the Klu Klux Klan.  Yes, Margaret Sanger was an ally of the KKK.

I can’t help but wonder at how tone deaf the White House is about racism.  I suppose they depend on general ignorance of the origins of Planned Parenthood and its virulent agenda.

The email I received just had some quotes about Margaret Sanger and the KKK but no references.  You can find some more information about this HERE.  I am sure readers have more on this.  Sanger gives her own account of the event with the KKK in her own words in The Autobiography of Margaret Sanger (Reprint – Dover Publications, 2004, pp. 366-367).

Here is what I received in the email:

Prolife leaders are asking that the first week of October be set aside to recall the fact that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, spoke at Ku Klux Klan rally. As stated in her autobiography:

“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”

85 years after the Planned Parenthood foundress spoke at the KKK rally Planned Parenthood:

  • *A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.
  • *Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
  • *Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
  • *Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
  • *About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

In this Youtube video you hear Sanger’s own account read from her aforementioned autobigraphy. It is machine generated reading, similar to what you would hear with the Kindle text-to-voice option.  Not perfect but not bad.

[wp_youtube]6Fj-E-Yk78M[/wp_youtube]

The Obama Administration supports an organization founded in part to eradicate black people, Planned Parenthood (HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

AND….

The Obama Administration is pushing a policy that anyone (the Catholic Church and others) who support true marriage are similar to racists. (HERE)

It’s all rather like a Salvador Dali painting in which clocks are melting off the edges of tables.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
18 Comments

Notre Dame’s Fr. Jenkins and a different view of Pres. Obama

In 2009, the President of the University of Notre Dame, Fr. John Jenkins, actively participated in, promoted and defended, in the bestowal of an honorary doctorate in Law on the most aggressively pro-abortion President of the United States we have ever experienced.  I wrote about that here.

Now that the Obama Administration has shifted aside even the pretense of an interest in “common ground”, and we are looking down the line at a persecution of Catholic institutions by the feds under this administration, it seems that Fr. Jenkins may be shifting ground himself.

I saw this on CatholicVote.  It is also on Forbes:

[The] University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins sent a letter to the White House denouncing the mandate. “This would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the church’s moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and student health care plans in violation of the church’s social teaching. It is an impossible position.” Having already spoken at Notre Dame, one wonders what use President Obama has in listening to Fr. Jenkins. http://cvote.to/4x

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Linking Back, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , , , ,
24 Comments

Archbp. Dolan issues a warning to Pres. Obama: Stop attacking marriage and religious liberty!

I found this to be pretty interesting.  I urge you to read the whole thing.  It is perhaps the best presentation of the issues I have seen in a brief form.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York City has sent, in his capacity of President of the USCCB, sent a letter to Pres. Obama asking him to back off on his campaign against true marriage and religious liberty.  A pdf of the letter is HERE.

(CNSNews.com) – Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has written a letter to President Barack Obama warning him that his administration will “precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions” if it does not “end its campaign against DOMA, the institution of marriage it protects, and religious freedom.”

The letter follows up on two previous letters that Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the former president of the USCCB, and Archbishop Dolan sent to Obama privately on the matter. Cardinal George sent his private letter in 2010, according to the USCCB, and Archbishop Dolan sent his earlier this year.

In the latest letter–written Sept. 20, publicly posted on the USCCB website Sept. 22, and linked to Archbishop Dolan’s personal blog on Sept. 23–the archbishop sent the president a USCCB staff analysis on “recent federal threats to marriage” that reiterated the warning the archbishop delivered directly to president in the text of his letter.

“Thus, the comprehensive efforts of the federal government—using its formidable moral, economic, and coercive power—to enforce its new legal definition of ‘marriage’ against a resistant Church would, if not reversed, precipitate a systemic national conflict between Church and State, harming both institutions, as well as our Nation as a whole,” says the USCCB analysis.

