Kathryn Jean Lopez on MTV’s pro-teen abortion reality show

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a new article on the disturbing special run on MTV
(aka evil media sewer) earlier this week, in which a young woman from the reality TV show 16 and Pregnant decides to have an abortion, and MTV’s failed attempt to normalize
the procedure and downplay the consequences.

You can read Kathryn Jean Lopez’s full article, “Not That Innocent”, here.  It is in it’s entirety a bit long, but here is some of it, edited and with my emphases and comments.

Not That Innocent
by Kathryn Jean Lopez

“Woe to you if you do not succeed in defending life.”

That was the urgency with which the late John Paul II spoke of the stakes before us in combating a Culture of Death, during his 1993 World Youth Day visit to the United States.

I think I heard John Paul II wail on Tuesday night, the feast of the Holy Innocents, commemorating King Herod’s massacre.

Before the day was through, MTV aired the reality-TV show No Easy Decision, on which Markai Durham, a recent graduate of MTV’s 16 and Pregnant, had an abortion. I assume the scheduling wasn’t intentional, but it was a remarkable coincidence.

The show was dedicated to relaying the impression that the girl is all right, when she clearly isn’t.

Having missed an appointment for an injection of the birth-control shot Depo Provera, Markai found herself pregnant for a second time.

“You will never feel my pain,” she told the father of her two children, one eight months old on the show, one eliminated on it.

Her cry came after she yelled at James for being “harsh” in calling her aborted baby a “thing.” This all came just moments after, while relaying what happened inside the abortion clinic, she insisted: “Don’t call that thing a baby. That’s exactly what it is: a thing.” But she really couldn’t lie to herself. So she went on to naturally look across at her living daughter Zakaria and tell James, “A thing can turn out like that. … Nothing but a bunch of cells can be her.”

When she aborted six weeks into her pregnancy, we knew she considered her child as more than “a thing” or “a bunch of cells” – even before her post-abortion pangs of sadness and second thoughts. In the early moments of the MTV special, she announced, “I’m in love with this baby already.” [I am beginning to wonder about what sort of pressure was put on the poor girl.]

But she feared that she and James – not married even though each claims to be devoted to the other –would never have the money to pull off raising a second child without further sacrifices. She announced that she couldn’t handle the emotion of going through the pregnancy only to give up the child in an adoption. She told the MTV cameras: “Having two kids in my teenager years. It’s not the right time.”

“We can’t give Zakaria everything.” Had she not aborted, she said, “We would have to sacrifice more stuff, I mean we would have to sacrifice her life.” [“stuff”…. “life”…]

Well, of course, someone’s life was.

Markai went on: “I wouldn’t choose abortion, I mean, as a first option for anybody. It’s the toughest decision ever to make in your life. But this was the best choice for me.”  [We’ll see.]

And she ended with a hope for healing a wound that MTV was insisting wasn’t there: “With the love of my life and my daughter, I know I’ll make it through.”

Some of the post-show commentary worried that Markai would be vilified for what, by the end of the show, was presented as a “responsible … parenting decision” by Dr. Drew Pinsky’s panel of teen-abortion alums. [There’s perspective for ya!]

But please aim your vilification at the abortion industry and its abettors on MTV’s delusional TV show.

The first thing we saw Markai doing when she told us she’s pregnant a second time is get on the Internet and get the number for an abortion clinic. She called and began with a basic, clinical question about what kinds of abortions they provide. But then she got to what she really wanted to know: How would she feel afterwards? The woman on the other end, hearing the fear in her voice, walked her closer to feeling that she has no choice but abortion: “If you’re really stressed out about it, you know, it might be a relief to have it over with. “

Once she got to the abortion clinic, only clinic staff could be in the room with her. Afterwards Markai recounted their advice: “Don’t think of it as ten fingers and ten toes with a forehead and all that stuff. Because if you think of it like that, you’re going to make yourself depressed. …Think of it as what it is: a little ball of cells.” Markai would later try talking herself into it: “Which is exactly what it is.”

