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

Bp. Jenky attacked through the IRS for his sermon about Pres. Obama and faux catholic politicians

Posted on 19 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Not long ago Bp. Jenky in Peoria during a sermon really hammered President Obama and quisling catholic politicians. I wrote about Bp. Jenky’s sermon HERE.

Excerpts:

“May God have mercy on the souls of those politicians who pretend to be Catholic in church, but in their public lives, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they vote and how they willingly cooperate with intrinsic evil.”
. . . . .

“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

In my opinion His Excellency was dead on the money.

Are you surprised to learn that not everyone appreciated Bp. Jenky’s remarks? No! Really!

In the Chicago Tribune we find:

Complaint filed with IRS over homily by Peoria bishop

By Manya A. Brachear
Tribune reporter

A prominent advocate for the separation of church and state filed a formal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service Thursday, accusing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria of violating federal law by intervening in a political campaign.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church, alleges that a fiery homily by Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky last Sunday effectively urged Catholics to vote against Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

[…]

Yet another example of liberal tolerance. Furthermore, I don’t think that group has the slightest clue as to what “separation of church and state” means.

WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Jenky, again.

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Fr. Z KUDOS, Linking Back, New Evangelization, Priests and Priesthood, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged 1st Amendment, Americans United for Separation of Church, Barry Lynn, Bp. Jenky, D. Peoria, IRS, religious liberty
24 Comments

QUAERITUR: Was absolution valid at this penance service?

Posted on 19 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have had several emails about a youtube video posted by our friends at Rorate.

The video in question shows a “penance service” at a parish in Portugal. A priest with a green stole has put a shredder on the altar (which itself is a not a good thing to do). Young people come up to him with pieces of paper, upon which I suppose they wrote one, some or all of their sins. The priest reads the paper quickly and then puts the paper into the shredder and the next person comes up. At the end the priest has the congregation say a kind of act of sorrow and then he pronounces the formula of absolution.

Confession by writing sins? That is the question.

And can you name that tune starting about about 1:30? (Hint: The group who performed it gathers no moss.)

[wp_youtube]0Sm5edzKnj8[/wp_youtube]

At Rorate they are chalking this up to Vatican II. I think it is easier to chalk this up to stupidity.

Here’s the deal.

The matter of the sacrament is the communication of all the mortal sins to the priest. Sins can be communicated to the priest by signs or gestures or, yes, writing. The form of the sacrament is the formula of absolution spoken, not written, by a priest with faculties. For example, you could write your sins to a priest even by mail, but you could not be absolved in writing. You have to be physically present to receive absolution validly when the priest pronounces the formula. We leave aside here the question of whether a priest who is mute, without the ability to speak, can validly absolve by signs or gestures such as American Sign Language. He cannot validly absolve by writing the form.

QUAERITUR: Was absolution valid at this penance service?

CLICK TO BUY

Having consulted manuals, for we ought to be unreconstructed ossified manualists from time to time, I believe these people in the video could have received absolution validly if, if, at the end, the priest, having faculties, pronounced the words of absolution and if, if, everyone had actually written all their moral sins, all they were aware of (confessions must be integral, as complete as is physically and morally possible), and the priest had actually read them all, and then received from the penitent some sign of sorrow for those sins. St. Alphonsus Liguori says, for example, the penitent who had written sins and had given them to the priest to read could then in the presence of the priest kneel and say “Accuso me de omnibus peccatis quae legisti…. I accuse myself of all the sins which you have read.” In this case the absolution would be valid.

We aren’t privy to what these kids wrote on those papers or how they were instructed to prepare them, but I’ll bet you all a whiskey sour that they were not told to write all the mortal sins in number and kind. However, at the end of the filmette we see and hear from the congregation a kind of act of sorrow and see and hear the priest speak the formula of absolution.

So, aside from the fact that this might have been valid for some or all of them who did this paper thing, it sure raises doubts about the validity of the sacrament and, in my opinion, it causes scandal. At the very least this sort of thing can lead to a lot of confusion about the matter of the sacrament (integral confession of all mortal sins in kind and number to the best of one’s ability).

I think this was a really bad idea. Were I that priest’s diocesan bishop, I would have a serious talk with him about what happened (for example, were they were instructed to write all their mortal sins), why he did this this way (was he trying to save time?), and then tell him never to do it again.

Bonus video for those of you who read this far:

[wp_youtube]VLm_vVUhH5s[/wp_youtube]

If only the official WDTPRS parodohymnodist could write some lyrics for this.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 |
32 Comments

Happy 7th Anniversary to Pope Benedict XVI!

Posted on 19 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today is the 7th anniversary of the election of Benedict XVI.