[NB] The archbishop’s letter and USCCB analysis revealed a second front in an escalating conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration. [Remember Pres. Obama’s blather about finding common ground?  Remember how L’Osservatore Romano nearly quivered over him?] The other front is over regulations the Department of Health and Human Services proposed on Aug. 1 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the Obamacare law—that would compel all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all-FDA approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions[In other words they are not contraceptives.  They are abortifacients.]

[…]

At issue in the conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration are efforts by the administration to force Catholics, and other Americans who share the church’s moral convictions, to act against their consciences.The Obamacare sterilization-and-contraception mandate not only applies to individual Americans but also includes a “religious exemption” that is so narrowly drawn it does not include Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations or colleges and universities, and, thus, if finalized, would force these Catholic institutions to choose between acting against the teachings of their own church or dropping all health-care coverage for their employees[And this has to be the purposeful intention of this White House.]

On August 31, the USCCB submitted comments on the proposed sterilization-and-contraception mandate to HHS. In these comments, the bishops flatly declared that the administration was launching an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

“Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase ‘services’ to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty,” said the comments.

The bishops’ comments also said that even Jesus would not qualify for the “religious” exemption the administration proposed for its sterilization-and-contraceptives mandate.

[NB] In his letter last week to the president about the marriage issue, Archbishop Dolan indicated that the only “response” he and Cardinal George had received from their previous communications was a stepped up attack on marriage by the administration.

“This past spring the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, a decision strongly opposed by the Catholic Bishops of the United States and many others,” the archbishop told the president.

“Now the Justice Department has shifted from not defending DOMA—which is problem enough, given the duty of the executive branch to enforce even laws it disfavors—to actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality,” the archbishop said. [But they do handle the sale of guns to drug dealers.  I guess they are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, if not the 1st.]

“My predecessor, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, and I have expressed to you in the past our strong disappointment about the direction your Administration has been moving regarding DOMA,” the archbishop told the president. “Unfortunately the only response to date has been the intensification of efforts to undermine DOMA and the institution of marriage.”

The archbishop said he especially objected to the administration falsely equating those who defend traditional marriage to racists. [!?!?  Ohhh… right.  That’s because they want to make this into a civil rights issue.]

“That is why it is particularly upsetting, Mr. President, when your Administration, through the various court documents, pronouncements and policies identified in the attached analysis, attributes to those who support DOMA a motivation rooted in prejudice and bias,” said the archbishop. “It is especially wrong and unfair to equate opposition to redefining marriage with either intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination, as your Administration insists on doing.”

The archbishop said that if the federal courts adopt the position the administration is urging on them, then defending traditional marriage will be essentially criminalized in the United States. [! But let’s watch to see what happens to priests who defend true marriage.  Will they be slapped down?  We they be threatened?  Will they be moved, say, to some parish on the edge of a diocese or put in, say, nursing home chaplaincy?]

“Our federal government should not be presuming ill intent or moral blindness on the part of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, millions of whom have gone to the polls to directly support DOMAs in their states and have thereby endorsed marriage as the union of man and woman,” said the archbishop. “Nor should a policy disagreement over the meaning of marriage be treated by federal officials as a federal offense—but this will happen if the Justice Department’s latest constitutional theory prevails in court.”

The USCCB analysis the archbishop sent to Obama specifically addresses the arguments the Justice Department made in a brief filed in July in the case of Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. This brief argues that the federal courts should mandate that treating a same-sex couple differently from a married heterosexual couple should be deemed the same as racial discrimination.

“The Justice Department’s argument in Golinski compares DOMA in effect to racially discriminatory laws,” says the USCCB analysis.

“According to the government’s view,” says the analysis, “support for a definition of marriage that recognizes that sexual difference is a defining and valuable feature of marriage now constitutes a forbidden intent to harm a vulnerable class of people. [Hate crime?  Will defense of Catholic teaching on marriage be treated by the Obama Administration as “hate speech”?] The false claim that animus is at work ignores the intrinsic goods of complementarity and fruitfulness found only in the union of man and woman as husband and wife. DoJ’s contention thus transforms a moral disagreement into a constitutional violation, with grave practical consequences.”

