Sometimes rumors are true.

The other day I mentioned that I had heard that Msgr. Keith Newton of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham would be received by Pope Benedict XVI.

This is on VIS:

LE UDIENZE

Il Santo Padre ha ricevuto questa mattina in Udienza:

Em.mo Card. William Joseph Levada, Prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, con:

S.E. Mons. Alan Stephen Hopes, Vescovo tit. di Cuncacestre, Ausiliare di Westminster (Gran Bretagna), e

il Rev.mo Mons. Keith Newton, Ordinario dell’Ordinariato Personale di Our Lady of Walsingham.

This Pope does not receive nearly as many people as the late John Paul II.  Many high-powered figures don’t see the Pope when they go to Rome.  The fact that Pope Benedict received Msgr. Newton is a sign of His Holiness personal commitment to the success of the provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus.

Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

Posted in Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged , ,
9 Comments

Spring poems

It is April and the world is slowly coming back to life.  Baseball season is back.

I have made some PODCAzTs with seasonal poetry.  I am contemplating one for Spring.

If you have a suggestion, perhaps you could drop me a line.  Perhaps I’ll use it.

Posted in PODCAzT, Poetry |
Comments Off on Spring poems

Fr. Z on John Allen on “Top Nine Reasons why Baseball is to Sports what Catholicism is to Religion.”

My friend the nearly ubiquitous John L. Allen, Jr., sadly still writing for the ultra-liberal dissenting National Catholic Reporter has a in his Friday saddle-bag a piece about the sport God loves which I must share with the readership here. My emphases:

I’ve always wondered how anyone born in St. Louis, great baseball town that it is, could possibly regard April as the cruelest month. With all due respect to T.S. Eliot, any month that usually features both Easter and Opening Day just can’t be that bad. (Bear in mind that by the time Eliot was born in 1888, the St. Louis Brown Stockings, who eventually morphed into the Cardinals, had already won four American Association pennants in a row as well as the 1886 World Series against the forerunner of the Chicago Cubs, so it’s not like he could be excused on the grounds of getting there too early.)

Yesterday marked the opening of the 2011 campaign, so in honor of the occasion, I’ll roll out my personal list of the “Top Nine Reasons why Baseball is to Sports what Catholicism is to Religion.” Why nine? It’s a key number in both traditions — nine players on a diamond, nine innings in a game, and nine days to a novena. [And let us not forget the NINTH Beatitude, the one that alas didn’t make it into the pages of Holy Writ: Beati qui non expectant, quia non disappointabuntur.  Each year millions of fans, many of them in places like Chicago and Cleveland, start with high expectations, after all.]

The following are nine reasons why Catholicism and baseball are, quite literally, a match made in Heaven:

  1. Both baseball and Catholicism venerate the past. Both have a Communion of Saints, all the way down to popular shrines and holy cards.
  2. Both feature obscure rules that make sense only to initiates. (Think the Infield Fly rule for baseball fans and the Pauline privilege for Catholics.)
  3. Both have a keen sense of ritual, in which pace is critically important. (As a footnote, that’s why basketball is more akin to Pentecostalism; both are breathless affairs premised largely on ecstatic experience.)
  4. Both generate oceans of statistics, arcana, and lore. For entry-level examples, try: Who has the highest lifetime batting average, with a minimum of 1,000 at-bats? (Ty Cobb). Which popes had the longest and the shortest reigns? (Pius IX and Urban VII).  [I wonder if Urban VII’s threat to excommunicate anyone who used tobacco had anything to do with his death.  Until that is resolved, perhaps he should have an * by his name.]
  5. In both baseball and Catholicism, you can dip in and out, but for serious devotees the liturgy is a daily affair.
  6. Both are global games which are especially big right now in Latin America. (Though I’m principally a Yankees fan, [UGH. You know, John, that’s just sad. That’s another thing you have to give up, along with the NCR.] I live in Denver, where the Rockies’ starting rotation is composed of two pitchers from the Dominican Republic, a Venezuelan, a Mexican, and a guy from South Carolina. In a lot of dioceses, that’s not unlike the makeup of the presbyterate these days.)
  7. Both baseball and Catholicism have been badly tainted by scandal, with the legacies of erstwhile superstars utterly ruined. Yet both have proved surprisingly resilient — perhaps demonstrating that the game is great enough to survive even the best efforts of those in charge at any given moment to ruin it. [Just as the Lord never said the Church would survive everywhere, so too teams such as the Braves and the A’s moved around.  The Senators became the Twins, etc.  Then new teams set up shop.  New Evangelization?]
  8. Both have a complex farm system, and fans love to speculate about who the next hot commodity will be in “The Show.”
  9. Both reward patience. If you’re the kind of person who needs immediate results, neither baseball nor Catholicism is really your game.

