Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

On remarks of a priest and his bishop in El Paso

Posted on 23 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Michael Rodriguez, a priest of the Diocese of El Paso, offered an op-ed piece to the local secular newspaper. It was printed on 2 August 2 in the El Paso Times.

Here is the piece by Fr. Rodriquez with my emphases and comments.

Rev. Michael Rodriguez: Every Catholic must oppose certain things

By the Rev. Michael Rodriguez \ Guest columnist
Posted: 08/01/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT

I sincerely hope and pray that all El Paso Catholics will take to heart the precious and infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church [From the onset you get a sense of what ecclesiological camp Fr. Rodriguez identifies with. Also, you just know that his vocabulary will prompt liberals roll their eyes or, in the really hardened cases, throw a spittle-flecked nutty.] in the moral sphere, particularly those most relevant to our city at this critical juncture.
Remember: Every single Catholic, [No one gets a pass in El Paso …] out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty [Again, Father doesn’t speak nuance-ese.] to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions. [What? Not "gay"? "Murder"? No euphemisms at all?]
Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, [ARGH! The S-WORD! Is making a distinction about sin really "pastoral"?] and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church. [NB: Father said "acts". He did not write about homosexuals, but about homosexual acts.]
Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission [Liberal eyes begin to bleed at this point.] if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of "equal rights," "tolerance," "who am I to judge?," etc. [You know that the sky is going to fall on Father’s head because of this. That "wicked horns" bit is rather pointed, donchya think?]
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a pastoral letter on marriage in November 2009, which is endorsed by our own local bishop, his Excellency, Most Rev. Armando X. Ochoa.
This pastoral letter states the following: [I’ll edit here. The pastoral letter is pretty good, btw. …]

[…]

Abortion and homosexual acts are unequivocally intrinsic moral evils. And friends, this objective truth doesn’t depend on the opinion of the majority. [Blood is now pouring from liberal ears and noses as well.] Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous [YEEEEEHAW!] consequences. [And 9.5 in style points for that "pestiferous". He rode that bronco to the very end!]

Fr. Michael Rodríguez is the parish priest at San Juan Bautista Catholic Church.

This prompted a response on the part a man with an even tougher job than Fr. Rodriguez, His Excellency Most Rev. Armando X. Ochoa, Bishop of El Paso.

Bishop Armando X. Ochoa: Catholic Church advocates compassion
By Bishop Armando X. Ochoa \ Guest columnist
Posted: 08/22/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT

