Fr. Z's Blog | Catholic commentary by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

John Paul II – 8 years

Posted on 2 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today is the 8th anniversary of the death of John Paul II.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged Pope John Paul II
22 Comments

Noodle preparation fun!

Posted on 1 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I am a fan of the films of Zhang Yimou. Tonight I saw A Woman, A Gun, And A Noodle Shop (三槍拍案驚奇 Sānqiāng Pāi’àn Jīngqí). This is a surreal Chinese re-imagining of Blood Simple. Strange but intriguing. Like some of Yimou’s other work, it seems like farce but then it turns out to be not so farcical. He pokes a lot of fun at his own films, too, and it is beautiful to look at.

There was a moment, however, I thought I would share: the preparation of noodle soup.

Alas, they cut it off before the hot oil was poured over the noodles and chilies.

Just for fun … or should I say mien.

A few of my favorite Zhang Yimou films are

The Road Home (我的父親母親 wǒde fùqin mǔqin)

The Story of Qiu Ju (秋菊打官司 Qiū Jú dǎ guān sī)

To Live ( 活著 Huózhe)

There are also, Not One Less, the spectacular Hero, Raise The Red Lantern, Red Sorghum, etc.

Posted in Just Too Cool, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged noodles, Zhang Yimou
23 Comments

New Z-Swag items: Pope Francis!

Posted on 1 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In my online store there are some new items of Z-swag for Pope Francis.

Among them are mugs and other drinkware.

And car magnets….

Posted in Francis, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged Pope Francis, swag, Z-Swag
30 Comments

Pope Francis: “keep the light on in the confessional and are available, then you will see what kind of line there is”

Posted on 1 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A couple interesting details in this story from Vatican Radio.

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis had lunch with seven Roman priests on Thursday after celebrating the Chrism Mass in the Vatican Basilica. The meal took place in the apartment of Archbishop Angelo Becciu, Substitute for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State. Most of the priests work with the poor and under-privileged in the suburbs of Rome.
The Archbishop has held this lunch for several years, and when Pope Francis heard about it, he wanted to attend. After the lunch, Vatican Radio spoke with two of the priests who attended.
“I don’t believe the Pope wanted to meet me personally, but wanted to meet the poor of Rome through me,” said Msgr. Enrico Feroci, the Director of Caritas Rome. He said listening to the Pope is an extraordinary experience, and that he puts you at ease, and makes it feel as if you have been heard.
“He is not one who listens to you thinking about what to say next,” Msgr. Feroci said. “He listens profoundly; empathetically; richly.” He recounted how during the lunch, Pope Francis joked, listened, reflected, and gave his perspective. Msgr. Feroci said Pope Francis urged them to be generous in offering confession.
“He said, ‘Open the doors of the Church, and then the people will come in…if you keep the light on in the confessional and are available, then you will see what kind of line there is for confession’…The Pope said he was confident of the need of the people of God for priests to open the doors and allow the people to meet God,” Msgr. Feroci told Vatican Radio.Father Mario Pasquale, who had served as a worker-priest for 40 years, told Vatican Radio that he felt “heard” during the meal with the Pope, and that he had the “feeling of being understood.”
He said Pope Francis told them he wants to meet the people in the parishes as Bishop of Rome.“You feel that the Pope has a lot of hope in his heart,” Father Pasquale said. “I had this feeling that this is someone who love the Church and invites you to love the Church, too, to the end – for life – and that it’s worth it.”

First, it is wonderful that Pope Francis mentioned in such a direct way the sacrament of penance.

Second, could this be an indication of whom he will choose for Secretary of State?

Posted in Brick by Brick, Francis, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged confession, Pope Francis, sacrament of penance
37 Comments

Sentimentality and feelin’ good V. reason and good order

Posted on 1 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From the blog of Prof Ed Peters, canonist.

Some thoughts on the VPO statement regarding the Mandatum rite controversy
by Dr. Edward Peters
The background to this controversy is the antinomianism that prevails today.

The Church is passing through a period in which the relationship between ecclesiastical law and the life of faith is widely misunderstood and the very content of Church law is often poorly explained. My attempts to address this double problem include explaining how law is important to a faith community, but even more, I try to explain what the law is at present—for one can hardly debate how ecclesiastical law ought to read if one does not know what it already says.

The controversy over Pope Francis’ disregard of a liturgical law in the Mandatum rite exposes, I think, how many others in the Church misunderstand important aspects of ecclesiastical law and how a misguided attempt to explain Church law can actually provoke more issues for the faithful than it settles.