The USCCB analysis pointed to three other areas where the administration is seeking to advance same-sex marriage by regulation. These include [1] a White House spokesperson’s statement that Obama wants a federal mandate to ensure “adopotion rights” for same-sex couples; [2] an Agriculture Department “sensitivity training” program on “heterosexism,” and [3] a directive issued then rescinded by the Office of Navy Chaplains that required Navy chapels to allow same-sex wedding ceremonies.

The analysis concluded that if the administration’s policy of treating the defense of marriage as if it were equal to racial discrimination prevailed, the likely result would be legal sanctions and lawsuits against Catholics, Catholic institutions and those who share their moral vision in defense of marriage.  [That, folks, is the bottom line.  Do NOT forget this issue during the election campaign cycle.  Watch and listen for MSM coverage and discussion of this issue.]

“In particular, the Administration’s efforts to change the law—in all three branches of the federal government—so that support for authentic marriage is treated as an instance of ‘sexual orientation discrimination,’ will threaten to spawn a wide range of legal sanctions against individuals and institutions within the Catholic community, and in many others as well,” says the USCCB analysis.

“Based on the experience of religious entities under some state and local governments already, we would expect that, if the Administration succeeds, we would face lawsuits for supposed ‘discrimination’ in all the areas where the Church operates in service to the common good, and where civil rights laws apply—such as employment, housing, education, and adoption services, to name just a few,” says the analysis.

Archbishop Dolan concluded his letter sending this analysis to Obama with a warning from him and fellow Catholic bishops.

The Administration’s failure to change course on this matter will, as the attached analysis indicates, precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions,” the archbishop told the president.

“Thus, on behalf of my brother Bishops,” he said, “I urge yet again that your Administration end its campaign against DOMA, the institution of marriage it protects, and religious freedom.”

WDTPRS kudos to Archbp. Dolan.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Fr. Z KUDOS, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
50 Comments

Minnesota Catholic Conference and Archd. STP/MPLS says “Catholics For Marriage Equality MN” is NOT affiliated with Church

I direct now your attention to the website of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and their Office for Marriage and Family.  The Archdiocese made this apparent on the front page of their website.

As you may recall, His Excellency Most Rev. John Nienstedt and other bishops in Minnesota have been battling to defend true and natural marriage. More on Archbp. Nienstedt HERE.  More on Bp. Sirba of Duluth HERE.  More on Bp. LeVoir of New Ulm (long-time chaplain to Courage) HERE.

Group “Catholics For Marriage Equality MN” Not Affiliated With Official Catholic Church

Date:  Thursday, September 29, 2011

Source:  Archdiocese of Saint Paul & Minneapolis | Minnesota Catholic Conference

Group Disputes, Misinterprets Catholic Teaching on Marriage, Homosexuality and Moral Law

Saint Paul, Minn. (September 29, 2011)—The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the Minnesota Catholic Conference issued a joint statement today explaining that a newly formed group calling itself “Catholics for Marriage Equality MN” has no recognition from nor affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church.

One of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN’s expressed aims is to defeat the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment that will appear on the November 2012 ballot, and which defines marriage as the union of one man and one womanThe group misleadingly tries to convince Catholics that they can, in good conscience, support a state redefinition of marriage without undermining marriage itself.  The Catholic Church, in keeping with Catholic teaching, reason and natural law, and in concert with many other faiths, strongly supports maintaining the current, traditional definition of marriage by voting “yes” for the Amendment during the November 2012 election.