As Bishop of the Diocese of El Paso and chief teacher of our local church, [Which means, rightly, that Fr. R is not…] I would like to share some pastoral reflections [NB "pastoral"] on certain issues that are important for the well-being of all God’s people.
First of all, I would like to state that previous columns claiming to speak for Catholic Doctrine were the personal opinions of individuals and do not necessarily express the belief of the Catholic Church. [Right. The opinions of Fr. R do not, of necessity, express the belief of the Catholic Church. But, do Fr. R’s view by chance coincide with the Church’s teaching? Let’s review. Abortion is murder of an unborn human being. CHECK. Homosexual acts are objectively sinful. CHECK.]
[But here is new information…] I continue to pray for peace along our region and offer my condolences to the families on both sides of the border who have lost loved ones to the ongoing unrest. [There is a lot of tension in El Paso.] I am also concerned for the families who have had to leave everything behind to escape the violence in Ciudad Juárez. It is my ongoing prayer that our two border cities can work closer to build a more peace-filled community. [So, the bishop is situating Fr. R’s comments in the context of the region’s tension. Fr. R’s comments were addressed to all Catholics, and therefore most of the Latio community. The bishops implication is that Fr. R’s comments have made that tension worse. I don’t know whether that is the case or not, but it is clearly the bishop’s concern.]
The Church has been unmistakable about its consistent defense of the unborn. It continues to call every Catholic and person of good will [Fr. R also addressed all Catholics but he did not speak explicitly about non-Catholics who are people of good will.] to understand the Church’s teaching on the death penalty and other end-of-life issues. Every child has a right to life.
Likewise, the Church is a supporter of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. These teachings come from a tradition that wants to promote the good of society. [Not just "from a tradition". If I am not mistaken, they come from God, and from God to us through both tradition and reason in light of the natural law. But pay attention…] My concern in writing this reflection is not to change these teachings, [quod Deus avertat] but to offer a more pastoral understanding in dealing with them. [There is that "pastoral" again.]
When we talk about abortion and homosexuality, we are talking about human beings dealing with all kinds of concerns and unresolved challenges. Our Church does not want to simply judge and condemn, but first to offer Christ’s love and compassion. God’s first and primary law is love and how love of others is at the same time our love for God. [Okay. This is so. At the same time, when Jesus saved and then forgave the woman caught in adultery, He admonished her to sin no more. It is also a work of mercy, a dimension of compassion, both to admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant. It may be – and this is just supposition on my part – that many Catholic and non-Catholic alike, have never heard some of the things Fr. R wrote expressed with that sort of stark clarity. Is it possible that stark clarity can also be a tool of the compassion His Excellency affirms?]
As Church we want to journey with everyone as they search for meaning in their lives. [This is the language most people are used to hearing and reading.] We believe that Christ offers this meaning. The use [wait for it…] of harsh words of condemnation is not the approach Christ invites us to have toward one another. Intolerance closes the door to learning and deeper understanding of each other. [Let’s pick this fine and correct statement up and turn it about and examine it from all sides. What popped into my mind as I read this were the Lord’s harsh words in Matthew 23. Surely the Lord was not lacking in compassion even as he verbally thrashed the Pharisees with the truth. St. Paul, invoking the meekness of Christ, in 2 Cor 10-13 doesn’t mince words about those who have sinned and have been admonished more than once. Was it a lack of compassion that drove virtually every single Father of the Church to use scathing invective when defending the Regula Fidei and Tradition? Have Popes who issued stern condemnations and anathemas throughout the Church’s entire history been without compassion? Was there a dearth of compassion at the Second Vatican Council when the Council Fathers stated in Lumen gentium 14 that people who reject the Church, knowing that it is the Church Christ founded, cannot be saved, or when they taught in Gaudium et spes 51 that abortion is an unspeakable crime? In every one of these examples, there were high tensions in the community. I am not disagreeing with His Excellency, mind you. I am musing to myself about what constitutes "pastoral" and "compassion". At the same time I am thanking God that I am not now nor ever will be a bishop, who actually has to make decisions about this dilemma.]
Furthermore, it leads to divisiveness within the body of Christ. [cf. Matthew 10:34.] It is time for us to learn how to work with each other, even when and if we disagree. Too many people have suffered because of a profound lack of compassion and a perceived arrogant intolerance.
Recently, in our scriptural readings, we have seen that when the Israelites entered the Promised Land after the exodus, they encountered the Canaanites, whom they considered to be a sinful race which was to be exterminated. This mind-set persisted until the time of Christ. [But Christ and the Apostles, and the Fathers, and Popes down through history somehow kept using hard language. Did they fail to understand something about being "pastoral"? Pope John XXIII at the time of the Council said that he wanted the Church to shift her style of teaching. Fine. But see my examples of the Council’s teaching, above. There were still moments for blunt language.]
With his arrival, he indicated that this outlook was no longer to be held by his followers. Jesus’ own response to the marginalized was always one of love. He constantly preached that love is not exclusively for those who are dear to us. He proclaimed that we must love our enemies and pray for our persecutors. [To the marginalized, yes! Look how he treated the lepers and the blind and lame and diseased and widows and Samaritans and some public sinners. He was gentleness itself with some public sinners. But not all public sinners. I cite: ""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness." ]
Our love for others is to be like his own, all inclusive. Every individual is made in the image and likeness of God and for this reason all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
God is the judge of our lives, and we are called to spread his Gospel of compassion and justice. [Were Fr. R’s comments in his op-ed unjust?] While it is important to offer a teaching on human sexuality which may not be popular in modern society, the Church, nonetheless, upholds that each person be treated with dignity and respect. [QUERY: Does that mean that we never say that a sin is a sin?]
I urge all of our pastoral agents to reach out to individuals with a homosexual orientation and their families with compassion. This can be done without compromising Church teaching in any way because our pastoral care demands no less from us.
The Most Reverend Armando X. Ochoa, D.D., is Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of El Paso

This is a really interesting situation.

I started out willing to back Fr. R’s piece. As I read the Bishop’s response I was initially disappointed. When I see the word "pastoral", I get worried that something is going to go all wobbly.

That said, I am trying to engage this tough situation and see it from different sides.

I think perhaps a guiding hermeneutic here could be:

“Soyez toujours le plus doux que vous pourrez, et souvenez-vous que l’on prends plus de mouches avec une cuillère de miel qu’avec cent barils de vinaigre… Always be as gentle as you can and remember that one catches more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a hundred barrels of vinegar."