A Vatican Press Office statement asserts:

“One can easily understand that in a great celebration, men would be chosen for the foot washing because Jesus, himself wash[ed] the feet of the twelve apostles who were male. However the ritual of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday evening in the Juvenile Detention Centre in Rome took place in a particular, small community that included young women.”

Such language, I fear, confuses matters.

The basic meaning of a rite, and certainly the interpretation to be given a rubric like this one, does not depend on the number of people attending the liturgy. No theory is offered to show that in large congregations Christ’s modeling of apostolic ministry is intended by the Mandatum, but in small congregations his modeling of love is intended. Asserting otherwise only sows confusion for other liturgical questions. Similarly, to say that the interpretation of this rubric turns on the presence of “young women” is to make effectively universal that odd interpretation (really: how many pastoral settings consist only of males?)

“To have excluded the young women from the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday night in this Roman prison, would have detracted our attention from the essence of the Holy Thursday Gospel…”

This unguarded language risks being understood as “following this Church law detracts attention from the essence of the Gospel”. I cannot imagine that this was really meant, but that is basically what is communicated. I do not think there is a conflict between Church law and the essence of the Gospel, notwithstanding that Church laws, from time to time, need to be reformed (as I have suggested the Mandatum rubric should be). In any case, this problematic language exemplifies why Vatican press statements are not vehicles of official legal interpretation in the Church. Canon law makes clear who has authority to authentically interpret Church laws (1983 CIC 16 § 1, ap. con. Pastor Bonus 154 ff., and certain congregations in regard to certain matters).

“… and the very beautiful and simple gesture of a father who desired to embrace those who were on the fringes of society; those who were not refined experts of liturgical rules.”

Again, this is unfortunate language.

The implication seems to be that rubrics are understandable by (and ultimately applicable only to) “refined experts of liturgical rules”. I disagree: many rubrics indeed reflect deep theological truths (and thus rubrics are often exercises in something more than legal positivism), but most rubrics are meant to be easily understandable by normal priests ministering in typical pastoral settings. It is a disservice to suggest that respect for Church law is primarily the concern of “refined experts” or that ecclesiastical law has little bearing on how believers should conduct their faith life.

“That the Holy Father, Francis, washed the feet of young men and women on his first Holy Thursday as Pope, should call our minds and hearts to the simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy of the Bishop of Rome, more than to legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.”

I agree that Francis’ action achieved this good effect.

What I find distressing is the inability to recognize (or refusal to acknowledge) that this action also had other effects, effects that might not be so benign. I have argued that among those effects was the sowing of new confusion about the binding character of liturgical laws in general, about the influence of a pope on good order in the community, and so on. Now, to be sure, there are sound answers to these questions, but they are not easily offered in the middle of the Triduum and splashed across secular news stories and blogs. This whole matter should have been handled differently from the start.

Finally, this sort of language pits “love, affection, forgiveness and mercy” against “legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.” Thus accepted is the well-worn but false dichotomy between the spiritual goods of the Church and her legal traditions. Such a charge is often leveled against canon law today, but it was expressly rejected by Pope John Paul II when he wrote that Church law “is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace, and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.” John Paul II, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges (1983) 16.

Law in the Church—canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc.—is not an end in itself, but instead serves greater ends. Yet, precisely as law, it cannot serve these purposes if it is ignored and/or explained away, two fates often suffered by law in antinomian times.

More on this, and on the Press Office statement later,

Posted in Francis, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SESSIUNCULA, The Drill | Tagged antinomianism, canon law, Ed Peters
95 Comments

SSPX stunning announcement!

Posted on 1 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I received this note:

(WDTPRSNEWS.COM – Ecône, Switzerland) In a surprise move, the followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre in the Society of St. Pius X, have issued a document creating within their ranks an “ordinariate” for Catholics who wish to celebrate the Novus Ordo according to the official rubrics.

According to the press release, the SSPX saw the need to provide a refuge for priests and lay faithful alike to preserve the few vestiges of Catholic identity they retained in the midst of their modernist errors.

Fr. Sven O’Brien, sub-vice assistant director of the eastern division of the Society’s German province, said in a phone interview, “Sure, they are dupes of modernist Rome, but they have souls. In these drastic new circumstances, we have to provide a refuge.”

The SSPX’s move was sparked by the recent decision of Pope Francis to wash the feet of women during a Holy Thursday liturgy, in clear violation of the duly issued rubrics in the modernist-influenced Novus Ordo Missale Romanum.

Some rank-and-file Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Masses still want to have Mass without the controversies caused by abandoning the law.

“We are the defenders of Eternal Rome,” Fr. O’Brien continued. “Their ship is sinking. We have to throw them a life-preserver.”

