Card. Wuerl sticks up for Fr. Shaffer, George Washington University Chaplain

On the sidebar of this blog there is a feed of the Cardinal Newman Society.  I picked this up from their feed.  Go look at the sidebar!

Cardinal Wuerl Supports George Washington University Chaplain
April 18, 2013, at 10:06 AM | By Tim Drake |

Catholic News Agency reports that during a recent homily with George Washington University students, Archdiocese of Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl expressed his support for Father Greg Shaffer, the chaplain who has faced hostility for upholding the Church’s teachings on sexuality.

“I want to offer a word of support and encouragement to your chaplain, Father Greg Shaffer…and to stand in solidarity with a good priest,” Cardinal Wuerl said on April 14.

Two homosexual students at the University have launched a campaign to oust the priest because he counseled that those with same-sex attraction should remain celibate.

“We propose the ways of the kingdom of God in terms that the world can understand and examine, in terms they may freely accept or reject,” said Cardinal Wuerl. “Even when they said to him you need to be current, you need to be contemporary, you need to be politically correct, you need to be with the times, Jesus did not say, ‘Oh, then, I will change my teaching.’”

“Thank you for standing up for the freedom to speak our faith and thank you for standing up for your chaplain,” Cardinal Wuerl concluded. “God bless him and all of you.”

Catholic Education Daily is an online publication of The Cardinal Newman Society. Click here for email updates and free online membership with The Cardinal Newman Society.

Fr Z kudos to Fr. Shaffer and Card. Wuerl.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , ,
18 Comments

MSM attacks Archbishop Vigneron with the help of liberal Catholic collaborators

Some days ago Archbp. Alan Vigneron of Detroit stirred the anthill (which is what bishops are supposed to do when it comes to faith and morals). He reaffirmed that Catholics who actively, publicly promote unnatural, same-sex “marriage” are acting in contradiction to the Catholic Faith they otherwise claim to support. Therefore, being in interior conflict with the Faith and being in open, public conflict with the Faith, they should not receive Holy Communion. Archbp. Vigneron did not say that, from that time onward, Communion would be denied to public supporters of immoral things. He likened their choice to receive as perjury.

It seems to me that Vigneron simply asked them to be honest with themselves and the Church they profess they belong to.  He asked them to act like adults rather than self-centered children.  (My words, not his.) For more see HERE and HERE

Over at Catholic Vote Stephen Kokx looks at how the mainstream media has weighed in, with the collaboration of liberal Catholcis.  The MSM, using liberal Catholics in support, tries to turn people against the Church and portray Archbp. Vigneron and all who agree with him as a knuckle-dragging “gay”bashers.  They drag the issue away from the spiritual and doctrinal into the ditch of the political.

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

DETROIT ARCHBISHOP TRIES TO SAVE SOULS; MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOT HAPPY.

Since when do outlets like Slate, Huffington Post, CNN, Esquire, and USA Today care about who receives Holy Communion? They rarely, if ever, concern themselves with the inner-workings of Jewish or Muslim worship services. [Because hating Catholics is the last acceptable prejudice.] Well, since Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron said Catholics who support redefining marriage should not receive Holy Communion, a number of secular news outlets have seen to it to let their readers know just how unpopular some Catholics think his decision is.

Here’s what Archbishop Vigneron said that’s got everybody up in arms:

For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.’ In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one’s integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.

Some Catholics respond to a situation like this by arguing Holy Communion should not be used as a political weapon. If a politician who promotes principles antithetical to Church teaching presents themselves for Communion, they should not be denied, because ultimately it is God who will decide if that politicians’ actions are right or wrong. Not the priest.

This argument is wrong on a number of fronts. Archbishop Vigneron oversees the Archdiocese of Detroit, home to 1.3 million Catholics. That’s 1.3 million souls he is responsible for getting into heaven. It’s a responsibility I would not want to have at this point in my life. As the Book of James reminds us, “not many of you should become teachers… for you will be judged more strictly.” [I am glad he brought in this point about cura animarum… the care of souls.]

As such, Archbishop Vigneron is responsible for doing everything he can to make sure those 1.3 million Catholics are not in danger of losing their souls to eternal damnation. He will be judged more strictly for his actions than the rest of us. Therefore, he is responsible for making sure, among other things, that the deposit of faith is upheld. He is also responsible for making sure those 1.3 million Catholics are able to go to confession on a regular basis, that they are able to attend Mass as frequently as possible, and that they are in a state of grace while attending Mass so they can worthily receive Holy Communion, lest they further compound their sins and offend God even more.