St. Francis de Sales was bishop of a place where there was a lot of tension. He found a way to teach with clarity and compassion. Nevertheless, St. Francis the bishop also used stern language.

Thus, I circle around to questions:

Does "pastoral" never allow for hard language?
Is there a way in which we have perhaps gotten a bit overly sensitive or squeamish?

Remember: The Bishop, writing his public correction of one of his priests, is writing within a particular set of circumstances. We must allow that that particular time and place may have not been the right time and place for the style of Fr. R’s correct but hard message.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged Bp. Ochoa, compassion, El Paso, pastoral
108 Comments

SSPX Bp. Williamson v. The Pope of Christian Unity

Posted on 23 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It seems that SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson is a bit worried.

To his latest piece, which I received by email from a reader, I add my emphases and comments.

Before we start drilling, however, here are a few points to keep in mind while reading Williamson’s letter.

R.W. of the Anglicans [Archbp. Rowan Williams], feeling the threat looming in the Motu Proprio Anglicanorum coetibus, tried rhetorically to taint the waters for members of the Anglican Church so that they wouldn’t go over to Rome.
R.W. of the SSPX, threatened by a possible Motu Proprio along the same lines, is trying rhetorically to taint the waters so that followers of the SSPX don’t go over to Rome.
When Anglicanorum coetibus was issued I said that it was – among other things – a trial run for finding a way/structure to heal the break of the SSPXers.
Williamson is undoubtedly highly attuned to the vicissitudes of the Anglican Church, since he was once an Anglican.

Let’s drill.

    ELEISON COMMENTS CLXII (Aug.21, 2010) : DISCUSSIONS BLIND-SIDED ?

    While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, reports from France and Germany together with a rumour [rumour, indeed] from Rome spell danger for Catholics. That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine. ["Political" is, in his view, bad. But is "political" to be so reviled? More on that later.]

    From France and Germany, I was told me [a bit more rumor… I grant this this is acknowledged as rumor. He is not hiding the fact that these are things he is being told. Fair enough.] a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are only hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. [This, I am sure, vexes him. I believe it is a good and Catholic desire to desire harmony with Peter.] If – repeat, if — this is true, it is very serious. [read: bad] Such Catholics [Note the disparaging tone.] may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, [You see… Rome isn’t the real Rome. The present Roman Curia, "Rome", doesn’t match the nearly Platonic idea Williamson is presumably qualified to identify. One could wonder if his judgment in about Rome is as trustworthy as his judgment about other controversial issues.] but they get low marks for not grasping [here it comes] that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, [note "doctrinal"] there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church. [Williamson get to determine what the "true" Church is?] Such Catholics [Again. Is he signaling a growing separation between himself and the majority of the followers of the SSPX?] may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre as they see him, but they have not understood what he was all about. [But Williamson knows!] They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans. [Not "true" Romans. Who made Williamson the arbiter of what is truly Catholic?]

    Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, [I think this means "Giving preference to coming to some practical arrangement over coming to an agreement on doctrine…". But is his statement correct? Is there a sharp contrast between "doctrine" and "politics"?] unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement. Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them. [Is it not possible for there to be a legitimate "political" dimension to theological discussion?]

    Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. [That is an unfair reading of Vatican II. But he has misread facts of history before. Consider, for example, Lumen gentium 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."] Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well [The implication is that the Pope set aside "truth" for the sake of unity.] – and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! [The idea of "normal" here must be, "the Pope is close to the end of the span of normal human life".] So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be [And so he veers into pure supposition. He doesn’t really know anything.] looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. [Again, we must raise the possibility that what he calls "political" might actually be a legitimate course of action when considering the ecclesiological (theological) ramifications of this continued wound to unity.] It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.

    The rumour [again] from Rome is precisely [an odd juxtaposition of "rumour" and "precisely", n’est ce pas?] that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, [NB…] yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II’s 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, [Note the loose language. What does "accept" mean, here?]yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism. [And knows what the "true" Church is, not the soft modernist Benedict XVI.]

    Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.

    DANGER !

    Kyrie eleison.

It may be that Bp. Williamson doesn’t understand clearly what Popes are for.

Popes guard and foster unity.

