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{]:¬)

For Latin Students – Fr. Foster’s Summer intensive course – in the USA!

Posted on 15 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I received this about Fr. Reginald Foster’s Summer Latin course, as well as another course, … to be taught in the USA rather than in Rome!

UNIVERSUM LATINITATIS CURRICULUM

A.    Annua Exercitatio Communis

•    Milvauchiae mense Octobri ad Maium
•    in triginta quinque congressibus gratuitis
•    quinque “Experientiarum” sive graduum ab imo ad summum
•    feriis opportunis interpositis
•    pluribus cum lectionibus ‘ad libitum’.

B.    Aestiva Eruditio Altior

•    ibidem mensibus Iunio et Iulio
•    sexies in hebdomada gratis
•    duorum ordinum superioris institutionis: Iuniorum et Seniorum
•    itineribus litterariis propositis
•    liberis cum sessionibus ‘sub arboribus’.

PETE SCRIBE QUAERE :

Reginald Thomas Foster
1233 South 45th St
West Milwaukee, Wisconsin – 53214
U.S.A

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged Fr. Reginald Foster
13 Comments

QUAERITUR: two-sided Crucifix for Mass “facing the people”

Posted on 15 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

Our parish priest, who says the NO in the parish church and the EF in
another church in the parish , came up with this idea. For the Mass in
English he places a crucifix on the altar with a corpus on each side –
so both he and we are facing the Lord. What do you think?

I think he should, after a period of catechesis, simply shift to ad orientem worship.

That would solve the dilemma without involving a confusing symbol.

I think a two-sided crucifix is theologically … odd.

As I read this, at the same time as I had admiration for the priest – who is clearly trying to do good things for his people, I had the image of a man who has a pebble in his shoe but decides to walk on his hands rather than apply the more obvious solution.

"But Father! But Father!", you will object. "It is probable that the priest would get into trouble if he tried to change to ad orientem worship. What if he can’t make that bold move?"

Fine, I respond. Build brick by brick, patiently.

I still think a two-sided Crucifix is … odd.

Go with the regular Crucifix with the corpus toward the priest… and then start the catechesis including the point that ad orientem worship would allow them all to face the Lord together.

Sec. State Clinton Announces 5-year Funding Push, Including Abortion

Posted on 15 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

As a follow up to my retrospect post about the first year of Pres. Obama’s Administration and the Vatican and "Common Ground", look at this from the very useful C-Fam.

Volume 13, Number 5
January 14, 2010
Secretary Clinton Announces 5-year Funding Push, Including Abortion

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

      (NEW YORK – C-FAM) In Washington last week, United States (U.S.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States would engage in a massive funding push over the next five years to promote “reproductive health care and family planning” as a “basic right” around the world. Clinton has previously stated for the record that this includes abortion. [You don’t do that unless you want the number of abortions to increase.] The plan includes potentially siphoning off funds currently directed towards fighting HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria.

     Commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of the controversial International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Clinton said there were only five years left to achieve ICPD’s goal that “all governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right.”

     Last April, in testimony before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, when asked whether the United States’ definition of “reproductive health" includes abortion, Clinton replied that, "We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal and rare." ?

     In her remarks last week Clinton specifically emphasized the importance of the abortion component of the Obama foreign policy by saying, “One of President Obama’s first actions in office was to overturn the Mexico City policy, which greatly limited our ability to fund family planning programs.” The 1984 Mexico City Policy required all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. In fact, notwithstanding Clinton’s assertions, the ICPD outcome document likewise rules out abortion as a method of family planning.

     Despite the economic downturn, Clinton announced that “The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. …the largest allocation in more than a decade.” The “centerpiece” of the Obama foreign policy, she said, would be the Global Health Initiative. [But wait! What was it that Pres. Obama was saying about… nah… couldn’t be…. he wouldn’t … lie would he?] She said the initiative “commits us to spending $63 billion over six years.” This will link the reproductive rights agenda to high profile global health concerns. Launched by the World Economic Forum in 2002, the initiative is supposed to focus on HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis, and malaria.