Outlets like Esquire and the Huffington Post are trying to turn this into a political issue by arguing Catholics can support redefining marriage if their conscience tells them, and that this is nothing more than a conservative Archbishop trying to punish liberal Catholics. [When liberals play the “political” card when they advocate dissent, they are helping the Church’s enemies.  Some, like Sr. Simone Campbell, do so pretty openly, as she did HERE.]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[… The analysis continues with Ed Peters, the canonist… ]

Be that as it may, the Detroit Free Press made Peters seem like he was but one of a handful of supporters of Archbishop Vigneron’s statement. The Free Press quotes Fr. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University as saying “Most American bishops do not favor denying either politicians or voters Communion [Notice how he conflates “politicians” (who are public figures) with “voters” (who usually are not).] because of their positions on controversial issues.” Fr. Reese added that only about “30 or so bishops have said that pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage Catholics should not present themselves for Communion.” [A good example of governing the Church by polling and what the majority think.  Never mind right or wrong.]

Again, by citing Fr. Reese, the Free Press is attempting to undermine Archbishop Vigneron and Peters’ arguments. But as Peters points out on his blog, Fr. Reese’s statement is misleading: “Reese is commenting on how bishops act whereas I am commenting on how canon law expects bishops and others to act. Reese’s claim about bishops’ (in)action, even if true, would not make my views (actually, the 1983 Code’s views, resting on settled Church teaching) wrong, it would simply mark them as ignored.” [Exactly.]

Interestingly enough, CNN also makes it seem like Peters – who[m] Esquire calls a “nuisance” and claims is merely relying on his own opinions and not Canon Law – is on the wrong side of history. At the end of the CNN article, readers are conveniently reminded that “a majority of Catholics, according to polling, disagree with [Peters’] view of Communion.” To which I would respond, thank God we don’t decide what is right and wrong in the Catholic Church based on polling data. [“politics” and “polling”]

In an effort to make Peters and Archbishop Vigneron appear even more off base, Slate interviewed the reliably left-leaning Michael Sean Winters. “The principal threat to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage is not gay marriage,” Winters argued. “The principal threat [to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage] is divorce.

[…]

During a wartime, hostile occupation, there will always be collaborators.

Go there and see the rest.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
28 Comments

More of that prayer thing, please

Still sick… worse.

Blech²

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
34 Comments

17 April 1970 – Odyssey returns to Earth

On this day 43 years ago, the Command Module Odyssey splashed down.

Apollo XIII

17 April 1970 - Odyssey returns to Earth

I remember – as if it were yesterday – being glued to the TV watching the coverage of this glorious disaster.  It was inspiring.

But we don’t have a manned space flight program anymore… do we….

UPDATE:

I can’t help but post a couple videos…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAmsi05P9Uw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhoXFVQsIxw&feature=player_embedded

Play video

 

Posted in Just Too Cool, Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged , , , ,
30 Comments

Stellarum Bella

I would love to see a whole tapestry of the story:

Stellarum Bella

Posted in Lighter fare |
36 Comments

Your Good News

Do you have good news to share?   It has been while.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
72 Comments

QUAERITUR: Is sherry valid matter for the consecration during Mass?

From a reader:

There had been several discussions recently about the topic of valid matter for the Eucharist, mostly related to low-gluten hosts and hosts using matter other than wheat. This made me remember something that happened at my parish while I was a kid. I grew up in the Rochester diocese, which, suffice it to say, is not known for widespread fidelity to the Church’s disciplines. One Sunday, the pastor asked each family of the parish to contribute a bottle of wine to be used for Communion for the subsequent Sundays. On one such Sunday, the wine used to consecrate the Precious Blood was sherry.

Since sherry is a fortified wine (containing both grapes and other spirits), would this have made the Sacrament invalid? Would the same rules that pertain to the host also apply to the wine used for consecration? Either way, it seemed to have been a well-intentioned but sketchy gesture on the part of the priest.

I have tackled this before, but it is worth repeating.