As an “extra innings” bonus, I’ll toss in my theory as to why the American League represents the Catholic instinct in baseball, while the National League is more Protestant.  [Okay… I think he may be showing his NCR stripe here.  Though I am from an AL town, I look upon the DH as something like heresy.  Let’s read what he has to say with an open mind.]

Famously, the National League does not permit the designated hitter, reflecting a sort of fundamentalist Puritanism. [?!?  Oh, John. That’s just sad.] It’s not the way the game was originally played, and no power on earth has the authority to add or subtract to scripture. [Hmmmm…] The American League, however, has adopted the designated hitter, striking a balance between scripture and tradition The designated hitter rule, in fact, is arguably an athletic analogue of what Pope Benedict XVI talks about as a “hermeneutics of continuity,” of reform without rupture.  [Or… it could be an example of the false archeologizing against which Pius XII warned us!]

By the way, if I’m right about that, a great irony presents itself: Both the Cardinals and the Padres play in the more “Protestant” National League! [I think there is a great deal to be learned from that fact.   Think about it.]

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged ,
49 Comments

Benedict XVI’s Prayer Intentions for April

VATICAN CITY, 31 MAR 2011 (VIS) – Pope Benedict’s general prayer intention for April is: “That through its compelling preaching of the Gospel, the Church may give young people new reasons for life and hope”.

His mission intention is:  Father’s mission prayer intention for April 2011 is “That by proclamation of the Gospel and the witness of their lives, missionaries may bring Christ to those who do not yet know Him.”

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged
3 Comments

A study in contrasts, or why we need Summorum Pontificum and the Corrected Translation

Compare and contrast.

And…

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices |
98 Comments

Sr. Johnson responds to the USCCB!

I posted about the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee and their examination of Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s book on the Trinity which seems to be heretical.

NCFishwrap covered this too.  Bottom line: Feminist theologian = good.  USCCB Doctrine Committee = bad.

Sr. Johnson, CSJ, has responded to the USCCB’s statement.  Her response is worth a glance with my emphases and comments.

Response by Dr. Elizabeth Johnson C.S.J., March 30, 2011:

It is heartening to see the Bishops Conference give such serious attention to the subject of the living God. [/sarcasm] I appreciate how this statement acknowledges the laudable nature of the task of crafting a theology of God, and the number of issues on which the statement judges that I am “entirely correct.”  [Imagine yourself reading Sr. Johnson’s book.  Now imagine yourself walk into a shop full of broken clocks.] The book itself endeavors to present new insights about God arising from people living out their Catholic faith in different cultures around the world. [I think that is code for “different religions”.  I could be wrong.] My hope is that any conversation that may be triggered by this statement will but enrich that faith, encouraging robust relationship to the Holy Mystery of the living God as the church moves into the future. [Perhaps Sr. Johnson is a small-c catholic.  And the church will move into the “future”, when it abandons traditional Catholic teaching about the Trinity and the language we use to describe the Trinity.]

I would like to express two serious concerns. [Rather than all the other serious concerns?  Rather than the concerns that aren’t serious?] First, I would have been glad to enter into conversation to clarify critical points, but was never invited to do so. [“conversation… invited”.] This book was discussed and finally assessed by the Committee before I knew any discussion had taken place. [At this point I must ask… because I don’t know… did Sr. Johnson submit her book to a bishop or his delegated censor librorum?  Also, why should anyone have to alert her that her book is being studied?  She put it out in public in the first place!] Second, one result of this absence of dialogue [read = invited conversation] is that in several key instances this statement radically misinterprets what I think, and what I in fact wrote. [Indeed?] The conclusions thus drawn paint an incorrect picture of the fundamental line of thought the book develops. [NB: “fundamental line of thought”.  That is a noteworthy phrase.] A conversation, which I still hope to have, would have very likely avoided these misrepresentations[We’ll never know.  Sr. Johnson can now print an explanation of her “fundamental line of thought”.  If she wasn’t able to make her thought clear enough to be understood by the very smart people who studied her book for the USCCB, perhaps she can take another run at it.  Are people in the CDF who can help? ]

That being said, as a scholar I have always taken criticism as a valuable opportunity to delve more deeply into a subject. [Fair enough.] The task of theology, classically defined as “faith seeking understanding,” calls for theologians to wrestle with mystery. [But… Catholic theologians are not autonomous.] The issues are always complex, especially on frontiers where the church’s living tradition is growing. [Am I wrong, or does this sound like “evolving”, but not in the sense of “development in doctrine” along the lines Newman might recognize.] Committed to the faith of the church, [And what is the church?] I take this statement as an occasion to ponder yet further the mystery of the living God who is ineffable[It is a good thing. Bp. Trautman isn’t on the USCCB’s Doctrine Committee.   Er…um… well… you know what I mean.  Did I just write that?  You see… I didn’t make the fundamental line of my thought clear.  Bp. Trautman objected to the use of “ineffable” in the new, corrected English translation of Mass.  See?  It is possible to get at that fundamental line of thought!]