“Anyone can selectively piece together statements taken out of context from Church documents or the writings of theologians to construct a religious worldview that suits his or her personal preferences,” said Jason Adkins, MCC executive director.  “But such a pick-and-choose cafeteria religion is antithetical to Catholicism.  One of the most compelling reasons for being Catholic is that we believe in the Faith given to the Apostles by Jesus Christ himself and handed on and safeguarded by their successors, the bishops.”

Adkins continued:  It is the responsibility of the bishops in communion with the Pope to uphold the Truth as well as encourage and support all Catholics who are trying to live their baptismal promise of believing and trusting in our one, Catholic and apostolic faith.  This is especially true in the area of marriage and sexuality, where the universal moral law and Gospel values are constantly under attack in American law and culture.”

Both MCC and the Archdiocese stress the importance of respecting the God-given dignity of all persons, which means the recognition of authentic human rights and responsibilities, while pointing out that official Catholic teaching goes well beyond what Catholics for Marriage Equality MN’s website states.  Adkins reiterated longstanding Catholic Church teaching that “Homosexual persons are to be fully respected in their human dignity and encouraged to follow God’s plan with particular attention in the exercise of chastity.” And, that the “duty calling for respect does not justify the legitimization of behavior that is not consistent with moral law” for those with same-sex inclinations or heterosexuals, married or unmarried.

The full statement can be found HERE in pdf format.

WDTPRS kudos to the bishops of the Minnesota Catholic Conference.

I hope that all the dioceses in Minnesota will make this story and the release apparent on all their websites and will provide bulletin inserts for parishes and publish it in their papers, and hire someone to stand with a Stratocaster and sing about it on street corners.

Posted in New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
8 Comments

Marine Corps Birthday News

Some of you long time readers here and of my columns in The Wanderer might recall that over the years from time to time I have mentioned a wonderful couple, an active duty Marine Corps officer, M, and his wife, C, who now have several children.  I had the honor of baptizing one of them.

Since I regularly ask for good news from you readers, here is some good news from The Missus, C.

It looks like we will have baby Gianna on November 10th……the Birthday of the Marine Corps!  Would you expect anything less from this Marine Family?  They usually do scheduled c-sections on Wednesdays, but M asked the Doc to push it a day so it will be on the 10th, and it looks like it will happen!   Oh the things I do for my marine!

OOH-RAH!

Posted in Just Too Cool, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged
9 Comments

The lost tomb of St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church. A Roman mystery.

If there have to be reality TV shows or treasure hunt movies, I propose finding the tomb of St. Jerome (+420) in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome.

For a couple years I have posted something about Jerome’s burial place.  Here it is again.

This is an interesting story and I dug into it a little. This is what I found.

We read in J.N.D. Kelly’s work Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Duckworth, 1975, p. 333 – emphasis mine) :

Apocryphal lives extolling [Jerome’s] sanctity, even his miracles, were quick to appear, and in the eighth century he was to be acclaimed, along with Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, as one of the four Doctors of the Church.[2] In the middle ages his works were eagerly copied, read, and pillaged; while towards the end of the thirteenth century the clergy of Santa Maria Maggiore, at Rome, were to persuade the public, perhaps themselves too, that his remains had been transported from Bethlehem to Italy, and could be venerated close to certain presumed fragments of the Saviour’s crib.[3]

Note 2: This was formally ratified by Pope Boniface VIII on 20 Sept. 1295: see Corpus iuris canonici II, 1059 (ed. E. Freidburg, Leipzig, 1879-81). The original number four (the list was later to be greatly expanded) was chosen so that the Doctors could match the Evangelists.

Note 3: The story of their alleged translation, in response to a visionary appearance of Jerome himself, is set out by J. Stilting in Acta Sanctorum XLVI, Sept. VIII, 636 (Antwerp, 1762); it is reprinted in PL 22, 237-40. Stilting also provides a discussion of its date, veracity, etc. on pp. 635-49.

