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{]:¬)

Mexican Bishops on Supreme Court about same-sex “unions”

Posted on 17 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Bishops of Mexico: Homosexual adoption an attack on natural order

Mexico City, Mexico, Aug 17, 2010 / 09:59 pm (CNA).- The Bishops’ Conference of Mexico released a statement on Tuesday rejecting the decision by the country’s Supreme Court to uphold the legality of same-sex “marriage” and to allow gay couples to adopt. The prelates remarked that the ruling not only goes against the natural order, but also against the will of the people.

Here is the complete statement titled, “Responsibility and Free Expression, a Right of Every Person.”

During recent days the media has bombarded us with the controversial issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ and their adoption of children.

We are all aware of Mexico City Assembly’s decision to pass a law that opened the door to these kinds of unions. This decision was carried out hurriedly, without the necessary consultation of different leaders in society and without concern for the consensus of the majority, [Sounding familiar yet?] which was against such unions and especially the adoption of children. The steamroller of the ruling party prevailed and debate on the issue was set aside to the detriment of the majority of society that was shown to be against it.

The attorney general’s office challenged the measure’s constitutionality before the Supreme Court, thus demonstrating its disagreement. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ended its debate without getting to the heart of the issue and only confirming the legality of the juridical process carried out by the Mexico City Legislative Assembly.

The Bishops of Mexico, sensitive to the opinion of the majority not only in Mexico City, but also in the entire country, exercising the freedom of expression guaranteed by our democratic political regime, manifest our total disagreement with the ruling issued by the Supreme Court, with all due respect for the institutions of the Mexican State. We believe that to make these unions equal to marriage is disrespectful both to the very essence of marriage between a man and a woman, as expressed in article 4 of the Constitution, as well as to the customs and the very culture that has governed us for centuries.

The Church, made up of all the baptized, watches over the rights of those who cannot defend themselves, and in this case, children who are the weakest among us. For this reason, based on natural law and our faith, as pastors, the bishops have always and will always be on the side of the rights of the unborn, of those who cannot watch over themselves, of those humiliated and exploited in every sphere.

The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, at different times and with appropriate reflections, has insisted on the importance of safeguarding the fundamental values of the human person from conception to natural death. Likewise, he has expressed the importance of respecting and protecting creation, nature in general and human nature in particular. The environmental awareness that has won so many converts for the safeguarding of different species, respecting their natural processes, should include the human species, whose dignity and consciousness of its own development is superior to all. [But wait! Man isn’t part of nature! … Right?] For this reason, the Church discovers in nature itself the dignity of marriage between a man and a woman. This encourages us to promote the dignity of the couple and their offspring by appealing to natural and moral values.

We lament that in manifesting these concepts to the public, there exist those who respond with recriminations and threats, claiming this is intolerant, when tolerance is supposed to ensure that we call all express our opinions and positions. For this reason, we express our solidarity and our feelings to Cardinals Norberto Rivera Carrera and Juan Sandoval Iniguez about this delicate issue.

What Mexico is experiencing now demands a dignified debate that unites us and in which all members of society together address the problems that afflict us: the lack of security, violence, corruption, unemployment, etc. It is urgent that our country put an end to the hindrances of stubbornness, exclusion and prejudices of all kinds, and that all of us as brothers and sisters strive to build a Mexico with room for all and respect for the rights of each individual, where transparency and the good use of democratic freedoms make our nation prosperous based on transcendent values.

As pastors of the People of God and brothers of all, we bishops call on the faithful to pray to the Holy Mary of Guadalupe for the decisions of our leaders and for all the children who have no voice but who have the right to have a family that can be an example of virtues for them.”

The West is in big trouble.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged Mexican bishops
19 Comments

Help! I need technical advice!

Posted on 17 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I need help from you knowledgeable readers.

Is there any software that will allow me to record – on a single computer – 4 usb webcams with 1 or 2 audio sources?

The idea is to record simultaneously four different camera streams so that you can later edit them together into, say, an interview or even 4 different angles of a Mass. I don’t mean having some switch between cams while the thing is going on… I mean recording all four and then editing/switching later.

Any ideas?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes |
10 Comments

Why are groups of liberal Catholics splitting from their bishops?

Posted on 17 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Schism and disobedience, undermining one’s ecclesial identity, are hardly new in the Church.

Still, I have noticed that coverage of these aberrations has increased.