     The plan to link abortion rights to the Global Health Initiative through the issue of maternal and child health was announced at the 2007 United Nations (UN)-sponsored “Women Deliver” conference by abortion rights groups such as International Planned Parenthood and Center for Reproductive Rights as well as the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). [Don’t taxpayer dollars prop up the UN?] At that time, these groups also called for linking abortion rights to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by inserting a target for “universal access to reproductive health” under MDG 5 on maternal health. Critics see this as a stratagem to dip into funds previously directed to fights AIDS and other diseases.

     Last week Clinton pledged U.S. commitment to the reproductive health target, saying, “We have pledged new funding, new programs, and a renewed commitment to achieve Millennium Development Goal Five, namely a [three-fourths] reduction in global maternal mortality, and universal access to reproductive healthcare.” That target has never been accepted by the General Assembly in open debate, and was soundly rejected the last time it was raised in 2005.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged Common Ground, Hilary Clinton, Mexico City policy, Millennium Development Goals, Pres. Obama
4 Comments

Senate candidate Martha Coakley (D-MA) on “conscience clause”

Posted on 15 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Someone alerted me to a comment made by a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat for Massachusetts Martha Coakley (D-MA). Kathryn Lopez of National Review picked it up.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

It’s a Good Thing for Martha Coakley That There Are No Catholics in Massachusetts

[Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Oh. Wait. There are a few, aren’t there?

During an interview today, Martha Coakley was asked about the conscience issue Catholic medical personnel encounter when it comes to a law that mandates the distribution of emergency contraception, which sometimes works as an abortifacient. (I wrote about the details of this issue as pertain to Scott Brown and Massachusetts and Martha Coakley’s misrepresentation of all of this here.)

Coakley explained that this should not be a problem because "we have a separation of church and state." "Let’s be clear," the attorney general added.

The radio host, Ken Pittman, pointed out that complex legal principle that "In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom."

Coakley agrees that "The law says that people are allowed to have that." But, making clear her view — the attorney general who wants to be the next senator from Massachusetts — she declared that "You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn’t work in an emergency room." (Listen here.) [So… Martha Coakley will be against freedom on conscience for health care workers.]

And perhaps Saint Elizabeth’s on Cambridge Street shouldn’t have an emergency room at all?

Martha Coakley is a terrible candidate.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged conscience clause, Martha Coakley
53 Comments

More on Celebrity Cruises and bias against Catholic priests

Posted on 14 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Remember when I wrote about the probable anti-Catholic bias evidenced by Celebrity Cruises? They have eliminated the services of Catholic priests for pretty much all of their cruises.

The Catholic League has this…

CELEBRITY CRUISES STIFFS CATHOLICS

January 14, 2010

Bill Donohue explains why the Catholic League is sharply critical of Celebrity Cruises:

Ten days before Christmas, we learned that Celebrity Cruises had just announced that beginning in 2010, it would no longer have priests on board to celebrate daily and Sunday Masses. We immediately followed up by questioning the cruise line about its new policy. Just this week we received a reply that said, “Out of respect for our guests of all religious faiths, Celebrity has chosen to align the religious services provided for Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Interdenominational faiths effective January 4, 2010.” It added that religious services would be provided for “the major High Holy Holidays of each respective faith.” [Get that? "align".]

What this statement failed to note is the reason for the new policy. The following is an excerpt from the letter it sent to Catholic priests affected by the change in policy: “While we do meet the needs of many guests onboard by supplying a priest, we have recently encountered a great deal of negative feedback pertaining to the ‘selective’ support of one particular religion/faith. After many internal discussions, external research, and marketing investigations, Celebrity Cruises will only place Roman Catholic Priests on sailings that take place over the Easter and Christmas holiday.” [Who could have complained?]

In other words, because some anti-Catholics objected to daily Mass onboard the ship, Celebrity Cruises threw the priests—and the lay Catholic men and women with them—overboard. [That’s about it.] Instead of standing on principle and telling those generating the “negative feedback” that no one is forced to go to Mass, and that tolerance demands respect for religious freedom, officials at Celebrity Cruises decided to yield to the bigots.