In the Acta Sanctorum for 30 September, under the entry for St. Jerome, we find the following section with its articles:

LXV. Corpus Sancti ex Palestina Romam translatum, depositumque in basilica s. Mariae Majoris. The body of the saint was brought to Rome from Palestine, and put in the Basilica of St. Mary Major.
LXVI. Inquiritur tempus quo Sancti corpus Romam delatum. An investigation is made into the time when the body of the saint was brought back to Rome.
LXVII. Corpus Sancti depositum prope aediculam Praesepis, conditum deinde ibidem altare, sub quo positum, ubi mansit usque ad pontificatum Sixti V, quando dicitur clanculum ablatum & absconditum. The body of the saint was placed near to the small chamber of the Crib, established then right at the same altar, under which it was placed, where it remained until the pontificate of Sixtus V, when it is said to have been secretly taken away and hidden.
LXVIII. Corpus Sancti clanculum ablatum & absconditum dicitur, ne transferretur alio a Sixto V: deinde frequenter frustra quaesitum. The body of the saint is said to have been secretly taken away and hidden lest it were to be transferred to another place by Sixtus V: aftward it is frequently sought in vain.
LXIX. An reliquae, sub altari principe S. Mariae Majoris inventae, videantur illae ipsae, quae ut corpus S. Hieronymi ad illam basilicam fuerunt translatae. When the relics found under the main altar of St. Mary Major which had been transferred to that Basilica seem to be the very same as the body of St. Jerome.
LXX. Admodum verisimile & probabile inventas esse S. Hieronymi. Clearly the [relics] found are most like and probably of Saint Jerome.
LXXI. Respondetur ad objectionem ex reliquiis Nepesinis: reliquiae, quae verisimiliter sunt S. Hieronymi sub mensa principis altaris depositae. An objection is answered about the relics at Nepi: relics placed under the main altar which more than likely are those of St. Jerome.
LXXII. Reliquiae Sancti in pluribus civitatibus Italiae, Galliae, Germaniae, Belgii, & aliis provinciis. The relics of the saint in more cities in Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and other provinces.
LXXIII. Cultus S. Hieronymi: festivitates eius & Officia. The veneration of St. Jerome: his feasts and offices.

Here is the page where these articles begin. If you want to have a fuller experience of the joys (the chore) of reading the Acta Sanctorum for any length of time click here for a larger image.

Posted in Classic Posts, Just Too Cool, Saints: Stories & Symbols, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
4 Comments

Coffee and You. A POLL.

Thanks to all of you who have been ordering Mystic Monk Coffee and Tea from the Carmelites in Wyoming.  You are helping them build their new monastery and put groceries on the table.  You are also helping me put groceries on the table.  Keep that coffee supply refreshed!

When people put in orders using my link I can see what is being ordered.  I have no idea who you are, of course.  I just see that someone, somewhere, ordered up, for example, “Hermits Bold Blend“.

However, lately I have noticed a sharp up-tick in monthly subscriptions (cheaper) orders of flavored coffees.  High on the list would be Pumpkin Spice, Cinnamon Coffee Cake, and Royal Rum Pecan. They all sound rather seasonal and desserty, don’t they?

This make me curious.

I am a very strong black coffee type.  Right now I am working through 5 lbs of Dark Sumatra. I will have a cappuccino once in a while or caffè corretto.  Flavored?  Never.

What about you?

Here is a WDTPRS POLL.  Choose your best answer and give your reasons in the com box.

About "flavored" coffee.

View Results

Posted in Lighter fare, POLLS | Tagged , ,
51 Comments

Anthony Esolen on new, corrected translation. Some of the best comments I have seen.

On ZENIT there is an interesting interview with Anthony Esolen, about whom I have written before.  For example, Prof. Esolen has translated the whole of Dante’s Divine Comedy.  When it comes to translation, this guy’s got game.

My emphases.