There is the renegade community in Brisbane, Australia. Pretty much heretics as well.
In St. Louis there is the wound in unity of St. Stanislas.
In Cleveland a group of parishioners from a parish closed by the bishop has revolted and started their own thing.
There is a facebook page supporting the priest in Tennessee who issued a video in which he spouted all sorts of nonsense, thus drawing attention of the blogosphere, and therefore his bishop. People are protesting at the cathedral.

I saw a suggestion that the clerical sexual abuse crisis is responsible for the lack of respect for the authority of bishops. Therefore, when bishops make certain decisions, people no longer think it necessary to be guided by them.

I wonder if that crisis wasn’t merely an aggravating factor.

Perhaps the real foundation of the problem is decades of liturgical abuse and bad catechesis.

People have lost, in some parishes, that deeper sense of Catholic identity. They just barely belong to the same religion. Therefore, when there is some pushing and shoving, they head to the door in groups.

In other words, they are just doing what they have been formed to do.

This is a rather pessimistic view, I know. But it needs some thoughtful discussion.

Thoughts?

Posted in Our Catholic Identity | Tagged schism
79 Comments

What Is Confession Time Really For?

Posted on 17 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I am ever more impressed with the quality of posts on Fr. Bill Baer’s blog. He is a priest acquaintance of mine in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. I have posted about him before.

He has been talking about confession recently, which is a common theme here on this our blog as well.

Fr. Baer posted in his latest his explores the idea of two kinds of penitents, those who want "a quick sacramental “clean-up” before Mass, or a lengthy conversation in the Confessional afterwards".

He adds:

The pastor who has scheduled confessions after Mass may then wish to do two things: First, offer a simple explanation from the pulpit concerning the differences between confession, spiritual direction, and counseling, perhaps expressing a willingness to offer spiritual direction or counseling — or to refer parishioners to qualified Catholic spiritual directors or counselors — but at a different time and place than the Confessional. Second, the pastor may address these issues directly in the Confessional with a penitent who seems to want something more than, or different than, the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

This brings up good points for people who are waiting to get into a confessional.

May I also direct you back to my 20 Tips for Making a Good Confession?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged confessions, Fr. Baer, sacrament of penance
19 Comments

Italian liturgist Manlio Sodi fears Summorum Pontificum

Posted on 17 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Manilio Sodi, SDB, is virulently opposed to Pope Benedict.

The Italian blog Messa in latino reports that Sodi has been on Italian radio a couple times recently running down Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

The good news is that its August and virtually no one heard him talk. It hardly makes much of a difference what he said.

Sodi – editor of an influential liberal liturgical journal – is over the top in his comments. He demonstrates how uninterested in he is being as thoughtful or objective about an important liturgical issue as a scholar ought.

In tortured Italian, Sodi remarked in the radio:

The Pope’s Motu Proprio published three years ago was intended to enable some groups of people who were attached to the previous rite to celebrate with the necessary peace and serenity according the the Missale published in 1962. What was underscored in the ambit of the Motu Proprio was the fact of rapprochement with stable communities, that is communities which remained faithful and always attached to this form of celebration.

There is another radio spot as well, rather more condescending but pretty much more of the same.

This is Sodi’s line and the line most liberals adhere to: Summorum Pontificum, just like Ecclesia Dei adflicta before it, was intended strictly for those who cannot make the transition to a more enlightened liturgy. The Motu Proprio does not intend to expanded the use of the older form or expose to the traditional forms anyone except those who are either old, and therefore nostalgic, or who are already trapped in rigid groups of regressivists.

Sodi is afraid of the growth in numbers of younger people who are interested in traditional liturgical worship. His worst nightmare.

I am sure you readers can post in the combox below the evidence to the contrary. It might be a good exercise to review this, in light of the upcoming 3rd anniversary of Summorum Pontificum.

The bottom line is that Sodi doesn’t like the Pope and what he is doing. He fears the effects of Summorum Pontificum. He perceives the Pope’s Motu Proprio to be an attack on his life’s work.

What Sodi is doing is a perfect example of what the Brit’s call "special pleading".

Posted in SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged Manlio Sodi, special pleading, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
38 Comments

A counter-proposal for the Mosque at Ground Zero

Posted on 16 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have been following the debate over the building of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan.

I have a counter proposal.

Let us build a chapel dedicated to Sts. Nunilo and Alodia next to the mosque.

