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

The Most Tragikal Hostess Debacle. Act II. Enter: Looters, Zombies, Unions.

Posted on 17 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I heard about this when I was running errands yesterday.

It seems that the Hostess – producers of iconic products – has now gone completely bust because, in negotiations with the company the baker’s union demanded too much.

I grew up in a town heavily dominated by unions and saw this happen again and again. Union bosses make demands that are too high. The company folds or moves. Thousands lose their jobs.

Mind you, I haven’t eaten anything made by Hostess for many years, but I am now angry that I can’t. I am also angry that so many have lost their jobs.

18,000 jobs lost. “Merry Christmas! Here’s your pink slip.”

But that won’t be all. All the people who surrounding the company, such as those who supplied the flour, drove the trucks to deliver the flour, etc., will take a hit as well. These labor disasters have wider consequences.

This doesn’t sound like “creative destruction” to me.

It could be that some other company will buy the brands and produce them, but in the meantime, there is a hole in the shelves being filled with pink-slips.

At the grocery store I saw that the shelves, which I invariably avoid, where the Hostess stuff is usually found, and by me ignored, was entirely cleaned out except for two lone packs of cupcakes (photo above). It gave me the creeps.

I am searching for some sort of allegorical TEOTWAWKI meaning to all this. Perhaps you readers can help me. First, we have iconic products which we take for granted. The company did not adapt properly to the changing circumstances. The unions, playing the selfish card, kills the goose, as it were. The shelves are cleared out. Somewhere in the back of my mind, there should be zombies involved in this vision.

I wish now that I had Twinkies in my bug-out-bag. They have a half-life of about 200 years and I could trade them for ammo.

Posted in TEOTWAWKI, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged Hostess, TEOTWAWKI, Twinkies, unions, zombies
64 Comments

Friday Supper

Posted on 16 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Posted in Fr. Z's Kitchen | Tagged sandwich, soup, supper
26 Comments

Can a publicly pro-homosexual marriage teenager be admitted for Confirmation?

Posted on 16 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Dr. Peters has a new post on his fine canon law blog, In the Light of the Law. He doesn’t have an open combox over there, and I can understand why.

Confirmation and advocacy of ‘gay marriage’
by Dr. Edward Peters

Those trying to figure out exactly what happened to a teenage Catholic scheduled for Confirmation consequent to his posting a pro ‘gay marriage’ photo of himself on Facebook will not, I fear, find in secular press reports (amid their hyperboles and irrelevancies) much useful information about the incident, but it seems like something along those lines happened in Minnesota. [sigh] So let’s set out some points.

Catholics have a basic right to access the sacraments (Canon 213). The burden is on ministers to justify withholding sacraments from Catholics who seek them “at appropriate times, properly disposed, and not prohibited by from receiving them” (Canon 843). Hmm . . . “properly disposed.” Canon 889 § 2 states that to receive Confirmation licitly one must, among other things, be “properly disposed” for the sacrament. Hmm.

Well, what about this “proper disposition” requirement?

Generally “proper disposition” is not a question of internal disposition (such as interior faith, fervor, or grace) [It isn’t? I think it is. But how is a minister of a sacrament to know that? Thus, he must go by what can be known: outward signs that point to interior disposition and the public knowledge of those outward signs.] but rather of external disposition (public demeanor, dress, and conduct). The state of a would-be recipient’s soul is not determinable, of course, but his or her attitudes and conduct are observable (we’re talking Facebook, no?), and potentially actionable. [As I said.]

If a pastor, charged with the custody and celebration of the sacraments left to the Church by Christ, has solid reason to doubt the liceity of his conferral of a sacrament on a given individual, he is within his authority to delay, or even to deny, that sacrament for so long as that sad situation lasts. His decision is, of course, reviewable by ecclesiastical authority (not by the media) and such authority (with access to all the facts) might reach a different conclusion. But one starts any review with the above canons clearly in mind.

In another context I wrote about the risk of invalid (not just illicit) Confirmation on rebellious teenagers. See my “Invalid confirmation due to contrary intention of the recipient”, 2007 CLSA Advisory Opinions at 68-70. Such concerns should be assessed here as well.

Remember, this kid in question made a public statement of support for something that the Church cannot condone.

From CWN:

Report: MN bishop says pro-gay marriage teen can be confirmed when he publicly repudiates position

The parents of a teenage boy in the Diocese of Crookston (Minnesota) told the Fargo Forum that their parish priest has denied the Sacrament of Confirmation to their son, Lennon Cihak, because of his Facebook post in support of same-sex marriage.