The Mass in All Its Glory

Literature Professor Offers Insights Into the Poetry of the New Translation
By Kathleen Naab

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island, SEPT. 29, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Literature professor and translator Anthony Esolen has written what could be called a doorway to the new translation of the Roman Missal.
A commentary by Esolen can be found in the Magnificat Roman Missal Companion, a 200-page booklet that costs less than $4, and that offers a profoundly insightful introduction to the prayers the faithful are about to have on our lips, and hopefully, in our hearts.
As the new translation is set for implementation in less than two months, ZENIT spoke with Esolen about his insights into the new translation and how we can better understand the reasons behind the changes.

ZENIT: To serve as introduction, why did Magnificat pick you to give a commentary on the new translation?

Esolen: That’s a good question. I said to them, “I’m not a professional theologian!” But they wanted instead someone whom they could trust to speak about the beauty and the subtlety of the sacred poetry that the prayers of the Mass are. I’ve spent my adult life, after all, reading and teaching poetry, from the ancient world through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance to modern times. I’ve also worked a great deal as a translator myself, rendering poetry from Latin, Italian, and Anglo Saxon into English poetry. That work includes editions of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, Torquato Tasso’s Gerusalemme Liberata, and the three volumes of Dante’s Divine Comedy. I’m also somewhat conversant in New Testament Greek and in Hebrew. So I suppose those considerations helped to determine the choice.

ZENIT: You suggest that a translator is hired to be humble, [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] regardless of what he’s translating. Explain this and how it applies to the liturgy.

Esolen: The translator, I believe, must adopt as his motto the words of St. John the Baptist, referring to Jesus: “He must increase, and I must decrease.” It wasn’t my job, when I was translating Dante, to intrude my personality into the poem. It was rather my job to bring out Dante’s personality, his concerns, his acerbic wit, his devotion, his passions.
Now if this is true of what Dante called his “sacred poem,” [then] it is all the more true of the liturgy. Here, we must consider the words of the Mass not simply as the work of excellent human poets, but as a gift of God, mediated through the Church, to his people. At all costs, then, the translator must wish to render the words of the Mass with precision and power, respecting the literal and figurative meaning, the poetic and rhetorical form, and the beauty of the original. For instance, it is not the job of the translator to omit words simply because they strike him as too redolent of the Church rather than of the street corner [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] — to translate words such as “sacratissimam” and “sancte” and “venerabiles” as simply nothing. [cf. Roman Canon.] It is a sin against the whole community, thus to impose one’s individual taste.

ZENIT
: People have complained that the sentences in the new translation are unwieldy, with many phrases strung together. You defend this practice. Why?

Esolen: I do not defend unwieldy sentences. This complaint has as its basis one sentence in the first Eucharistic Prayer, which is long and complex in the Latin, and now also in the English. What I defend are well-constructed sentences, as elements of oral poetry. All the old prayers are so constructed. [To translate for people in Fridley, “the old prayers are constructed like that.] When you break up those sentences into three or four separate sentences, [parataxis] the effect is to be disjointed; the essential relations between words and images and Scriptural allusions are lost. These phrases are not “strung together.” Anyone who makes that allegation has a wholly mistaken, and I may say a childish, [OOH-RAH!] understanding of the Latin.

For example, one of the prayers for the Feast of the Holy Family is built upon the image of the “domus,” the house or home. We consider first the home of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, and we pray that we will imitate them in our own homes — in “domesticis virtutibus,” which the translators happily render as “the virtues of family life” [In a happier day we might have said “homely virtues”.] — so that we may enjoy the glories of the house of God. To translate that three-part prayer, which is one tightly constructed sentence, into a three-part prayer in one tight English sentence, is not to “string phrases together,” but to reflect artistic unity by artistic unity.

ZENIT: You also offer three defenses for preferring a literal translation of the Latin. One of those you describe as “unlocking the figurative meaning beneath.” Could you give an example?