Ad multos annos!

Please pray for the Holy Father, today and every day.

Do you remember where you were when you heard the news? I ask this every year (and asked it the other day too, when I improperly scheduled this post), but it is always interesting to see your stories.

Someone sent me a link to a video of the coverage of the moment of the announcement. I was working for Fox News at the time and had the honor of being the guy who gave some color commentary.

(This video is no longer available.)

Here is some Benedict swag from my swag store.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged Benedict XVI, conclave, election, swag
39 Comments

WDTPRS Collect for Thursday, 2nd Week of Easter

Posted on 19 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A reader sent a note about today’s Collect, Thursday in the 2nd Week of Easter, in the Ordinary Form.

Here is the Latin:

Deus, qui salute mundi sacrificum paschale effecisti,
propitiare supplicationibus populi tui,
ut interpellans pro nobis Christus Pontifix noster,
nos per id quod nostri est similis reconciliet,
per id quod tibi est aequalis absolvat.

This is a really interesting, though wordy, prayer. The construction, the parallels at the end, serves to illustrate, I think, the concept of Christ as Mediator, Pontifex. This prayer was in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary, but this way: Deus, qui pro salute mundi sacrificium paschale fecisti, propitiare supplicationibus nostris, ut, interpellans pro nobis, pontifex summus, quos per id quod nostri est similis, reconciliatur, per id quod tibi est aequalis absolvat Iesus Christus dominus noster….

So, we have Christ as our “Pontifex” in this prayer.

LITERAL RENDERING:
O God, who for the salvation of the world brought to pass the paschal sacrifice,
be appeased by the supplications of your people,
so that, Christ as our Bridge-Builder (Pontiff) interceding for us,
may reconcile us through that which is like to us,
and may absolve us by that which is equal to You.

CURRENT ICEL (2011):
O God, who for the salvation of the world
brought about the paschal sacrifice,
be favorable to the supplications of your people,
so that Christ our High Priest, interceding on our behalf,
may by his likeness to ourselves
bring us reconciliation,
and by his equality with you
free us from our sins.

OSOLETE ICEL (1973):
God of mercy
may the Easter mystery we celebrate
be effective throughout our lives.

But there’s more!

Today we have an instance of a change of prayers for this day. The Latin text I have above is from the 3rd edition of the Missale Romanum. The 1st edition of the Missale Romanum from 1969 has this for today:

Concede, misericors Deus,
ut, quod paschalibus exsequimur institutis,
fructiferum omni tempore sentiamus.

And this is what the obsolete ICEL renders.

I wonder how many other prayers were changed between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions!

Let’s go back to that image of the bridge-builder and the construction of the prayer with its parallels which, in sense, resemble the image they are speaking to.

In the sin of our First Parents, the whole human race sinned. We are all guilt of the Original Sin. In that Original Sin a gulf opened between man and God that no man was able to repair. And yet out justice man was obliged to repair it. The only one who could close the gulf was one who was both man and God, one Person with two perfect natures, divine and human. Christ is the great gulf-bridger. He is the Pontifex of all pontifices. He is Summus. There is, as we read in 1 Timothy 2:5, one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. He is the High Priest who is simultaneously the Perfect victim sacrifice which every other priest renews, rather than re-sacrifices.

Posted in WDTPRS | Tagged 1 Timothy 2:5, Original sin, Pontifex
13 Comments

Question about Anglican/Roman liturgy: Is it Roman Rite or Anglican?

Posted on 19 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I need to be educated about something and I hope some of you readers who were/are Anglicans now in union with Rome can help me. When in doubt, ask.

Is the modified Anglican liturgy considered part of the Roman Rite or do you consider it to be something related to the Roman Rite but separate?

I know that very high Anglican’s used a form of “Mass” that was virtually the Roman Rite, but what is the thought of members of the Anglican ordinariate about this?

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged Anglicanorum coetibus, Anglicans
22 Comments

LCWR gripes about being accountable to the CDF and USCCB

Posted on 19 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

Fishwrap today has an interesting bit of news about the LCWR’s recent developments. As you know, those meanies at the CDF and USCCB are actually going to hold the LCWR’s leadership accountable for their doctrinal dissent and defiance of the bishops.

Today Joshua J. McElwee, who seems to be the NCR’s go to guy for this story, has an article about how LCWR took the news. LCWR ‘stunned’ by Vatican’s latest move.

I’ll be they were stunned! After all, since the Apostolic Visitation had not produced immediate consequences, and since even a highly placed official in the Congregation for Religious had downplayed the results, I’ll bet they thought they had intimidated their way out of the corner they have been painting themselves over for the past decades.