Father Gary LaMoine of Assumption Church in Barnesville denied the family’s charge but would not elaborate.

“They’re my parishioners, and so when the press comes after me from different points of view and asks me all types of questions about their situation, I hesitate very much because I owe them, I owe that family confidentiality,” he said.

“He said ‘I cannot, cannot confirm him,’” Lennon’s mother said. “Father would not confirm him, and they won’t confirm him unless he changes his views.” [He made a public statement in favor of someone that the Church clearly teaches is not possible, and he made it for all the world to see.]

The parents also told the newspaper that they are no longer permitted to receive Holy Communion at the parish. [“They”? Are not “permitted” to receive Communion? That doesn’t sound right.]

“The mother did say that Bishop Michael Hoeppner of the Diocese of Crookston informed her that if Lennon stood before the church and denounced his support of same-sex marriage claims, he could be confirmed,” the Fargo Forum added.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged can. 213, confirmation, disposition, homosexuality, same-sex marriage
97 Comments

QUAERITUR: Examination of conscience and “Speaking against priests or consecrated religious”

Posted on 16 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Jesus wasn't 'nice'.

From a reader:

Hello Father! An examination of conscience asks, “Have I spoken against a priest, or against anyone consecrated to God? (This is a sacrilege).” I am not sure what constitutes “speaking against”, but I have made fun of the LCWR to friends and family; have I committed the sin of sacrilege? Thank you.

There are certainly boundaries about what we should say about any person, made in the image and likeness of God. It is best to restrict oneself to manifest, publicly known deeds and words and, even then, to be discreet.

This applies to any person. However, there is an addition sin when we harm a person who is consecrated. That is also the sin of sacrilege. If you strike a person, in an unwarranted way, that is a sin. If you strike a priest, that is also the sin of sacrilege.

Let’s make some distinctions about speaking against people.

Calumny is the harm done to another’s good name by imputing to him, behind his back, something injurious to his reputation of which the speaker or writer knows he is innocent. In short, it is lying about someone to make them look bad. It is slander.

Detraction is the revelation the hidden sins or faults of another, without sufficient cause, so that the person’s reputation is seriously damaged. It might be, in some cases, necessary to reveal things that are not public to proper authority. But great care must be done to discern if the matter is grave enough and if the situation really warrants doing so.

You can remember the difference between calumny and detraction by remember the “l” in calumny for “lie and the “t” in detraction for “truth”.

It is not out of bounds to talk in strong terms about the LCWR. This is a group which brought in to speak at their annual meeting an open lesbian and a woman into new-age cosmic consciousness. They gave an award to a woman religious with bizarre and erroneous theological notions, such as the ludicrous idea that the Canaanite woman taught Jesus who He was as Messiah, etc.

It is not out of bounds to point with derision to a group of sisters who won’t advance the Church’s teaching about abortion.

As far as the LCWR is concerned, we have to be a little careful not to become too personal in our comments about individual sisters or their supporters. I am sure that some of the sisters involved in leadership of communities that belong to the LCWR are just fine. In the main, however, the LCWR is dreadful and deserves to be unmasked. Their public deeds and words are fair game.

In my opinion, invective is not out of bounds when it comes to the deeds and words issued by the LCWR or the Nuns on the Bus, or the sister who runs the Catholic Health Association, etc. These days, there is in the mainstream and liberal catholic media a fog of pettifoggery when it comes to these liberal nuns and their corrosive work. We have to cut through the fog and the cover provided by their minions. A cutting word or two is not without its medicinal effect, both for the objective of the cut but also for those who are paying attention to the issues.

The pretenders of the Magisterium of Nuns must be brought down for their own good and ours.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liberals, Magisterium of Nuns, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged calumny, CHA, detraction, examen, examination of conscience, LCWR, liberals, Nuns On The Bus, sacrilege, Sr. Sandra Schneiders
13 Comments

More on clerical garb, this time from the Secretary of State

Posted on 16 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Just recently I answered a question from a reader about clerical dress.