Esolen: Every translator of poetry knows that the choice is not between the literal and the figurative, but between a loose or general rendering and one that is both literal and therefore sensitive to the figurative meaning also. It is a constant concern. Take the word occurrentes in the collect for the First Sunday of Advent. The loose paraphrase from 1973 merely grasps for the general idea behind the text, that Jesus will meet an “eager welcome” when he comes again. But the literal, concrete meaning of the word is rich in Scriptural allusion. The root of the word comes from the verb currere, to run. [cf. WDTPRS commentary.] If we keep the notion of running in mind, we recall — as the prayer intends us to recall — the parable of the five wise virgins, their lamps filled with oil, who ran forth to meet the bridegroom as he came. The translators have now rendered the line in such a way as to bring out both the literal and the figurative meaning, and thus also the Scriptural allusion: We pray to the Father for “the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ.” That’s what I call a translation. The other was a paraphrase.

ZENIT: You frequently note the vast difference that comes with a seemingly slight change in wording. For example, in the Creed, we will express faith in God, creator of all that is “visible and invisible,” which you say is quite different than “seen and unseen.” How so?

Esolen: The 1973 text was often deaf to the precise meanings of English words. [Because it was dumbed-down? Or was it intentional?] It wasn’t simply that the paraphrasers misconstrued the Latin. They misconstrued the English also, or they were not paying close attention to the English. The example above is a case in point. The Latin visibilium et invisibilium is not the same as visorum et insivorum. When we say “seen and unseen” in English, we mean those things we happen to see and those things we happen not to see. So, for instance, I have not seen a certain planet in the heavens, nor have I seen the mother of St. Peter, or the stone rolled before the tomb where Jesus was buried. But all those things are visible, provided there be someone at hand to see them. When we declare that the Father is the creator of all things visible and invisible, we are affirming the existence of things that no one can see with the eyes of the body, unless God chooses to make them manifest: angels, for instance; but also such immaterial objects as the moral law. [That is a great point.  I almost always limit myself to consider the angelic realm in invisibilia.]

ZENIT: How would you suggest using this commentary?

Esolen: The Mass must increase, and I must decrease! I’d read the commentary as a way of becoming familiar with the beauties and the subtleties of the text — as if walking through a doorway — and then I would put the commentary aside and meditate upon the prayers of the Mass themselves in all their glory.

WDTPRPS kudos both to ZENIT and to Dr. Esolen for this interview.

It sounds as if that commentary could be worth looking at.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Fr. Z KUDOS, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , ,
17 Comments

Bp. Thomas Doran (D. Rockford) on kneeling for Holy Communion… heh heh…

In this last week’s edition of The Wanderer, we read a reprint of a column by Most Rev. Thomas Doran, Bishop of Rockford.  I believe it was originally on the site of the diocese on 2 September 2011.

My emphases and comments.

Reverence and Respect of The Blessed Sacrament

From time to time people make inquiries of the Bishop’s office that demand more than a private answer. One of the things that disturbs practicing Catholics more and more is the seeming lack of reverence and respect for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in our liturgy and in our devotions.

As I go about in the various parishes and observe people, a surprising number of people do not genuflect toward the Tabernacle on entering or leaving church and many more do not know how to do it (it is the right knee, not the left that touches the ground when genuflecting). Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament has almost completely disappeared because neither clergy nor laity know how to perform it, and the beautiful hymns that we used to sing on that occasion, all of them replete with deep meaning about the Holy Eucharist, are largely forgotten.

One lady recently wrote me that she had just been informed by a deacon that to receive the Holy Eucharist while kneeling was in disobedience to the Bishops’ Conference and to me as bishop directly. I am grateful for this reminder that this is a subject that we all should take to heart.  [In other words, this dopey statement by that deacon was the last straw?]

First of all, bear in mind that many people have difficulty genuflecting and would have difficulty kneeling for Holy Communion. Obviously, if doing so imperils health or wellbeing, one is not obliged to do it. Reverence for the Blessed Sacrament starts in the heart. Whether it is reflected in our posture depends on many things. [In other words, we use common sense.  If you can’t genuflect, don’t genuflect.]