The Catholic League advises all Catholics to shop around the next time they plan to take a cruise, but not to waste their time checking out Celebrity Cruises. [As I also suggested. Choose another line.]

Contact: captainsclub@celebritycruises.com

Posted in The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged Celebrity Cruises
23 Comments

CNA: Pelosi’s archbishop slams her rationale for supporting abortion

Posted on 14 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

For a few more hours I am in San Francisco, Congressional District of pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Speak of the House.

Could it be that my visit…. nah…. no way…

Thus I was surprised to find the following, with my emphases and comments on CNA:

San Francisco, Calif., Jan 13, 2010 / 05:46 pm (CNA).- Archbishop George Niederauer responded today to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent comments that she has “some concerns about the Church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose.” Justifying her decision to support abortion by citing her free will “is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching,” the archbishop insisted. [Okay… and the next step iiiiissssszzzzz…..]

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi told Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift in a December 21, 2009 interview that she disagrees with the Church on certain issues but considers herself a “practicing Catholic.”

[Read the incredible statement again…] “I have some concerns about the church’s position respecting a woman’s right to choose. I have some concerns about the church’s position on gay rights. I am a practicing Catholic, although they’re probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith. I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will,” Pelosi said.

Archbishop Niederauer countered in his January 13 column, “Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom.” God gave human beings the capacity to choose between good and evil in order to give them the gift of freedom, even at the cost of many evil choices, the archbishop said.

But this gift of freedom, the freedom wrongly cited in justifying a woman’s right to choose, ["right to choose" is really code for "choose in favor of abortion"] among other fallacies, does not justify the position that “all moral choices are good if they are free,” insisted Archbishop Niederauer, because “the exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” [A corollary to this is, "I really struggled with this decision." These days, The Struggle is supposed to be a free pass for whatever you choose to do. ]

Addressing those who advocate for “reproductive choice” while claiming to be Catholic, Archbishop Niederauer emphasized, “it is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. [Ehem… not that these are moral equivalents.] Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.”

The belief in the validity of arbitrarily determining right and wrong is widespread both in and outside of the Church, the archbishop noted.

Touching on the meaning of one’s conscience, the San Francisco archbishop described it as “the judgment of reason whereby the human person, guided by God’s grace, recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. In all we say and do, we are obliged to follow faithfully what we know to be just and right.”

“As participants in the life of the civil community,” [As Catholics in the public square….] Archbishop Niederauer wrote, “we Catholic citizens try to follow our consciences, guided, as described above, by reason and the grace of God. While we deeply respect the freedom of our fellow citizens, we nevertheless are profoundly convinced that free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom.” [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

WDTPRS applauds Archbp. Niederauer and invites Speaker Pelosi to conform her conscience to the teaching of the Church lest she risk a horrifying judgment.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged Archbp. Niederauer, Nancy Pelosi
30 Comments

Obama Administration debates requiring covering of religious symbols for federal funds

Posted on 14 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Catholics need to fight to keep and clarify a Catholic voice in the public square and the digital continent.

A reader alerted me to this entry on the WaPo blog On Faith. It concerns what the Obama Adminstration might impose on religious institutions which accept federal funds.

I suspect this would impact the school voucher debate.

My emphases and comments.

Obama Faith Council Debates Religious Icons

By William Wan

Obama’s faith council [I wonder who is on that council…] is finalizing its draft report this week, and one of the key debates that emerged from the phone conference yesterday was whether there should be [So this is hypothetical?] rules requiring religious groups to cover up religious symbols if they receive federal funding for services. For example, if a church gets money for a soup kitchen, would it have to remove or put a cloth over all crosses, pictures, etc., every time it gets ready to feed the hungry? [I know that sounds implausible… but consider how quickly things have been changing.]