With this new development, however, watch LCWR – a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns – try to spin their latest news as if they are being victimized by the holders of power in the very power structure they themselves would like to control.

There is a bit in McElwee’s report that got my attention. My emphases.

The group [LCWR] sent an email Thursday to the heads of each of the congregations it represents, explaining how the group became aware of the news.

That email, obtained by NCR, [“obtained” Great! I’ll bet LCWR’s office just cc’s everything to NCR.] says LCWR leadership was in Rome to meet Wednesday with members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the doctrinal assessment. When the leaders came to the meeting, the congregation had already communicated with the U.S. bishops’ conference news of Sartain’s appointment, the email states.
Additionally, the email says LCWR membership was told during the meeting that news of the appointment would only be shared Wednesday at the bishops’ conference internally and not with the general public in order to give the group time to communicate with its leaders. [I have a strong doubt that LCWR was ever told such a thing.]
“When we met with Cardinal (William) Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on April 18, where we received the assessment results, CDF’s communication had already been sent to the USCCB for release at noon,” the email states. [The implication is that the CDF should not have been communicating with the USCCB autonomously when it came to the LCWR. HAH.]
“We understood that the documents would be put on USCCB’s members-only web page,” it continues. “Consequently, we had hoped to communicate the conclusions with you ourselves. That was not possible.”

It is pretty clear why this news about the CDF and USCCB’s decisions about the LCWR was made public.

Now that everyone knows about this, LCWR can’t just go back to their labyrinths and oaktrees and pretend nothing had happened.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Magisterium of Nuns, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged accountability, Fishwrap, LCWR, magisterium of nuns, NCR, USCCB
24 Comments

Dick Clark: RIP

Posted on 18 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Dick Clark has died.

Does that name bring back childhood memories.

RIP

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged Dick Clark
18 Comments

NCFishwrap reacts to the LCWR’s news

Posted on 18 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

NCFishwrap reacts to the LCWR's news In another entry I posted about the doctrinal investigation and oversight by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the USCCB of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns).

Just about everyone had posted about this, except for the LCWR‘s great ally the National catholic Fishwrap…. Reporter.

They have finally begun their spin. It is really too good.

This truly qualifies as a staging a nutty.

Bishop against gay marriage tapped to reform LCWR
by Jamie L Manson on Apr. 18, 2012

NCR Today

The Vatican investigation into U.S. women religious, which began in 2009, is finally bearing its first toxic fruit. [Let the hysteria begin!]

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops announced Wednesday it has named Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain to lead a five-year reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). The reforms include a revision of the LCWR’s statutes, a review of its programs (including, in all likelihood, Vatican approval of topics and speakers at their annual general assembly) and reviews of their liturgical norms and relationship with NETWORK, a Catholic social justice lobby.

Sartain has made headlines in recent months for his recommendation that parishes in his diocese collect signatures for petitions supporting Washington state’s referendum against same-sex marriage. [Which some of the priests of the Archd. Seattle have resisted.]

This “doctrinal assessment” has been initiated by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Their greatest concern about LCWR’s programming? You guessed it: They’re not explicitly anti-gay and anti-women’s ordination. [She equates being in harmony with both natural law and the Church’s divinely inspired teaching as being “anti-gay”, even though the CDF clearly teaches about the charity that must be shown to homosexuals. And this is a very different issue than that of the impossibility of the ordination of women. Still, this comment shows why I was looking forward to NCF’s comments!] The USCCB’s press release states:

“CDF said that the documentation ‘reveals that, while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance in the life of the Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the Bishops, who are the Church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose.'”

LCWR representatives have not yet commented publicly on what is undoubtedly an unprecedented moment of crisis for the conference. [Unquestionably an unequivocal assault on fans of alliteration.]

This raises a question, of course.

Is there such a strong connection of the LCWR and… how to say… certain lifestyle choices?

UPDATE 21:19 GMT:

The NCR reactions keep coming. In am article by Joshua J. McElwee we read, with my emphases:

[…]

[Sr. Joan] Chittister said she was deeply distraught at news of Sartain’s appointment and the order for LCWR to revise itself. [What a surprise!]

“When you set out to reform a people, a group, who have done nothing wrong, [You mean, other than purposely embrace heresies and all sorts of strange things, criticize and defy the Holy See and bishops, abandon their habits and the charisms of their communities… ] you have to have an intention, a motivation that is not only not morally based, but actually immoral,” she said. [Keeping in mind that this new project comes from the CDF and that this is approved by the Holy Father, I rest my case.]