Saints Nunilo and Alodia were a pair of 9th c. virgin martyrs in Huesca, Spain. They were born to a Muslim father and Christian mother. However, they chose their mother’s Christianity.

And so during the Emirate of Abd ar-Rahman II it came to pass that these little girls were first put in a brothel and then were executed as apostates according to Sharia law.

Their feast day is 22 October.

I think their relics are in the Cathedral of Pamplona, having been translated a couple times.

Now think about this for a little while. And for those who don’t want to think this through, let’s spell it out.

No reasonable person thinks that the developers don’t have the legal right to build a mosque on that spot. But do they have a moral right to build there?

There is such a thing as propriety.

The project of this Mosque is not neutral in meaning. The location is not neutral in meaning. The desire behind building this particular mosque is not neutral.

In my opinion it is spectacularly insensitive to press for this mosque to be built at that site. It would be tantamount to building a church dedicated to Christian children martyred under an Islamic regime next to a place revered by Muslims.

Posted in Saints: Stories & Symbols, The future and our choices | Tagged Sts. Nunilo and Alodia
39 Comments

Sister Act

Posted on 16 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I read the National Catholic Fishwrap piece about the change of sisterly presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

They had their rite of farewelling and leadershiping for the outgoing prez.

What the hell is this? Star Trek?

Posted in Classic Posts, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, My Favorite Posts, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged LCWR
57 Comments

The Feeder Feed and a saint who couldn’t stand another saint

Posted on 16 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I haven’t posted anything about the feeder activity lately.

Here is an action shot!

This Blue Jay does not like the other flying competition.

Mr. Indigo Bunting likes millet.

A nice shot of a young female Oriole. Most of the adults have flown south already.

Mrs. Ruby-Throated Hummingbird perched for a drink from the feeder on office window.

An alert Mrs. Cardinal.

There are fewer Goldfinches around right now, since it is time for them at last to nest.

I still have House Finches and Purple Finches coming around.

The Chickadees are back in force from their Alaskan cruise, or wherever they were hanging out.

I still have quite a few female Red-Breasted Grosbeaks, but all the males have flown, no doubt to stake out their territory down yonder.

No repeated sighting of Baeolophus bicolor, alas.

Elsewhere…. across the road I saw a Killdeer darting into a field. I also had the great pleasure of watching a Red-Tailed Hawk successfully dive on his prey in a ditch by the road. Once less member of the vermin class to annoy us. There are numerous swallows in the evening, not to mention bats. Though bats aren’t birds, they have my esteem. Not only do the eat mosquitoes, laudable in itself, but they have an amusing name in Italian: pipistrelli. I also am fond of "bat" in Latin: vespertilio. The reason for this name should be obvious.

I think St. Ambrose was a little hard on the poor bat, frankly. In Hexameron he quipped:

Vespertilio animal ignobile a vespere nomen accepit.

In his Commentary on Isaiah (1.2.20) the sometimes less than noble St. Jerome also explains the bat:

Vespertilio autem nocturna avis, quae congruum ab eis nomen accepit νυκτερίς, eo quod in nocte volitet, parvum animal est, et murium simile, non tam voce et cantu resonans, quam stridore, quod cum videatur volitare, lucifugum est et solem videre non patitur.

Jerome and Ambrose together in an entry about birds…

Jerome did not like Ambrose at all. I suspect Jerome was envious of the great Bishop of Milan.

Who can forget the harsh ornithological description Jerome applied to Ambrose?

In Book II of his Apology, Rufinus pointed out how Jerome had attacked Ambrose. In Apology 2,23-25, as he digs into accusations of plagiarism which were being hurled around, he . Rufinus says that Jerome referred to Ambrose as a raven, a bird of ill omen, croaking and ridiculing in an strange way the color of all the others birds on account of his own total blackness…

Praesertim cum a sinistro oscinem corvum audiam croccientem et mirum in modum de cunctarum avium ridere coloribus, cum totus ipse tenebrosus sit.

Again, going on about Jerome’s accusation against Ambrose of plagiarism, in 2,25 Rufinus continues about Jerome’s treatment of Ambrose with his own counter charges. Here it is in English:

You observe how (Jerome) treats Ambrose. First, he calls him a raven and says that he is black all over; then he calls him a jackdaw who decks himself in other birds’ showy feathers; and then he rends him with his foul abuse, and declares that there is nothing manly in a man whom God has singled out to be the glory of the churches of Christ, who has spoken of the testimonies of the Lord even in the sight of persecuting kings and has not been alarmed. The saintly Ambrose wrote his book on the Holy Spirit not in words only but with his own blood; for he offered his life-blood to his persecutors, and shed it within himself, although God preserved his life for future labours.