It is of divine institution that the only valid substances for transubstantiation are, for the Host, bread made from wheat and, for the Precious Blood, wine made from grapes or raisins (dessicated grapes).  The grapes used must be ripe, which rules out “wine” such as verjus. The wine for Mass can be red, white, dry, sweet, whatever.  Some prefer red because it resembles blood.  Some prefer white because it is easier to clean the linens afterward.

Sometimes questions come up about the use of wine which has very low alcohol content, called mustum, a wine which had the fermentation process halted by rapid freezing.  That is a valid substance because it is from grapes and the natural fermentation process began, making it wine.  It has an artificially low alcohol content, but mustum is consider valid wine.

However, there is the other end of spectrum to consider: wine which has an artificially high alcohol content.  Sometimes alcohol distilled from wine is added to wine in order to preserve it against spoiling or changing to vinegar.  This addition of wine alcohol produces “fortified wine”.  The usual types of “fortified wine” we encounter are port, sherry, madeira, marsala, and vermouth.

Unreconstructed Ossified ManualistFortified wines are valid matter so long as the wine-spirit added was distilled from grapes, that the quantity of alcohol added, together natural content from the fermentation, does not exceed 18% and that the additional alcohol is added during the process of fermentation.  You can read a good, brief article on altar wine in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Also, because we Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists, we check our old theology manuals, such as Unreconstructed Ossified ManualistTanqueray’s Theologia Dogmatica.

We find in Tanqueray that wine for Mass has to be from ripe grapes, it can be of any color, not corrupted, and not frozen at the time of consecration.  Citing the Missale Romanum we are warned against wine that is turning bad.  As a matter of fact, it was (probably is still) illicit to say Mass with doubtful, soured wine.  And if the priest is not doubtful about it, and it is truly bad he sins gravely by consecrating it.  “Si fuerit aliquantulum acre… conficiens graviter peccat“, says   He would – knowingly – be attempting to consecrate something that is not wine and is therefore invalid matter.  That is not just bad, that is very bad.

By the way, the coffee mug which appears here is great for Mystic Monk Coffee!  It’s swell!

I would rule out vermouth, because herbs and so forth are added.

I would not use sherry because, if I am not mistaken, the addition of the spirits takes place after fermentation.

Marsala seems to be okay, so long as it is 18% or less.

Vin Santo, from dessicated grapes, is fine.  As the name implies, it is wine for the altar!

Port is valid, 18% or under.

All this information provides ample motive to stick with altar wines made by ecclesiastically approved vintners (unless you can’t for some reason).  If you have a doubt, Fathers, don’t use it.  Don’t screw around with validity of sacraments.

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

Prayers please

Sick today.

Blech.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
44 Comments

QUAERITUR: Everyone going forward at a “healing Mass” for Anointing of the Sick

QUAERITUR: Everyone going forward at a "healing Mass" for Anointing of the SickFrom a reader:

I am a graduate student at ___, and over the past few weeks have received two emails (one related to the tragedy this past weekend) for “Healing Masses” in which (quoting the one) “priests…will be available to administer the Sacrament of the Sick–a special anointing to those who wish to receive it.”

Maybe I’m wrong but shouldn’t a person actually /be sick/ in order to receive the sacrament? The idea of a come one, come all approach to a sacrament like that seems…wrong. Are there any rules on who can or should receive the anointing?

The law is pretty clear.

Can.  1004 §1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age.

In danger?  Danger of what?  Danger of… feeling bad?   I think not.  You don’t just throw around words like “danger”.  This means in danger of death.

And there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1514 “The anointing of the sick is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived”

Common point?  Danger of death!

Sacrosanctum Concilium says:

SC 73. “Extrema Unctio”, quae etiam et melius “Unctio infirmorum” vocari potest, non est Sacramentum eorum tantum qui in extremo vitae discrimine versantur. Proinde tempus opportunum eam recipiendi iam certe habetur cum fidelis incipit esse in periculo mortis propter infirmitatem vel senium.

In periculo mortis… in danger of death.

The recent and widespread practice of anointing anyone who is “not feeling well”, or even “along with a sick person but who doesn’t want to be left out”, is not consistent with a plain reading of the law of the CCC.

One can be in danger of death for many reasons.  For example, someone who is about to undergo some surgery requiring a general anesthesia could be in danger of death.  Someone about to be executed or go into battle are in danger of death, but those are not considered occasions for the sacrament because they are external to the person.  Once damage is inflicted through a wound and danger of death is obvious, that’s another matter.