“Because you are attempting to control people [Note the word “attempt”. I look forward to many more statements of defiance from women religious, speeches at conferences, articles in NCR.] for one thing and one thing only — and that is for thinking, for being willing to discuss the issues of the age … If we stop thinking, if we stop demanding the divine right to think, [She pretty much side-steps the problems, no? This “think” thing is misdirection.] and to see that as a Catholic gift, then we are betraying the church no matter what [NB] the powers of the church see as an inconvenient truth in their own times.” [Sr. Joan must be for the Magisterium of Nuns what Al Gore is to the climate change crowd.]

In attempting to take such control of people’s thinking, [She must think most of her readers are pretty stupid, since she keeps repeating the point.] she said, “You make a mockery of the search for God, of the whole notion of keeping eyes on the signs of the times and of providing the people with the best possible spiritual guidance and presence you can give. [More Enneagrams, please!]

“When I was a child in this town, I was taught that it was a sin to go into a Protestant church.

In my lifetime, the church, to its eternal credit, admitted that it was wrong. [!?! About entering Protestant churches? – Would that some of them would… but I digress. ] The scandal and the sin is that it took 400 years to do that.”

Chittister said women religious have been trying since Vatican II “to help the church avoid that kind of darkness and control … they have been a gift to the church in their leadership [1 Cor 11:5] and their love and their continuing fidelity.

“When you set out to reform that kind of witness, remember when it’s over who doomed the church to another 400 years of darkness. It won’t the people of the church who did it.” [Thus, the Pope and CDF and USCCB are not “people of the church”. Okay! I can live with that.]

Sr. Joan also offer this:

“Within the canonical framework, there is only one way I can see to deal with this,” said Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister, who has served as president of the group as well as in various leadership positions. (Chittister also writes a column for NCR.) “They would have to disband canonically and regroup as an unofficial interest group.

Niiiice. Show your true colors, Sister!

Keeping watching for more of the same.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Brick by Brick, Dogs and Fleas, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged Sr. Joan Chittister
79 Comments

Celebratory meal for SSPX and LCRW news: UPDATED

Posted on 18 April 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Since I am sure the leadership of the LCWR is hopping mad and since I hope that the CDF and SSPX will hop to it and get the reunion completed, in celebration of the news of the SSPX and of the LCWR.. it has been a four-letter day… I am making …

Coniglio in umido…. Rabbit

I’ll do the Italian thing today. The last time I made rabbit for the blog was, I believe Julia Child’s recipe from Mastering the Art of French Cooking for Lapin au Saupiquet. I have done coniglio in umido before, however, though it has been some years.

Here is some early Bugs Bunny in Italian precisely about this rabbity recipe. I connect to it especially because of the Hiawatha reference, which reminds me of my hometown.

[wp_youtube]O1r8u2nRKVE[/wp_youtube]

Here is the rabbit, in an intermediate stage of preparation.

Groceries must be obtained.

Let’s see… white wine… some carrots… olives…

And I think a cocktail might be in order during the preparation.

An Old Fashioned? Yes… add an orange to the list.

More later.

UPDATE:

We have begun the rabbit.

I’ve started with some olive oil and little salt pork for my frying base. I’ll remove the pork.

While browning and shedding its desired fat, it is time for the Old Fashioned.

First, a little powered sugar and a few shakes of bitters. Blend well. Always do this first.

Add your 2 oz of a good Bourbon with ice. I put in a lot of ice at first, and removed most when chilled.

Garnish with a slice of orange and a cherry.

When you cook, CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN.

When I work with meat, especially chicken and rabbit, I always scrub my tools and surfaces with soap and the hottest water I can bear on my hands… which is considerable.

I am now browning the rabbit in the fat.

Then in the same, the base of onion, carrot, celery until translucent.

I like to add pepper at this point. Pepper changes in flavor when applied to high heat.

Back goes the rabbit and in goes the dry white wine.

Some herbs and the precious olives. I have here Calamata and cured black olives which have pits.

That’s rosemary, a bay leaf, and thyme. I’ll take them out after a while.

Cover and let it stew!

Eventually, I will drain off some of the liquid and reduce it, apart, adjusting the seasoning.

More later.

UPDATE: 19 April

I have received emails about my preparation of rabbit ranging congratulations to dismay.

One reader, who not long ago sent me a set of CD’s of Georg Solti’s famous Ring recording’s, inspired by the coniglio video above, took the time to remind me of this and suggested that I listen to some Wagner while working on supper.

[wp_youtube]Yxiv3CBMS4M[/wp_youtube]

I am not sure if I like What’s Opera Doc? more than The Rabbit of Seville or not. What a dilemma.

In any event, before somwon gets to eat the wabbit, somwom has to kill the wabbit. Wight?

And here Bugs, or Peter if you prefer, plated up with some fried potatoes and braised artichoke hearts.