Bishops and Cardinals can help the Pope do this, but it is especially the Pope’s job to deal with unity. When there is a break in unity, or a chance to foster it, Popes who do their jobs well, seize the opportunity with both hands. When they do, they don’t fail to defend the Faith.

Anyone can put on a miter and say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. Only Popes truly provide for unity.

The problem is people rarely like to see the process involved in fostering and guarding unity. They like the language and the idea of promoting unity, but – as in the similar case of making sausage – they don’t like to watch it being done.

Popes pull the sheep into one flock… sometimes coaxing… sometimes using a stick.

When Popes don’t do this, they are not very good Popes. When they do a great job, they can even get the nickname "Great".

What Pope Benedict is doing isn’t about power (politics), it is about unity.

Unity is forged and shaped and at times coerced.

Unity is messy and arduous business. Just look at what Popes Leo I and Gregory I had to deal with.

In the history of the Church there have been many theological/political compromises for the sake of unity. Someone versed in the history of Holy Church’s dogmatic theology will instantly recall the compromises, hammered out after decades of sharp conflicts, over language to describe how, for example, the Son is "homoousios" with the Father. Eventually, and after a lot of fights, a clear teaching emerged and was given voice in a formula. Then there was the long period of work so that the formula would be accepted by more and more people who had different ideas about how to express very hard things. The history of the Church involves constant "political" compromises. All human interactions are, after all, "political".

When there are difficult theological questions on the table, the position of the "other side" must be given its due. Greater precision can be sought down the line and after reflection which has the benefit of time.
Through the history of the Church all major and even minor points have been arrived at through political methods, by debates and tussles and compromises, by messy striving and even conflict.

If there is a Motu Proprio out there – let’s call it SSPXorum coetibus – Pope Benedict – the Pope of Christian Unity – would be providing cover to SSPXers. He would be giving them an honorable escape route out of separation and into greater unity. SSPXers would have honorable cover so they can come into unity with Rome without giving in on the documents of Vatican II.

If what Williamson is describing is accurate, if there is some Motu Proprio for SSPXers coming along the lines of Anglicanorum coetibus (and we don’t know that there is), then Pope Benedict would be saying to SSPXers,

"I won’t require you to sign off on the documents of Vatican II, which you don’t like. Instead, you SSPXers can sign off on just the Catechism. Accepting the Catechism is enough for unity and an ecclesial structure of your own in unity with Rome."

This is why Williamson is spooked.

Williamson is saying that in accepting the Catechism, SSPEXers would actually be accepting the modernism of the Vatican II documents. This is why Williamson paints this alleged deal as "political".

Just what the Pope of Christian Unity has in mind for the SSPX is a matter of conjecture. But it would not surprise me in the least were he to offer something very like his solution for more traditionally-minded Anglicans.

SSPXorum coetibus? We shall see.

Posted in Brick by Brick, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, The Drill | Tagged Bp. Williamson, SSPX
74 Comments

When the Pastor’s away, the DANGERMOUSE will…

Posted on 22 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Times have changed,
And we’ve often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
‘Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.

By way of Mulier Fortis we know what goes on in Black Fen when His Hermeneuticalness is away.

I toppi ballano, as we say in Roma.

Servers. What next?

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged Fr. Finigan
11 Comments

New film about 1860 massacre of martyrs in Damascus

Posted on 22 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Via our friends at Rorate:

From Corpus Christi Watershed:

Award-winning filmmaker and Watershed staff member Eric Hinojosa has been living in Lebanon, working tirelessly to bring to fruition a documentary film about the Blessed Massabki Brothers, the Emir Abd El-Kader, and the events surrounding the 1860 massacre in Damascus. The film tells of heroism and sanctity, showcases fascinating characters and sheds light on the Christian community in the Middle East.

(To see the 12-minute trailer, click here.)

It looks like it might be an authentic shoe-string production.

The film/documentary is called Fire in Damascus. The context was the conflict of Maronites and Druze.

According to the 2005 Martyrologium Romanum the Massabki brothers, Bl. Mootius, Raphae and Benedictus are celebrated on 10 July.

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged Damascus, martyrs
5 Comments

QUAERITUR: Received baptism from SSPX – must I be conditionally baptized?

Posted on 22 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I write inquiring about the validity of my baptism at the SSPX.

I approached the Roman Catholic Parish in our area and inquired about this matter. The parish priest told me that i will be given a conditional baptism.

Is conditional baptism right Father?

No, in my opinion, it is not.