Nope. Jerome did not like Ambrose at all.

There is also Jerome’s devastating quip: Heri catechumenus, hodie pontifex.

In 397, the year of Ambrose death, Jerome wrote to a Roman named Oceanus who wanted Jerome to help him fight against a bishop in Spain who had married a second time. Jerome tells Oceanus to drop it, since that bishops’ first marriage had been before baptism. However, Jerome uses the occasion to take a swipe at Ambrose.

Ambrose had been popularly proclaimed bishop in Milan in 374 even though he had not even been baptized and had no theological training. The emperor, who wanted peace, acceded and within a week Ambrose was baptized and consecrated bishop.

Jerome, who in my opinion was disappointed that he hadn’t been made Bishop of Rome, surely felt the sting of Ambrose’s meteoric rise.

Jerome wrote:

Heri catechumenus, hodie pontifex; heri in amphitheatro, hodie in ecclesia; vespere in circo, mane in altari; dudum fautor strionum, nunc virginum consecrator: num ignorabat apostolus tergiuersationes nostras et argumentorum ineptias nesciebat? … One who was yesterday a catechumen is today a bishop; one who was yesterday in the amphitheater is today in the church; one who spent the evening in the circus stands in the morning at the altar: one who a little while ago was a patron of actors is now a dedicator of virgins. Was the apostle ignorant of our shifts and subterfuges? Did he know nothing of our foolish arguments?

So, there you have it, folks. From Blue Jays to Bats and the less than edifying displays of ill-humor by a saint all in one post.

Posted in Patristiblogging, The Feeder Feed | Tagged St. Ambrose, St. Jerome
13 Comments

CA Judge denies stay of his own ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional

Posted on 12 August 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From the excellent Catholic Key blog, blog of the newspaper of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

Prop 8 Judge’s Denial of Stay Order is Too Cute by Half

Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker today denied a motion to stay his ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. His written justification for denying the motion provides ample evidence that Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 trial. In responding to the reasons Prop 8 proponents offered for a stay pending appeal, Walker shows himself to be merely willful and more than a little cutesy.

In addressing the argument that a stay is warranted given the proponents likelihood of success on appeal, Walker, astonishingly argues that the proponents likely don’t even have standing to appeal. Walker argues, “California does not grant proponents the authority or the responsibility to enforce Proposition 8.”

And here the cute begins. He argues that only the state has that authority:

In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates.”

The right of citizens to defend a democratically enacted law in court is here rendered akin to Mayor Newsom’s unilateral and illegal decision to start issuing same-sex marriage permits, ie., both are illegitimate. Since only the state can regulate marriage, Walker argues, the only people with standing to challenge his ruling would be the governor or attorney general. Since neither of them are likely to do so, there is no likelihood of an appeal even progressing, Walker argues. So no stay.

This is really extraordinary – the implication being that if the people of a state pass a law that the governor doesn’t like, and a trial court (with an obviously biased judge) throws out the law, then the people have no right to appeal.

If that is not bad enough, Walker’s final argument should cause alarm to every American regardless of their position on Prop 8. Walker argues there is no “public interest” in a stay, despite the fact that the public very clearly expressed their interest at the ballot box. Here Walker explains the proponents’ position:

Proponents also point to the public interest as reflected in the votes of “the people of California” who do not want same-sex couples to marry, explaining that “[t]here is no basis for this Court to second-guess the people of California’s considered judgment of the public interest.”

His tyrannical response immediately follows:

The evidence at trial showed, however, that Proposition 8 harms the State of California.

So the people vote democratically that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. A partnered, gay judge decides that would be bad for the State of California. Therefore, the people of the State of California no longer have any business pursuing what they believe is in their interest. The judge has decided what their interest is.

Walker then backs this up citing the aforementioned support of Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown for same-sex marriage, as if this also defines the interest of the people of California, notwithstanding their clear vote to the contrary.

Walker’s full ruling is here. I’ll be following what actual legal minds have to say about it over the next few days. Certainly the 9th Circuit will review it before it goes into effect August 18. But my first impression is that Walker’s stay ruling is even more pernicious than his vain original ruling.