Completely ignoring the pain so many women – and men – have relayed in the wake of 38 years of legal abortion, MTV’s sex-ed guru and house psychiatrist, Drew Pinsky, announced: “Most women two years after they’ve had the procedure, believe they’ve made the right decision.”

[…]

But No Easy Decision was an indictment of more than MTV. When was the last time any of us did anything to promote adoption? When was the last time any of us gave a thought to children stuck in the foster-care system? When was the last time we opened our hearts and homes? When was the last time we helped make life a little bit easier for someone who has?

[…]

The Holy Innocents Gospel from Saint Matthew reads:

A voice was heard in Ramah,
sobbing and loud lamentation;
Rachel weeping for her children,
and she would not be consoled,
since they were no more.

And so, too, does Markai Durham. We should hear her cries, not help her mask them.

But it’s not just teen mothers wailing. I think I hear the Communion of Saints doing the same for us. We’re the laborers called to live and proclaim the Gospel of Life, to make it a real choice in the life of a girl like Markai. Woe to us if we don’t succeed in answering that call in each of our lives.

Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a nationally syndicated columnist. She speaks frequently on faith and public life.

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

QUAERITUR: Can I continue to be an Extraordinary Minister of Communion?

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader asked a question about the post I made about the document Ecclesia de mysterio, which among other things requires that we avoid using Extraordinary Ministers of Communion to often or in too many numbers when circumstances don’t really require them.

If an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is fully aware of a
document such as Ecclesia de mysterio and the uses and limitations of
their ministry, can they in all good conscience continue in that role
if he or she continues to be asked to serve on a regular basis at
inappropriate occasions? Could it be construed as sinful to continue
in that role if they know what they are doing is wrong in the light of
such documents?

I don’t know it it is sinful or not.  I think that depends on the circumstances.  It could be that if a person is in the role at a parish where the pastor is determined to have them no matter what, it would be better to stay in the role and ensure that what is done is as reverent as possible rather than turn it over to people who would not to a good job of it.

What this suggests to me is that priests and bishops who allow this to go on abusively are perhaps placing good lay people in occasions of sin during the most sacred things we have as Catholics, Holy Mass.

An accounting for this practices will have to be made one day.  If priests defy their bishops in this matter, and the bishop does nothing, nevertheless, the priest will one day stand before the judge.  So will the bishop.  If the officials of the Holy See ignore their part in this, they will be held to account as well.

I have no idea what that accounting will result in.  Perhaps they are doing the right thing.  Perhaps they aren’t.  The Just Judge, King of Fearful Majesty, will know how to sort this out.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box |
10 Comments

QUAERITUR: Ember Days with the Novus Ordo

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I was wondering if you could help me out. Are Ember days optional in the Pauline Mass? I ask because a friend of mine says hat they have been done away with in the Pauline Mass because they’re not in the Missal (we are Portuguese), but I was under the impression that they became optional.
What brought this up was an idea I had to help rehabilitate the Ember
days. Since they were once related to days of ordination, I thought of
suggesting to priests I know reviving their observation, only this time with the goal of praying for more vocations. Instead of just having that one week during the year when we are called at Mass to pray especially for vocations, we could have 4 periods during the year when we could do this again, only this time with fasting, prayer, and practice of charity.

Well… indeed.  Ember Days during the four periods of the year (“Lenty, Penty, Crucy, Lucy”) were traditionally the days when ordinations would take place.

I don’t have an 2010 or 2011 post-Conciliar/Ordinary Form Ordo with me right now.  In past editions were were some indications about how the Ember Days, that venerable tradition, could still be in some way observed.  That meant, of course, that they rare are, unless you are attending Holy Mass with the traditional Roman calendar.

Still, from what I dug up from a previous post about this issue, Ember Days are discussed in the General Norms for the Liturgical Year (GIRM) tuck into one of the very last paragraphs, 394, we find:

394. Each diocese should have its own Calendar and Proper of Masses. For its part, the of Bishops’ Conference should draw up a proper calendar for the nation or, together with other Conferences, a calendar for a wider territory, to be approved by the Apostolic See.153

In carrying this out, to the greatest extent possible the Lord’s Day is to be preserved and safeguarded, as the primordial holy day, and hence other celebrations, unless they be truly of the greatest importance, should not have precedence over it. Care should likewise be taken that the liturgical year as revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council not be obscured by secondary elements.