I cannot imagine that the SSPX priest would not have followed closely the pre-Conciliar Rituale Romanum. Since the SSPX is suspended, a formal, liturgical baptism would have been illicit, but it certainly would have been valid.

(The issue of the Sacraments of Penance and of Matrimony are separate issues and outside the scope of this discussion.)

Unless there is local knowledge that that particular SSPX priest does odd things to the form of baptism, or perhaps uses a Gin and Tonic (without ice) to baptize instead of water, I cannot see why validity should be in question.

A possible explanation for this curious notion might be ignorance borne of dislike for anything tradition. That is speculation on my part, but I have seen this attitude before: A priest or bishop doesn’t like or doesn’t understand traditional liturgy and therefore he calls validity of pre-Conciliar rites into question.

I think it would be worth your while asking the opinion of your local bishop about this issue of conditional baptism.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged baptism, conditional, SSPX
33 Comments

Fr. Breen retracts his dissenting statement made on his video

Posted on 21 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I note on the site of CMR that the priest in the Diocese of Nashville, Fr. Joseph Breen, who posted a video some time ago containing his own dissident statements.

The diocesan bishop, H.E. David Choby, gave Fr. Breen an opportunity to correct his statements. Fr. Breen decided to accept that opportunity in a positive way.

Now I found also on CMR that Fr.

Here is the official statement by the Diocese of Nashville with my emphases and comments:

    Father Breen retracts statements, apologizes

    In letters to Pope Benedict XVI and to St. Edward Parish, Father Joe Pat Breen has retracted and apologized for statements made in an internet video and subsequent media interviews that Catholics are not obligated to follow teachings of the Catholic Church as defined by the pope and bishops. In addition, he has agreed to no longer voice his private concerns publically or in the media as required by a document presented to him by Bishop Edward Kmiec [back in] in 1993. [This was not a new problem.]

    The letter to the parish also indicated that he expects to continue as pastor of St. Edward Parish until Dec. 31, 2011.

    Father Breen has shared the content of those letters with Bishop David Choby and the letter to the parish will be distributed in the next few days.

    Bishop Choby offered Father Breen the choice of retracting and apologizing for his statements or face the process set forth for the removal of a pastor under canon law when a ministry becomes harmful or ineffective. [A canonical process.]

    The offer came during a meeting on Aug. 19, a little more than two weeks after a video interview with Father Breen posted on the St. Edward Parish website received worldwide attention. It was the bishop’s second meeting with Father Breen about his statements contradicting Church teaching. Bishop Choby asked Father Breen to remove the video from the parish site on Aug. 6. The video was removed but copies remain available on the internet and have been viewed more than 14,000 times. [I would say that constitutes a potential for scandal.]

    In the letter to the parish, Father Breen said “the meeting was cordial and fruitful.”

    The terms of the 1993 ban put in place by Bishop Edward Kmiec prohibit him from making statements that disagree with the authentic magisterium of the Church. [Once upon a time priests were required to take or renew the Oath Against Modernism when they were ordained or accepted an office. It is sad thing when a priest needs to be prohibited in this a way.]

    Although the process to remove a pastor has not been used in recent memory in the Diocese of Nashville, it is used with some regularity in the worldwide Church.

    “The role of pastor is particularly important as the leader and teacher of a parish,” Bishop Choby said. “The office is a direct link to the authority of the Church as instituted by Christ in the apostles and handed down through the popes and bishops. A pastor holds a public office charged with administering, teaching, and sanctifying the local community of the faithful. The Church expects him to work in unity with its authentic teaching as handed down through the pope and the bishops. It is simply wrong to state, as Father Breen has repeatedly, that one’s conscience frees an individual from the truth revealed and instilled in Church teaching. A deep understanding of Church teaching is, in fact essential to a fully formed conscience, and helps guide an individual in making the distinction between one’s opinions and a decision based soundly on the foundation of a rightly formed conscience. One who chooses to act contrary to Church teaching acts outside of the revealed truth of God’s will.”

    “In recognition of his many years of good work among the people of his parish, I want to give Father Breen every opportunity to correct the errors in his teaching, and gracefully enter retirement,” Bishop Choby said, “but in any case, his recent public remarks could not stand.”

I am very glad that the meeting between Bp. Choby and Fr. Breen was both "cordial" and "fruitful".

I am very glad that there is an opportunity to make the actual teaching of the Church clear about the role of conscience and the role of the Church’s Magisterium and the role of her pastors.