The 32-page SSPX document, entitled “Modernistarum coetibus”, establishes a sub-group within the Society that permits the members to celebrate the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI in Latin according to the rubrics and texts as they are printed in the official books.

“Like him or not,” said Fr. Eldon Friel of the SSPX chapel in Tall Tree Circle, “that Father Z, even though he’s a liberal, got it right. Say the black and do the red. Say the texts as they are written and follow the rubrics as they are printed. That’s a step in the right direction, a step towards eternal Rome.”

The new SSPX sub-group called the Ordinariate of Mary, Queen of Tradition, was established immediately by the issuing of the new document.

When asked about reception of the new provisions, Fr. O’Brien said, “Hey, it’s early, but we’ve had to assign more seminarians to answer the phones. They’re ringing off the hook!”

Posted in SESSIUNCULA, SSPX, The future and our choices | Tagged SSPX
89 Comments

Happy Easter!

Posted on 31 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Everyone… simply put…

Happy Easter!

That’s all… Happy Easter, everyone!

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
114 Comments

Pope Francis’ sermon for the Easter Vigil

Posted on 30 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Pope Francis sermon for the Vigil of Easter with my emphases and comments.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

1. In the Gospel of this radiant night of the Easter Vigil, we first meet the women who go the tomb of Jesus with spices to anoint his body (cf. Lk 24:1-3). They go to perform an act of compassion, [As I have written elsewhere, I think the theme of Francis pontificate is going to be about projecting “compassion”. He leads off with compassion in this sermon.] a traditional act of affection and love for a dear departed person, just as we would. They had followed Jesus, they had listened to his words, they had felt understood by him in their dignity [and this is why Francis is trying to project compassion] and they had accompanied him to the very end, to Calvary and to the moment when he was taken down from the cross. We can imagine their feelings as they make their way to the tomb: a certain sadness, sorrow that Jesus had left them, he had died, his life had come to an end. Life would now go on as before. Yet the women continued to feel love, the love for Jesus which now led them to his tomb. But at this point, something completely new and unexpected happens, something which upsets their hearts and their plans, something which will upset their whole life: they see the stone removed from before the tomb, they draw near and they do not find the Lord’s body. It is an event which leaves them perplexed, hesitant, full of questions: “What happened?”, “What is the meaning of all this?” (cf. Lk 24:4). Doesn’t the same thing also happen to us when something completely new occurs in our everyday life? We stop short, we don’t understand, we don’t know what to do. [Could this next part be an explanation of what Francis is doing by tossing things out and doing things according to a new style? You decide.] Newness often makes us fearful, including the newness which God brings us, the newness which God asks of us. We are like the Apostles in the Gospel: often we would prefer to hold on to our own security, to stand in front of a tomb, to think about someone who has died, someone who ultimately lives on only as a memory, like the great historical figures from the past. [Past… what? Bad? Now and future… what… good? Or is he talking about the “new man” put on in baptism? Let’s find out!] We are afraid of God’s surprises; we are afraid of God’s surprises! He always surprises us!

Dear brothers and sisters, let us not be closed to the newness that God wants to bring into our lives! [The new man?] Are we often weary, disheartened and sad? Do we feel weighed down by our sins? Do we think that we won’t be able to cope? Let us not close our hearts, let us not lose confidence, let us never give up: there are no situations which God cannot change, there is no sin which he cannot forgive if only we open ourselves to him. [Almost word for word what I have hammered away at when pushing for a revival of confession!]

2. But let us return to the Gospel, to the women, and take one step further. They find the tomb empty, the body of Jesus is not there, something new has happened, but all this still doesn’t tell them anything certain: it raises questions; it leaves them confused, without offering an answer. And suddenly there are two men in dazzling clothes who say: “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; but has risen” (Lk 24:5-6). What was a simple act, done surely out of love – going to the tomb – has now turned into an event, a truly life-changing event. [Get that? Simple acts of compassion can be “events”, something new, something else. They can even be a little scary, but they are moments of change.] Nothing remains as it was before, not only in the lives of those women, but also in our own lives and in the history of mankind. Jesus is not dead, he has risen, he is alive! He does not simply return to life; rather, he is life itself, because he is the Son of God, the living God (cf. Num 14:21-28; Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10). Jesus no longer belongs to the past, but lives in the present and is projected towards the future; he is the everlasting “today” of God. This is how the newness of God appears to the women, the disciples and all of us: as victory over sin, evil and death, over everything that crushes life and makes it seem less human. And this is a message meant for me and for you, dear sister, dear brother. How often does Love have to tell us: Why do you look for the living among the dead? Our daily problems and worries can wrap us up in ourselves, in sadness and bitterness… and that is where death is. That is not the place to look for the One who is alive!