In the drawing up of the calendar of a nation, the Rogation and Ember Days should be indicated (cf. above, no. 373), as well as the forms and texts for their celebration,155 and other special measures should also be taken into consideration.

The U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy did this in the 2007 edition of Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers (Rogation Days, pp. 142 ff.; Ember Days, pp. 164 ff.).

That doesn’t impress me very much, I’m afraid.

This is one of those instances in which the newer, post-Conciliar calendar reveals the myopia of the “experts” who cobbled together the liturgical reform.

By moving saints’ feast days around, they caused disruption with celebrations of name days, patronal feasts, etc.  By changing the liturgical seasons – especially by eliminating the pre-Lenten Sundays – they diminished preparation for Lent.  By eliminating Rogation Days and Ember Days, they removed crucial moments of petition from our schedule.  In sum, they didn’t consider that people’s lives were tied or could be tied to the rhythm of the Church’s year of grace.

If there were ever a way in which the older, Extraordinary Form could provide “enrichment” for the newer, Ordinary Form, this would be one way: reconsideration of the structure of the newer and the older calendar and how they fit together or don’t fit together.  I advocate the addition of new feasts in the older calendar and the reintegration of elements of the older calendar into the newer.

Don’t make some of these things mere suggestions.  Put them back into the calendar.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
6 Comments

You say “wherever” and I say “everywhere”…

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Documents from the Holy See were, once upon a time, composed in Latin.  They tended to be clear and concise.  Then things changed, with unfortunate results.  Document over the last couple decades have sometimes been murky and often been far too long.  I can’t see that changing very soon.

Here is a note found in The Bitter Pill about the use of Latin for Pontifical documents.  Perhaps this is illustrative of what is going on in the marble halls these days.

Latinist strikes out

It may still be the Church’s official language but it appears that there are some in the Vatican who don’t know Latin as well as they should. Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio establishing the new Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation had the title Ubicumque et Semper which translates as “wherever and always”. However, Fr Reginald (Reggie) Foster, the Pope’s former Latinist for 40 years, has said it should Ubique et Semper, “everywhere and always”. “When do you ever begin a sentence with ‘wherever’? That is a relative particle,” Fr Reggie said, adding jokingly: “I was ready to hit the translators with a baseball bat.” However, it is understood that some Latinists had raised it as a problem but were overruled by their superiors.

Respondeo dicendum…

Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!

Hilaire Beloc

Posted in Lighter fare, New Evangelization | Tagged ,
13 Comments

New Vatican laws for Vatican finances

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Did you notice that Benedict XVI created a new “internal affairs” unit prevent problems with the Holy See’s finances, both internal and external?

There is a story on CNS which covers this better than I can.

I did note, however, that the new law is to take effect on April 1, 2011.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged , ,
3 Comments

Interview with Jeffrey Tucker about liturgical music

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Church’s sacred music played an important role in my conversion, when I was a young man.  There is a great deal of work to do.

But perhaps just as in the spring rivers will thaw and log jams start to break up, we are getting to a point where young people are going to take the reins from the chronologically advanced who are frozen in their outdated and mainly false ideas of what the Second Vatican Council wanted for music in our worship.

Our friend Jeffrey Tucker managing editor of the quarterly journal Sacred Music and the blog Chant Cafe, was interviewed in the National Catholic Register.

The piece is quite long, but here a couple passages that caught my eye.

Singing the Mass

The editor of Sacred Music talks about current trends in liturgical music, his conversion to the faith through Gregorian chant, and what to expect from the new Missal.

BY TRENT BEATTIE

Q: What are the most common misconceptions about sacred music in the mind of the average Catholic?

TUCKER: I’m not entirely sure that the average Catholic is as confused as the nice people who attempt to provide music in our parishes from week to week. If you ask the average Catholic what kind of music is integral to our liturgy and ritual, most will mention Gregorian chant. They are right. The music of the Church was taking shape around the same time as the books of the Bible were being chosen; the faith and its music grew up and took shape together. Just as Scripture continues to speak to us today, the music of the faith speaks to us as well.