Moreover, there are also persistent, chronic conditions which, while they may not lead to immediate death, nevertheless put one in danger of death (e.g., the onset of Alzheimer’s).

The sniffles, or having the collywobbles or being crapulous do not fit the criteria.  Neither do certain illnesses which, while debilitating, are not usually causes of death (e.g., arthritis, obsessive-compulsive disorders, being a liberal – okay… I slipped that in there for fun…).

In addition, I will remind everyone that, unless you are incapacitated, the Sacrament of Anointing should be received in the state of grace!

QUAERITUR: Everyone going forward at a "healing Mass" for Anointing of the SickIf you are not in the state of grace, and if you are not incapacitated (unable to communicate sorrow for your sins) it is doubtful that you benefit from the sacramental graces the sacrament is to confer (i.e. strengthening in body and soul, possible forgiveness of sins).

Therefore, go to confession before being anointed.

If you are lying on the sidewalk, unconscious after a bomb attack, you don’t have to go to confession first.  Right?

Anointing is not like the Sacrament of Baptism, which removes the stain of original and actual sins and confers an indelible character.  Confirmation and Holy Orders can be received in the state of sin and they still confer an indelible character.  If, however, they are received in the state of sin, the recipient doesn’t benefit from the graces of the sacrament until he returns to state of grace.  Morever, the recipient has committed a sacrilege in knowingly receiving a those sacraments while in mortal sin.  If you get married while not in the state of grace, you are still married!  The sacrament which is supposed to help you live a good married life more or else “dormant” in you until you are again in the state of grace.  You receive prevenient graces, of course, to help you repent of your sins and seek confession.  The same idea applies to the Sacrament of Penance: if you purposely withhold mortal sins during confession or you are not truly sorry, you don’t receive the graces the Sacrament of Penance is intended to impart (forgiveness of sins, habitual grace, strength against sinning in the future, deeper sorrow for sin, reconciliation with God and neighbor, etc.) and you commit the sin of sacrilege.  If you know you are surely not in the state of grace when receiving the Eucharist in Communion, you are not only not receiving graces from reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord, you bring on yourself even greater condemnation.  You commit the sin of sacrilege by knowingly receiving Communion while in mortal sin.

There is a helpful distinction of “sacraments of the living” and “sacraments of the dead”.  The “sacraments of the dead” are Baptism and Penance (because you are dead in sin and they bring you to life again).  All the others are “sacraments of the living” (because you must be alive in the state of grace to receive them).

QUAERITUR: Everyone going forward at a "healing Mass" for Anointing of the SickThe Sacrament of Anointing straddles these two categories in one instance: when the person cannot express sorrow for sins and receive absolution from the priest.  If a priest anoints a person who is incapable of response and in danger of death, the sacrament can not only possibly heal (according to God’s will), and strengthen the soul in the last moments of life, but also forgive sins.

Again, from the CCC:

1532 “The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects: the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church; the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age; the forgiveness of sins, if [IF] the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of penance; the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul; the preparation for passing over to eternal life”.

Remember: You commit a sacrilege by receiving a sacrament (of the living) in the state of sin!  That includes Anointing (unless you are incapacitated).  The two sacraments you can receive when not in the state of grace are Baptism and Penance (’cause that’s what they’re for).  Anointed, in certain circumstances, crosses over.

Another point, as long as I am on this.

The fact that the Sacrament of Anointing, in some circumstances, forgives mortal sins, then the only valid and licit minister of the sacrament is a sacerdos, a priest or bishop.

  • DEACONS CANNOT CONFER ANOINTING OF THE SICK.

Neither can nuns in pantsuits with a lapel pin.  Neither can a parish volunteer. Therefore, they cannot validly anoint even when there is not danger of death.  Period.  If they attempt to anoint in the manner of a priest, they commit the sin of sacrilege for abusing the sacrament and they can incur a censure for simulation of a sacrament.

Only a priest or bishop validly administers the sacrament of anointing.

These Masses wherein everyone is invited to come forward seem to be quite widespread.  I think the argument that “everyone is sick in some way” is an abuse the sacrament.

There is such a thing as sacrilege.  Sacrilege is a sin.  It is the improper use of something or someone sacred.