One thing that matters much to me is the practice of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, when he gives Holy Communion. His practice is to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue of recipients who kneel as they receive communion. That should say something to all of us. [NB] I would make this personal observation that I usually do not distribute Holy Communion when I say Mass in the parishes because every parish has its own peculiar way of ordering Holy Communion and I am confused by such a variety of practices, [“Peculiar!”  ROFL!  We see Bp. Doran’s excellent sense of humor.  For those of you not in Rio Linda, but in, perhaps, Eden Prairie, “peculiar” can mean both “strange” and also “belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing”.] and so since discretion is the better part of valor, I do not get involved in it.  [Imagine your Bishop coming to your parish and then he doesn’t distribute because of the strange things you do there… and then hearing about it later.]

Then there is the fact that many of us identify unity with uniformity. The two are distinct. We are bound to unity in faith, not necessarily to uniformity and how we receive Holy Communion. Now, the Third General Instruction of the Roman Missal now in force, at n. 160, permits receiving Holy Communion kneeling or standing, on the tongue or in the hand. [And let us not forget Redemptionis Sacramentum.] That same instruction allows the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to establish norms for this practice. This was done by Archbishop Wilton Gregory when he was President of the Conference in 2002. The bishops decided that standing was the normative posture. [I recall some discussion about that norm being more descriptive than prescriptive.]

It is, therefore, permitted to Catholics to receive Holy Communion standing, receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue or in the hand, depending on their choice, and this is the usual way in which Holy Communion is to be distributed in our churches. [NB: That was a description rather than a prescription.] Cardinal George asked about this in 2003 and the Holy See responded that posture at Holy Communion is not to be so rigidly regulated as to interfere with the freedom of people receiving Holy Communion. If you have to read this two or three times to understand what is being said, that is alright. The whole matter is somewhat confusing. [Read it again and again not only to understanding it, but to remember it.  Repetita iuvant.]

I am old enough to remember when, in a flurry of “me-too-ism,” communion rails were ripped out of our churches, something that was never advised, commanded or imposed. Most churches had suitable communion rails with padded cushions upon which communicants could kneel. And it seems to me looking back on the early days of my priesthood, that communion was distributed more reverently and was received more reverently when people knelt for Holy Communion. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] A few found it difficult and even then those who had difficulty kneeling could stand. Few did, but it was allowed. It would seem that if anyone who wanted to go back to this method of receiving Holy Communion, they would find that communion would be received more reverently, in a more orderly fashion and in less time than it now takes. [Do I hear another “Amen!”?] But time is not the most important thing and order is not a virtue, but rather a convenience. [ROFL!  And with this Bp. Doran also reminds us that most of the time we don’t need EMHCs either.  Is that what he was referring to with the “peculiar” way in which Communion is distributed in some parishes?]

[And now…] One thing that should be clear is that at present, to receive Holy Communion kneeling is not a sign of disrespect to all the bishops or to anyone. I would add, however, that practicing Catholics generally like to follow the reasonable requests of their pastors so that Holy Communion may be distributed reverently and in a dignified fashion. It is also true that among those in Holy Orders, bishops and priests are our teachers. [And… and…. are you waiting for the other shoe to drop here?  And…]

WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Doran.

“But Father!  But Father!”, some of you are saying even as you pound with your witto fists on the table.  “Don’t keep us in suspense!  What ‘other shoe’?  Telllll us!”

Bp. Doran said: “It is also true that among those in Holy Orders, bishops and priests are our teachers.”

And the Holy Father is their teacher as well as our teacher.  And the Holy Father distributes to people who kneel.  He is teaching by example, just as Bp. Doran is teaching by clarity, innuendo, and humor.

Are you left at the end of the article doubting what he prefers concerning the Blessed Sacrament?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
23 Comments