I find it striking that most non-Catholics imagine that our services are dominated by the kind of chant heard in movies and television. But the truth is that we do not hear it in our parishes. Why not? The musicians have not had their responsibilities explained to them. They do not know that the Church has assigned a specific and brilliant piece of music for every part of the Mass throughout the liturgical year. Not one in one hundred Catholic musicians know this. They’ve never heard of the Graduale Romanum, which is the music book of the Roman Rite. They’ve never been told that there are ideals that extend beyond a weekly game of English-hymn roulette.

People who do know about chant are often afraid of it because the notation is different and the language is different. The rhythm is different too. So it is with the rest of Catholicism. What we do is different from what the rest of the world does. We understand the need to train in doctrine and morals, but somehow we think that such training should not be necessary for liturgical music.

We have to realize that our music is of a special type, so it makes special demands on the musician. We should not permit any music to be used in Mass without some consciousness of what it is supposed to be about, any more than we should tolerate homilies that teach ideas contrary to the faith.

[…]

Q: What do you say to people who think that ”contemporary” or rock music is necessary to attract young people to Mass?

TUCKER: So far as I can tell, the only people who really argue this way are old people. It’s true that plenty of young people are not interested in true liturgical music, but those same people are not interested in Catholicism either. How do we draw people to the faith? By lying about it and substituting false teaching? I don’t think so. The faith draws people when it is not ashamed of itself and when it has the ring of truth.

It is the same with liturgical music. Church music uses free rhythm that always points upwards in the same way that incense is always rising. This assists our prayer. Secular styles of music, in contrast, use rhythms that elicit temporal thoughts and emotions. Rock music points to nothing outside of itself, so it does not belong anywhere near the liturgy.

We are living in times of transition, and young people seem to know this even more than older people. I don’t think there is any doubt where that transition is headed: People are discovering the sacred music tradition. If you look around at the Catholic music world, you quickly find that this is where the interest and energy is. This is the future.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
37 Comments

Tulsa – 24-26 Jan: workshop for priests on the Ministry of Exorcism

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This is a note explicitly for priests.

Again, we are given an example of how Bp. Slattery of Tulsa is standing up and doing his work.  Every diocese should have an appointed exorcist.  I believe this is not always the case, however.  Some priests and even bishops brush off the influence of demonic powers and the Church’s perennial ministry in their regard… founded on the example of the Lord, Apostles and many great saints through history.

So, for priests:

The Te Deum Institute of Sacred Liturgy of the Diocese of Tulsa will host a workshop for priests on the Ministry of Exorcism. This workshop will take place on January 24, 25, and 26, 2011 at the Catholic Charities Campus, 2450 North Harvard, Tulsa. Presenters will include Fr. Clement Machado, S.O.L.T., Mr. Adam Blai and Mr. Don Rimer, all experts in the Church’s practice of exorcism or in the study of the occult.

The Catholic Church has sanctioned exorcisms since the first century, and provides priests with special prayers and rituals, many of which date back to the sixth and seventh century. In recent times, though, the practice of solemn exorcisms has been extremely rare; in fact few priests today have ever seen or participated in one. This conference will be part of an on-going effort of the Church in the United States to train and prepare priests for this spiritual combat.

“While full demonic possession is rare,” insisted Bishop Edward Slattery, Bishop of Tulsa, “instances of demonic influence and oppression has been increasing in current years.” Priests who attend this workshop will learn to recognize what opens the doors to demonic activity, how to discern true possession and will become familiar with the Church’s Rite of Exorcism, Bishop Slattery explained.

This workshop is open to any priest or diocesan official interested in learning more about this ministry. Attendance at this conference, however, is only with the permission of the attendee’s Bishop. Cost for this conference is $175.00. For more information or to register, please contact the Te Deum Institute at info@tedeuminstitute.org

Local Media Outlets
Mr. Joey Spencer, Program Director
Te Deum Institute of Sacred Liturgy of the Diocese of Tulsa; 1-918-307-4956
December 7, 2010

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged , ,
8 Comments

A natural law argument

Posted on 30 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I bring to your attention an exchange between Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George, on the one hand, and Barry Deutsch on the other, and then the response of Girgis, Anderson and George.