Sure, some people will now gripe and mumble against the meanie meanie bishop. Perhaps some will perhaps even be egged on to grumble, but they will be egged on in private.

What began as something very negative, has the chance to wind up being positive.

Posted in Linking Back, The Drill | Tagged Bp. Choby, conscience, Fr. Breen, magisterium, Nashville
38 Comments

The Feeder… Stream

Posted on 21 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Some activity at the feeder.

Watching the live stream these days you will often see the hummingbird feeder.

But you will sometimes see an unusual visitor.

And then there is the usual visitor.

Fun!

In the meantime, this little guy just decided to hang out and look into the cam for a while.

After about 5 minutes I did a screen capture.

There is Z-Chat in a chatroom from time to time. I send out Tweets about when it is open via Twitter. (Latin pipata, or "tweets" from pipio "to twitter, chirp")

Open as a pop up.

These critters are hungry. Will you help feed them? It’s just "tuppence a bag…"

Well… far more than tuppence, actually.

Posted in The Feeder Feed |
1 Comment

Expert comments on the music for a Papal event in England

Posted on 20 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At The Chant Cafe my friend Jeffrey Tucker, a distinguished Church musician, has a few trenchant comments about some of the music for an even during the upcoming Papal Visit to England.

My emphases and comments:

Damian Thompson reports on the sabotage of the September 18 prayer Vigil for the Pope on his visit to the UK will consist mostly of pseudo-folk music from the 1970s and 80s. The detailed program is listed here, but what I really do not understand is why it is necessary to trot out huge forces of instruments and singers for such a thing.

This is mostly unison music that most Catholics could rattle off in their sleep. It isn’t really choral music at all. It’s just a series of small tunes, best performed with a guitar, sitting on a stone by the fireside at a youth encounter thirty years ago.

Talk about over-egging the pudding: "The choir will consist of 160 singers from nearly all the dioceses in England and Wales. Together with 50 singers and 50 musicians from the New English Orchestra, you will provide the majority of the accompaniment to the Vigil. You will also be on stage (under cover should it rain) and in close proximity to the Holy Father. It should be an experience to cherish for many years."

Oh, there is one grand piece: Hallelujah Chorus by Handel. This is also something that I do not understand. There are many good things to say about this piece and they would all be easier to say if this piece hadn’t become the world’s most notorious musical cliche, second only to the opening notes of Beethoven’s 5th.

[And this is a part to pay attention to:] But even if we consider the intended purpose of the piece, it is a composition for religious theater, by a Protestant for Protestants. This doesn’t mean that it is bad, or something that should be banned from Catholic circles, but there is a downside for any community that cannot define itself with its own magnificent forms of cultural expression [there it is!] but instead relies on rehashing other people’s traditions. It is not necessary to make Handel central when you have a Catholic musical tradition inclusive of Tallis and Byrd.

I have detected a trend for Catholic gatherings of this sort to use the Hallelujah Chorus as a signaling device, as if you suggest "Lest you think that we only sing small ditties about journeys of love, here’s a big classical piece just to show you what we could do if we wanted to."

This is a direct hit.

I resonate with what Mr. Tucker says about other people’s tradition.

For example, I know that there is presently a revival of Catholic architecture in the Latin Church in part with the integration of elements from the Greek Byzantine tradition. I like the Byzantine tradition. But I think we Latins have our own styles and traditions.

Why do we have to turn to the Easterners in order to reclaim the sacred and transcendent?

Posted in The Drill | Tagged Jeffrey Tucker
56 Comments

MacMillan’s Mass settings for the Papal Visit to England

Posted on 20 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Here is some great news from The Catholic Herald, the UK’s best Catholic weekly.

Choirs prepare for papal Masses

By Mark Greaves on Friday, 20 August 2010

Choirs across England, Wales and Scotland are rehearsing the new setting of the Mass composed for the papal visit by James MacMillan.

The setting will be performed at the two big papal events at Cofton Park, Birmingham, and Bellahouston Park in Glasgow and will follow the new English translation of the Mass.

[And here is the great news…]

Sections of the setting are already available online so that papal pilgrims can practise singing it in the run-up to the Pope’s visit.

Crowds will be aided by a choir of 2,000 at Cofton Park and 800 at Bellahouston and there will be “detailed and focused” rehearsal before the Masses start.

The choirs will be accompanied by brass and timpani on the day but, according to Mr MacMillan, any parish can perform the setting as long as it has an organ.