[READ CAREULLY…] Let the risen Jesus enter your life, welcome him as a friend, with trust: he is life! If up till now you have kept him at a distance, step forward. He will receive you with open arms. If you have been indifferent, take a risk: you won’t be disappointed. If following him seems difficult, don’t be afraid, trust him, be confident that he is close to you, he is with you and he will give you the peace you are looking for and the strength to live as he would have you do. [SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL]

3. There is one last little element that I would like to emphasize in the Gospel for this Easter Vigil. The women encounter the newness of God. Jesus has risen, he is alive! But faced with empty tomb and the two men in brilliant clothes, their first reaction is one of fear: “they were terrified and bowed their faced to the ground”, Saint Luke tells us – they didn’t even have courage to look. But when they hear the message of the Resurrection, they accept it in faith. And the two men in dazzling clothes tell them something of crucial importance: “Remember what he told you when he was still in Galilee… And they remembered his words” (Lk 24:6,8). [But remember means… a connection with the past and the remembering is important. The remembering of the event is also an event. Doesn’t this sound… Ratzingerian?] They are asked to remember their encounter with Jesus, to remember his words, his actions, his life; and it is precisely this loving remembrance of their experience with the Master that enables the women to master their fear and to bring the message of the Resurrection to the Apostles and all the others (cf. Lk 24:9). To remember what God has done and continues to do for me, for us, to remember the road we have travelled; this is what opens our hearts to hope for the future. May we learn to remember everything that God has done in our lives.

On this radiant night, let us invoke the intercession of the Virgin Mary, who treasured all these events in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19,51) and ask the Lord to give us a share in his Resurrection. May he open us to the newness that transforms, to God’s surprises… so very beautiful. May he make us men and women capable of remembering all that he has done in our own lives and in the history of our world. May he help us to feel his presence as the one who is alive and at work in our midst. And may he teach us – dear brothers and sisters – each day not to look among the dead for the Living One. Amen.

Posted in Francis, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged Easter Vigil, Pope Francis
101 Comments

Thank you, Pope Francis!

Posted on 30 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In two weeks Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum than Pope Benedict did since the day he promulgated it.

After the decision by Pope Francis to wash the feet of two women on Holy Thursday, conservative Catholic priests and laypeople alike will now be looking for ways out of the dilemma posed by the foot washing rite of the Holy Thursday Mass.

The foot washing rite is actually optional, though that fact is little grasped by liberals who impose the options they like as obligatory on those who would prefer to opt out. Liturgical law prescribes that only men (viri in Latin) can be chosen for that rite. Priests who want to adhere to the law will find themselves facing fierce opposition by liberals demanding that women be included. Bishops will be hard-pressed to explain how priests should keep to the liturgical law when the Pope himself flouts it. By including women, the Pope has cast all liturgical laws into the hazard.

Priests who opt to omit the foot washing from Holy Thursday Mass will be seen – paradoxically – as dissenting from the law that clearly excludes women’s feet from being washed. To avoid the dilemma entirely, priests and lay Catholics who wish to see proper liturgical law observed will find a suitable option in the older form of the Roman Rite, the so-called “Tridentine” form emancipated in 2007 by Pope Benedict.

After Summorum Pontificum went into force, a clarifying document called Universae Ecclesiae was issued to help people interpret correctly how how to implement Pope Benedict’s provisions. Universae Ecclesiae says that all customs or liturgical practices not in force in 1962 (such as altars girls, communion in the hand and now, apparently, washing women’s feet), are not to be integrated into liturgies in the older form of the Roman Rite. Priests and lay Catholics who want Holy Thursday without dilemmas and controversies and fights about whose feet can be washed, have the legitimate option of the traditional Roman Missal which is, effectively, bullet proof.

Don’t kid yourselves. Many priests and lay Catholics are upset by the Pope’s move and the dilemma this poses at the local level throughout much of the western Church.

War-weary Catholics are back in the trenches, but they now have Summorum Pontificum. And Pope Francis has done more to promote Summorum Pontificum then Pope Benedict ever did.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices, Universae Ecclesiae | Tagged foot washing, Pope Francis, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
197 Comments

Have we entered an age of a new gnosticism?

Posted on 29 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

There is an adage: Qui bene distinguit, bene docet, that is, someone who makes distinctions well, teaches well.

Distinguished canonist Ed Peters makes good distinctions about the Holy Father’s disregard for the Church’s duly promulgated law when he chose to wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday. My emphases and comments.