Click HERE.

At issue is natural law for the basis of civil law, namely, marriage is between one male and one female.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged , , ,
5 Comments

Fr. John Harvey of Courage, R.I.P. – UPDATED ARRANGMENTS

Posted on 29 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I ask your prayers for the repose of the soul of Fr. John Harvey, OSFS, who died yesterday.

Fr. Harvey was the founder and director of Courage, a ministry to homosexuals to help them live chaste lives.

Fr. Harvey’s funeral arrangements are HERE.

Wake
Friday, December 31, 2010
9:30 AM – 11:00 AM
St. Anthony of Padua Church
1715 West 9th Street
Wilmington, DE 19805-5303
Mass of Christian Burial
Friday, December 31, 2010
11:15 AM
St. Anthony of Padua Church
1715 West 9th Street
Wilmington, DE 19805-5303
Interment
Immediately following Mass
Oblate Cemetery
1120 Blue Ball Road
Elkton, MD 21921
Luncheon to follow
Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged
22 Comments

QUAERITUR: Can we be godparents to the child of followers of the SSPX?

Posted on 29 December 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

My husband and I have been asked to be Godparents to the son of friends of ours who are  members of a Pius X church. It is my understanding that the Society has not yet reached full communion with Rome. Does this prohibit us from accepting the role of Godparents?

This is a tough one.

On the one hand, you would be committing, at their invitation, to be involved with the religious formation of a child (especially should they die) raised at a chapel without manifest union with the Church’s legitimate pastors.  Do you want to participate in reinforcing any erroneous positions they might have?

On the other hand, Rome is clearly showing more favor toward the SSPX in recent times.  If Rome can be open and cooperative in big matters, perhaps in smaller matters we can have some flexibility.

On another hand, think about where the baptism would be registered.  Sure that is a book keeping issue, but it doesn’t mean nothing.

Yet another hand considered, I understand that there are some instances in which SSPX priests have had recourse to legitimate authority for faculties for certain things.  Again, if that is true, then perhaps some flexibility is possible in this matter.

From a wholly other hand, the lay followers of the SSPX haven’t (because they follow the SSPX) incurred any canonical penalties.  They might have incurred penalties for other reasons, but I doubt it.  And the issue of canonical penalties really would pertain to the sponsors/godparents, not the parents.

A different hand considered, it may be that this SSPX family isn’t “hardcore” and merely wants sound liturgy and doctrine without having a nutty about how Rome and the Pope have to convert, etc.

Various hands suggest I also wonder about the validity of the marriage of the couple who follow the SSPX.  Priests of the SSPX don’t have faculties to witness marriages, and so it can be argued that the marriages are not valid because of lack of proper form.  The 1983 CIC says in Can. 1108  §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.  We don’t want to argue that the SSPXers aren’t Catholic and, therefore, they aren’t bound by Catholic form of marriage.   Unless we want to say they aren’t Catholic (we don’t) form pertains to them as well.  The couple – who probably wouldn’t be at fault here – might be well-advised, if they were married by an SSPX priest, to seek a sanatio in radice (retroactive convalidation) from the local diocese. [Lest anyone zealous to defend the SSPX at any cost think that this is an invitation to argue that SSPX marriages are valid, think again.  That is the stuff of a separate entry.]

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you will object. “You are being too picky!  After all, in some Novus Ordo parishes they do things so strange that the baptism might actually be invalid.  But you are picking on the SSPX.  Whose baptism is more likely to be following the books?”

I bet if we look at any of the materials the SSPX publishes, they will say that the role of the godparent is important and it incurs responsibilities.  It is a serious thing to accept.  Therefore, I think it is appropriate to be picky about this question.

In this case, and having consulted a canonist, I have to say….

….

… I can’t think of a canonical reason why you can’t be.

I can think of some prudential reasons why it would not be a good idea.

To have a definitive answer, write to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

I hope we get this unity thing worked out soon.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged , ,
42 Comments