At this time I will make no further statements nor give any interviews. [I suspect that the reason for this is that she is worried that the next step is that the powers that be will remove her mandate to teach in a Catholic school.]

If Sr. Johnson can indeed remain silent in this regard and then make corrections to how she expresses her “fundamental line of thought”, then the system will have worked.

It might have worked a while back, but it is working now.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Drill | Tagged
51 Comments

Drive through confessionals – WDTPRS POLL

We have talked about iPad Roman Missals on the altar.  We have talked about ATMs in the narthex of church’s for your weekly donations.  We have talked about electric vigil lights, and recorded music, and microphones, hand sanitizer at Communion.  We have talked about iPhone apps to help you examine your conscience.

How about drive through confession?

It doesn’t matter if this is a 1 April thing or not.

From the Herald Sun of Australia.

VIDEO: Pitstop penance

Your sins forgiven on the run

Terry Brown
From: Herald Sun

SINFUL drivers can repent on the run with the opening today of Australia’s first drive-through confessional.

The pray-as-you-go service is to become slicker, with a sin-selection board to be installed by Easter and a smartphone app on the way.

South Melbourne Catholic priest Fr Bob McGuire said yesterday that the move brought the church up to speed with modern life.

“Everybody drives past this place but no one comes in,” Fr McGuire said.

“Now they can stop at the window, open their window and confess their sins. Then I’ll reassure them that they’ll be right.”

Do you think the drive-through confessional is a good idea? Tell us below

The 60-second car wash for the soul includes a symbolically refreshing spray of rose water[Why not just call it McPenance?]

A flashing green light will signal when a driver’s sins have been forgiven. “When you’re driving out you’ll be clean as a whistle,” Fr McGuire said.  [So… it’s like a car wash.  And it had better be a touchless car wash.]

The seven cardinal sins – lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, wrath, envy and pride – will be numbered on a sign, Chinese menu-style.  [Or a Taco Bell window.]

From 6.30am, sinners will repent at a mobile unit dubbed the Hopemobile in the St Peter and Paul’s church driveway, confessing, for instance, to three No.7s and a No.4.

Fr McGuire said the coded response was meant to maintain confidentiality.

A more permanent set-up should be in place by Easter and Fr McGuire is hoping for a sponsor to cover set-up costs.

He said some overseas churches had confessional sponsors. At least one had a bookmaker as the backer. “They called it O’Flaherty’s sin bin or something,” he said. [They… did?]

The phone app, sourced from the US, will let drivers select deadly sins from a list, which will appear in front of the priest on a screen when the car pulls up.  [We are straying onto more difficult ground now.  Absolution, the form, must be pronounced to a person who is actually present. The matter of the confession is concerned, the communication of the sins themselves in number and kind, can be conveyed in different ways.]

It will also advise on the correct form of words to use.

“Part of it’s being already used in one church in the US,” Fr McGuire said.  [It is?]

“I think it’s even been passed by the church police. [Okay… that’s glib, but who would that be?  The local bishop?  The CDF?  The CDW?]

“It’s the combining it with being forgiven for your sins in the flesh that hasn’t been tried.”

Fr McGuire ran a trial of drive-by prayer three weeks ago, on Ash Wednesday, but gave it up for Lent.

It is all very sly and funny that way, right?

But … is there something to this?   Seriously?

There is a poll at that newspaper site.  I think their question is wrong: “Is the quickie confession a good idea?”  Yes.  No.  It seems to me that the length of the confession is not the point.  Was the confession complete and sincere?

Okay.   Let’s have a poll and a focused look at this, regardless of the calendar.

Chose the best answer (yes, I know there are other possible answers) and give your reasons in the combox.  Let’s keep this as focused as possible.

I think a drive-through confessional ...

View Results

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, POLLS |
50 Comments

Of Popes, Jubilees and Pontifical Masses

I was alerted to this video over at Rorate.

I would point out that this year on 29 June is the 60th Jubilee of our Holy Father’s ordination to the priesthood, together with his brother Georg.

It is too bad that there could not be a Pontifical Mass at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC for the anniversary of Pope Benedict’s election.

Wouldn’t it be great if there could be one – somewhere – for his 60th Jubilee?