This is just in from Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider:

An internal circular signed by Cardinal Bertone invites all clerics working in the Holy See to wear black cassocks or dog collars

ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN CITY
It’s the dress that makes the monk. A least in the Vatican. Last 15 October, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, signed a circular letter sent to all offices in the Roman Curia, to stress the need for priests and clerics to turn up at work wearing traditional clerical garb, that is the dog collar and black cassock. On formal occasions, for example when the Pope is present, monsignors will no longer be able to let their robe with the red buttons and purple fascia gather dust. [Mixed message here. Just when there is an audience? Just cassock? Cassock or suit?]

[…]

The Code of Canon Law states that “clerics must wear decorous ecclesiastical vestments” in line with the laws that bind the various bishops’ conferences. The Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) established that “the clergy has to wear a cassock or dog collar,” meaning black or grey vestments and a white dog collar. The dog collar was originally a Protestant garment; Catholic clergymen initially adopted it to make life easier for clerics when they had to travel. [I object to the term “dog collar”.]

In 1994, the Vatican Congregation for the clergy explained the reasons – sociological ones as well – behind Catholic priests’ vestments: “In a secularised and essentially materialistic society” there is a strong need for the community to be able to recognise the presbyter, who is a man of God and deliverer of his mysteries, the circular stated.

Bertone’s letter asks monsignors to wear the cassock with the red buttons at “events where the Holy Father is present” and on other official occasions. In one of his audiences, the Pope also urged bishops to start paying extra close attention to etiquette. [What does that mean? Clerical garb? Saying “Please” and “Thank you”? C’mon.]

In the past, the clergy wore civilian clothes only in certain contexts, for example in Turkey in the 40’s and recently in Mexico, with bishops used to dressing as managers. [Both places not so friendly to Catholics.] Soon, the habit took root in Europe: how can one forget the image of Joseph Ratzinger in a suit and dark tie during the Council years. But after the Second Vatican Council, the cassock ended up in a box in the loft and priests started to make less of an effort to stand out. But for some years now, there has been a significant countertrend, among young priests in particular. A “clerical” turning point which the Secretary of State has now put down in black and white in its circular.

Not up to Tornielli’s standard, I’m afraid.

Posted in Linking Back, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged cassock, clerical attire
32 Comments

QUAERITUR: Should EMHCs cleanse their fingers after distribution of Communion?

Posted on 16 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

If EMHC are used should they cleanse their fingers of Eucharistic particles after communion?

Of course they should!

Let an ablution cup or bowl be set somewhere, in advance, so that they can purify their fingers.

The fewer Extraordinary Ministers of Communion… the smaller the bowl, if you get my drift.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ablution cup, ablutions, Communion, EMHC
20 Comments

Card. Dolan at USCCB about HHS mandate: Bishops will “not violate our consciences and not obey what we consider to be something immoral”

Posted on 15 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Click to buy car magnets

From CNS:

Conference of Catholic Bishops on HHS Mandate: We Will ‘Not Obey What We Consider to Be Immoral’

(CNSNews.com) – Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says the Roman Catholic Church will continue to resist the Obama administration requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals, charities and colleges provide health insurance covering sterilization, contraception and abortifacients.

“The only thing we’re certainly prepared to do is not give in — not violate our consciences and not obey what we consider to be something immoral,” Dolan said at a news conference in Maryland on Tuesday. “That we’re committed on.”

“We took a bit of a breather as we waited for Election Day because the results of Election Day could have changed the playing field. It didn’t. So now I think the bishops have taken a deep breath and said, we better to get back to work and decide just what we are going to do.”

Cardinal Dolan says the church is still willing to work with the government towards a resolution to the Department of Health and Human Services coverage mandate: “I would say no door is closed, except the door to capitulation.”

(This video is no longer available.)

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty | Tagged 1st Amendment, abortion, Card. Dolan, contraception, HHS mandate, Obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, religious freedom, USCCB
105 Comments

United Nations: access to contraception is a “universal human right”

Posted on 15 November 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This is what your taxes fund:

United Nations Declares Access To Contraception A ‘Universal Human Right’

For the first time, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) explicitly described family planning as a ‘universal human right.’ In its annual report, the organization said that improved access to contraception and other methods of family planning could greatly improve the lives of women around the world: ‘Family planning has a positive multiplier effect on development,’ Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the fund, said in a written statement. ‘Not only does the ability for a couple to choose when and how many children to have help lift nations out of poverty, but it is also one of the most effective means of empowering women. Women who use contraception are generally healthier, better educated, more empowered in their households and communities and more economically productive. Women’s increased labor-force participation boosts nations’ economies.’

Precisely what the Obama Administration has been pushing at home and abroad.