That sparked a lively debate among council members that largely dominated yesterday’s two-hour teleconference. [NB: They didn’t immediately shoot it down.] Melissa Rogers, director of Wake Forest’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs, who is leading the group tasked with solving such church-state issues laid ouit three possibilities the council could recommend:
1. Making such religious icons not allowed for federally funded services.
2. Allowing it only if no other religious neutral rooms ["religious neutral rooms"] are available and covering up such icons is impratical. [impractical!]
3. Not requiring removal of such icons but encouraging religious orgs to be sensitive about the issue. ["be sensitive"? What would that involve? Walking through the halls sniveling a little? Hand ringing?]

That led to a lengthy debate from which no clear consensus emerged. [Of coruse everything has to be done by consensus.] As the council’s various taskforces finish up their reports, some thorny issues like this look like they’ll require footnotes or majority/minority opinion sections (ala supreme court).

The other significant news that emerged from the teleconference yesterday was that Rogers has been chosen by the group to be its official chairwoman and to coordinate the finalizing of the final report as the various taskforces wrap up their work.

Do they set policy or just make recommendations?

Who is on this council?

Remember Georgetown University! Remember Notre Dame!

Posted in Our Catholic Identity | Tagged federal funding
38 Comments

QUAERITUR: If you wear an alb, do you need an amice?

Posted on 14 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I just had a quick question: If a seminarian or anyone for that matter wears an an alb at Mass is it proper to wear an amice under it? I have a cassock and surplice but the "tradition" in my diocese has been that seminarians wear albs when sitting in choir at Mass or serving or whatever.

For the Novus Ordo, the general rule is that street clothes should be covered. For clerics, for sacred ministers, that sometimes requires the amice if the alb is not constructed so as to cover the collar.

If you priests or deacons in Mass vestments with their Roman collars showing, they are under-dressed.

As far as lay people are concerned, I think the rule would still apply.

But I wouldn’t want the use of an amice to lead to any sense of "clericalization" of the lay people who use them. If there must be servers in albs, perhaps it would be better to have those albs that entirely cover the next, thus eliminating the need for an amice.

Seminarians should use proper choir dress. But if they are forced to use albs, then use the amice if necessary to cover street clothes.

For the Usus antiquior, priests must use an amice. Servers would be in cassock and surplice.

His omnibus scriptis: If you don’t have an amice and one isn’t available, you go ahead as best you can without it. You are not held to the impossible. But be responsible beforehand and make sure you have what you need. Don’t assume these days that parishes have amices unless they also have more traditional liturgical worship.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged alb, amice
10 Comments

Archbishop dies in Haiti earthquake… moral lessons

Posted on 13 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Archbishop of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, H. E. Most Rev. Joseph Serge Miot, was killed in the earthquake that devastated the area. His body has been recovered.

Please pray for the repose of his soul and God’s mercy for him and the others who suffered.

In the older form of the Litany of Saints we sing to be preserved from an "unprovided death". That is to say, we pray God the grace not to die in such a way that we don’t have the last sacraments.

This is one reason why I travel with an oil stock.

This is a reason why people should make a good confession frequently, holding nothing back, and should examine their consciences daily.

When people die in earthquakes, in less then modernized countries, it is often because the buildings were poorly constructed, or there was shoddy work or materials. People die often because of the greed or laziness of others.

You all have your vocations and your professions. Do your work well.

Your vocation demands certain things from you. Your profession demands certain things from you. If you receive a wage, in justice do your job well.

But in many cases many people can come to great harm if you do not fulfill your vocation well, or your profession diligently.

Imagine being a person who worked on a building and cheated on the construction, knowing that when people died in its collapse you were partly to blame.

This could extend to other aspects of our lives. Parents, raise your children well and in the Faith. If they reject it later, you will at least have done your part and given them their chance. This goes for priests, or teachers, or …. what have you…

Try to be the best you are able at what you do.

And be ready as best you can for that moment when you will have to give an account for your life and hear GOD’s account of your life.

Posted in Global Killer Asteroid Questions |
26 Comments

My view for a while

Posted on 12 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Another flight, hopefully boring.

I have a book on Shakespeare, sent from my wish list by a reader, and an iPod with audio books, and Bose noise cacelling headphones… and even ear plugs to shut everything out.