Mr MacMillan said he tried to make the basic melody simple so that congregations would pick it up easily. “It’s not a lot of time to bed the music down in dioceses and parishes,” he said.

He also said he hoped it would be “appropriate to the text and the way the drama of the Mass unfolds”.

Mr MacMillan said: [And now a familiar idea for WDTPRS readers…] “There has to be a sense of awe at the words of ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’, just before the consecration. And the Gloria is a huge raising of hearts to heaven, a great joyous outburst from the very early days of the Church, that again has to have a very different flavour.”

Mr MacMillan admitted he was apprehensive about the setting being sung “in the middle of a field”.

“Singing out of a field is tricky – it’s just a very strange experience standing in the middle of the field and being expected to sing. And Catholics are reluctant singers at the best of times.

“I just hope that people rise to the challenge. At first encounter it might feel strange, but if they have the text and music with them I hope they will really join in on the day,” Mr MacMillan said.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged James MacMillan
15 Comments

NEW TRANSLATION 1st Sunday of ADVENT 2011!

Posted on 20 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The USCCB issued a press release:

CARDINAL GEORGE ANNOUNCES VATICAN APPROVAL OF NEW ROMAN MISSAL ENGLISH-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION, IMPLEMENTATION SET FOR FIRST SUNDAY OF ADVENT 2011 [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

U.S. Adaptations to Mass Prayers Also Approved
Parish Education Efforts Urged To Precede Implementation
Resources Available Through USCCB

WASHINGTON—Cardinal Francis George, OMI, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has announced that the full text of the English-language translation of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, has been issued for the dioceses of the United States of America.

            The text was approved by the Vatican, and the approval was accompanied by a June 23 letter from Cardinal Llovera Antonio Cañizares, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Congregation also provided guidelines for publication.

            In addition, on July 24, the Vatican gave approval for several adaptations, including additional prayers for the Penitential Act at Mass and the Renewal of Baptismal Promises on Easter Sunday. Also approved are texts of prayers for feasts specific to the United States such as Thanksgiving, Independence Day and the observances of feasts for saints such as Damien of Molokai, Katharine Drexel, and Elizabeth Ann Seton. The Vatican also approved the Mass for Giving Thanks to God for the Gift of Human Life, which can be celebrated on January 22.

            Cardinal George announced receipt of the documents in an August 20 letter to the U.S. Bishops and issued a decree of proclamation that states that [WAIT FOR IT…] “The use of the third edition of the Roman Missal enters into use in the dioceses of the United States of America as of the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011. From that date forward, no other edition of the Roman Missal may be used in the dioceses of the United States of America.”   [HUZZAH! In English of course. Any priest can always use the 2002 Missale Romanum or the 1962 Missale Romanum.]

            The date of implementation was chosen to allow publishers time to prepare texts and parishes and dioceses to educate parishioners.

            “We can now move forward and continue with our important catechetical efforts as we prepare the text for publication,” Cardinal George said.

            In the coming weeks, staff of the bishops’ Secretariat of Divine Worship will prepare the text for publication and collaborate with the staff of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), which will assist Bishops’ Conferences in bringing the text to publication. In particular, ICEL has been preparing the chant settings of the texts of the Missal for use in the celebration of the Mass. Once all necessary elements have been incorporated into the text and the preliminary layout is complete, the final text will go to the publishers to produce the ritual text, catechetical resources and participation aids for use in the Liturgy.

            Receipt of the text marks the start of proximate preparation for Roman Missal implementation. Before first use of the new text in Advent 2011, pastors are urged to use resources available to prepare parishioners. Some already have been in use; others are being released now. They include the Parish Guide for the Implementation of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, and Become One Body, One Spirit in Christ, a multi-media DVD resource produced by ICEL in collaboration with English-language Conferences of Bishops. Both will be available from the USCCB. Information on resources can be found at www.usccb.org/romanmissal

            Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, New Jersey, Chair of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, voiced gratitude for the approval.

            “I am happy that after years of preparation, we now have a text that, when introduced late next year, will enable the ongoing renewal of the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy in our parishes,” he said. Msgr. Anthony Sherman, Director of the Secretariat for Divine Worship of the USCCB noted, “A great effort to produce the new Roman Missal for the United States, along with the other necessary resources, has begun. Even as that work is underway a full–scale catechesis about the Liturgy and the new Roman Missal should be taking place in parishes, so that when the time comes, everyone will be ready.”