Let the Sacrament of Anointing be used, and be used properly!  It need not be conferred only when danger of death is immediate.  Even the older form of the sacrament, the traditional form, can be conferred in the situations when the newer form can be, but for the right reasons.

A brave bishop should address this matter of anointing in a pastoral letter in the near future.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , , , ,
98 Comments

Pope Francis slaps down those who resist the Holy Spirit

Pope Francis has been saying Mass semi-publicly in the chapel of the Casa S. Marta, where he has been living.  He has been giving a “fervorino” at Mass, that is, a brief, usually off the cuff, sermon.  So far, there is no indication that these little daily blips are going to be in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, but let that pass.

Today, commenting about St. Stephen the Proto-martyr, Francis made remarks about the Holy Spirit and the anniversary of the the Second Vatican Council and people who don’t like change.

The site of Vatican Radio has something of the fervorino.  They, alas, don’t provide the whole text.  They cut it up, adding commentary, even in the audio reportage.  The English site provided less than the Italian site.  Irritating.  Don’t we want the whole text?  If the whole text isn’t important enough to give in toto, then how important is it?  But let that pass.

Francis quoted Stephen before he was killed, according to the Vatican Radio piece which I checked against the Italian… and you can see how cut up this is:

“the Holy Spirit upsets us because it moves us, it makes us walk, it pushes the Church forward.” He said that we wish “to calm down the Holy Spirit, we want to tame it and this is wrong.” Pope Francis said “that’s because the Holy Spirit is the strength of God, it’s what gives us the strength to go forward” but many find this upsetting and prefer the comfort of the familiar.
Nowadays, he went on, “everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it.” The Pope said one example of this resistance was the Second Vatican council which he called “a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit.” But 50 years later, “have we done everything the Holy Spirit was asking us to do during the Council,” he asked. The answer is “No,” said Pope Francis. “We celebrate this anniversary, we put up a monument but we don’t want it to upset us. We don’t want to change and what’s more there are those who wish to turn the clock back.” [The Italian says: “Ci sono voci che vogliono andare indietro…. there are voices which want to go back”] This, he went on, “is called stubbornness [“essere testardi”] and wanting to tame the Holy Spirit.”
The Pope said the same thing happens in our personal life. “The Spirit pushes us to take a more evangelical path but we resist this.” He concluded his homily by urging those present not to resist the pull of the Holy Spirit. “Submit to the Holy Spirit,” he said, “which comes from within us and makes go forward along the path of holiness.”

Some people in the traditionalist camp are going to have a spittle-flecked nutty about this.

Let’s breathe into a paper bag and think about what is going on.

There is no doubt in my mind that the “testardi… the stubborn… the stiff-necked” Francis is speaking about are the SSPXers.  He is not talking about those who are actually in union with the Roman Pontiff and who are legitimately making use of Summorum Pontificum.

Benedict was all about protecting the Council from the left and from the right.  Benedict was all about reading the Council correctly and defending it from false readings.  As a matter of fact he tackled this in his last days as the Roman Pontiff.  HERE

What Francis did in the fervorino today must, I think, be read in terms of what Francis himself has been saying, as well as in terms of what Pope Benedict did.

For example, a week ago Saturday, Francis slapped down dissenters from doctrine in his fervorino.  HERE.  He hit pretty hard, too.  Francis said, just over a week ago, that negotiating away parts of the Faith is “the path of apostasy, of disloyalty to the Lord”.

He has a “path” and “journey” image there. He uses the same image today… going forward or going backward. Francis did not say “turn back the clock”.  At Fishwrap editor Tom Fox wrote a piece about his fervorino and twice misquotes “turn back the clock”.  They don’t read Italian over there or check the Italian, I guess.  And how much attention did Fox and the National Schismatic Reporter give to Francis harsh words about dissenters?  I think you know the answer.

Let’s go to the next step and review what Benedict did.

Benedict did a lot to get the SSPX back into the fold, but he did not give them ice cream cones, either.   For example, Benedict played hardball with the SSPX through the Doctrinal Preamble.  Remember when Benedict lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops?  Here is what Benedict wrote to the world’s bishops in 2009:

The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, [NB] in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.

Is Francis really that far from Benedict in this matter?

Posted in Benedict XVI, Ecclesiae unitatem, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty, Vatican II, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , , , , ,
200 Comments