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged , , ,
12 Comments

Recent Posts of Interest and a couple other things

First, many thanks to WDTPRSers who sent the two volumes of Augustine’s sermons and also the great CD/DVD combo of the 40 voice Mass by Striggio. It is great. The sound is so intense that, at least with earphones, I take it in small doses. Also, many thanks to the nice folks who are used the donation button, especially to help feed the birds.

It is the last day for Catholic Herald DIGITAL only £10 ($16) ending soon; sample from my column.  I don’t know if this ends at midnight GMT (London time), but the clock is TICKING.  Imagine Big Ben ringing and you lost your chance to get it for a tenner.

Here are some recent posts which, due to being prolific, are quickly scrolling off.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on Recent Posts of Interest and a couple other things

USCCB shreds Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s book on the Trinity

US Bishops do care about theology and what is being taught and written.  For example, even though we already knew this, Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s book on the Trinity, Quest for the Living God, is not a good book.

The Doctrine Committee of the USCCB has issued a statement about the doctrinal orthodoxy of Sr. Johnson’s little tome.   Sr. Johnson, a CSJ, teaches as the Jesuit school Fordham University in NYC.

The USCCB Doctrine Committee is chaired by His Eminence Donald Card. Wuerl.

There is a 21 page pdf available.

The nearly ubiquitous John L. Allen, Jr., sadly still writing for the National Catholic Fishwrap has a very good summary article about the statement on the theological orthodoxy of Sr. Johnson’s book.  He saves you some time so you don’t have to slog through the pdf.

After saying explaining that Sr. Johnson’s book was very popular, and that it won awards, and how many awards and degrees Sr. Johnson has, we learn that … well… let me share some of this with my emphases and comments:

First, at the level of method, the statement accuses [Interesting choice of words.  It may actually be accurate.] Johnson of questioning core elements of traditional Christian theology, including its understanding of God as “incorporeal, impassible, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.” Doing so, the statement asserts, is “seriously to misrepresent the tradition and so to distort it beyond recognition.” [I believe the Church teaches that God, Triune, is all of those things.]

Second, the statement faults Johnson for treating language about God in the Bible and in church tradition as largely metaphorical, implying that truth about God is essentially “unknowable.” Even if mysteries such as the Trinity and the Incarnation can never be fully grasped, the statement says, they can nevertheless be “known.” While Johnson bases part of her argument on early church fathers, according to the statement, her position actually has more in common with Immanuel Kant and “Enlightenment skepticism.

Third, the statement asserts that in talking about the “suffering” of God, Johnson actually undermines God’s transcendence, suggesting that God differs only in degree, not in kind, from other beings. [That would be bad.]

Fourth, according to the statement, Johnson advocates new language about God not based on its truth but its socio-political utility. In particular, she argues that all-male language about God perpetuates “an unequal relationship between women and men,” and thus has become “religiously inadequate.[And so we get to it.] In fact, according to the statement, male imagery about God found in scripture and tradition “are not mere human creations that can be replaced by others that we may find more suitable.”

Fifth, the statement asserts that Johnson’s emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religions “denies the uniqueness of Jesus as the Incarnate Word.” [That would be bad.] In effect, according to the statement, Johnson’s argument suggests that for the fullness of truth about God, “one needs Jesus + Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.”, a position it says is “contrary to church teaching.”

Sixth, the statement says, Johnson’s treatment of God as Creator ends in pantheism, undercutting the traditional understanding of God as “radically different from creation.” [The inevitable end of Modernism.]

Seventh, the statement faults Johnson’s understanding of the Trinity. Johnson treats traditional language about God as three persons as symbolic, according to the statement, thereby undercutting the church’s belief that “Jesus is ontologically the eternal Son of the Father.”

[NB] In its conclusion, the statement says the root problem with Johnson’s book is that it “does not take the faith of the church as its starting point.”

“It effectively precludes the possibility of human knowledge of God through divine revelation,” the statement says, “and reduces all names and concepts of God to human constructions that are to be judged not on their accuracy … but on their social and political utility.”

With today’s statement, Quest for the Living God joins a handful of other recent books by prominent American theologians which have been singled out for formal criticism by the Committee on Doctrine. [Get this great list:] Those works include The Sexual Person by Todd Salzman and Michael Salazar (Georgetown University Press, 2008); Being Religious Interreligiously by Peter Phan (Maryknoll, 2004); and two 2006 pamphlets on contraception, abortion and same-sex marriage by Daniel Maguire.

I am happy that the USCCB Doctrine Committee is reading books.   Also, we should be grateful to Mr. Allen for giving us a summary.

Posted in Brick by Brick, The Drill | Tagged , ,
23 Comments