Retrospectives on the Mandatum rite controversies
March 29, 2013

It’s a very big Church and there are many issues competing for the pope’s attention. Let me address just that issue I know something about, namely, ecclesiastical law, and try to talk sensibly about it. I’ll leave to finer minds the task of situating legal concerns in the wider ecclesial context.

For starters, perhaps Fr. Lombardi was misquoted or taken out of context when he apparently said, “the pope’s decision [to wash the feet of women on Holy Thursday] was ‘absolutely licit’ for a rite that is not a church sacrament.” That remark is confusing because it implies that liceity is a concept that applies only to sacraments; but of course, liceity is an assessment of any action’s consistency with applicable law (canon, liturgical, sacramental, etc). One would never limit questions of Mass liceity to, say, the matter used for the Eucharist or the words of institution (that is, the sacrament at Mass) [NB]as if all other rubrics were merely optional. No one understands liceity so narrowly, [ehem… I think some people do.] and so, as I say, we are probably dealing with an incomplete answer.

In any case, I think some conclusions can be drawn about the foot-washing incident already.

[Here is an obvious point that must be made to help liberals sober up a little.] 1. If liturgical law permitted the washing of women’s feet at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, [then] no one would have noticed the pope’s doing it. What was newsworthy (apparently, massively newsworthy) is that, precisely because liturgical law does not authorize it, the pope’s performance of the action was huge news.

2. I and many others have long been open to revising the Mandatum rite so as to permit the washing of women’s feet [I am not among them. However, Peters is making a different point…] although I understand that strong symbolic elements are in play and I might be under-appreciating arguments for the retention of the rite as promulgated by Rome. I take no position on that larger issue, it being ultimately a question for experts in other disciplines. My focus is on the law as issued by Rome (c. 838).

[We get to the crux of the canonical issue…] 3. Few people seem able to articulate when a pope is bound by canon law (e.g., when canon law legislates matters of divine or natural law) and when he may ignore it (e.g., c. 378 § 1 on determining the suitability of candidates for the episcopate or appointing an excessive number of papal electors contrary to UDG 33). Those are not hard cases. Most Church laws, however, fall between these two poles and require careful thinking lest confusion for—nay, dissension among—the faithful arise. Exactly as happened here. [In spades!] Now, even in that discussion, the question is not usually whether the pope is bound to comply with the law (he probably is not so bound), but rather [pay attention…], how he can act contrary to the law without implying, especially for others who remain bound by the law but who might well find it equally inconvenient, that inconvenient laws may simply be ignored because, well, because the pope did it. [That, ladies and gents, is the problem. Liberals are going to claim that because of what Francis did, they can do whatever they wish. Indeed, they will claim that others who uphold the clearly written law are wrong to up hold the law. They will, like gnostics, appeal to some vague super-principle which trumps all law (and reason).]

4. A pope’s ignoring of a law is not an abrogation of the law but, especially where his action reverberated around the world, it seems to render the law moot. [moot – “doubtful, theoretical, meaningless, debatable”] For the sake of good order, then [Peters’ own recommendation…], the Mandatum rubrics should be modified to permit the washing of women’s feet or, perhaps upon the advice of Scriptural and theological experts, the symbolism of apostolic ministry asserted by some to be contained in the rite should be articulated and the rule reiterated. What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.

Get that last point?

What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.

This is a huge problem.

Liberals such as Michael Sean Winters, who does not in this matter seem to make distinctions at all, think that Peters and I are “obsessively focused on whether or not a bishop or priest can/should wash the feet of women during the Mandatum Rite in the Mass of the Lord’s Supper”. He is wrong. That’s just your usual liberal misappropriation of the situation.

Peters and I are actually concerned about the good order of the Church. A canonist and a man in Holy Orders ought to be. Winters, on the other hand, writes for the paper of record for dissenters and antinomians.

What this foot washing issue does is reveal how vast the gulf is now that divides those who maintain that order, law and reason are necessary in the Church and society and those who, like gnostics who possess secret powers of interpretation of even more secret teachings, apply super-principles which trump lesser matters such as reason, law and order.

The new gnostics (liberals) call upon “fairness” and feelings. There can be no valid response possible by argument or reason or precedent.

For a long time I have argued that we need a level of liturgical celebration which brings about an encounter with the transcendent, which cuts beyond our (by now) useless linear arguments. People today can’t follow a linear argument. You get to the end and they conclude, “That might be true for you…”. Now, however, we may be seeing more clearly, in reactions to what Francis is doing (not necessarily in what Francis is doing), the exaltation of the golden calf of immanence.

Have we entered an age of a new gnosticism, wherein only those who feel a certain way are the true authoritative interpreters?