QUAERITUR: Can a priest simply refuse to hear a confession?

The woman and the unjust judgeFrom a reader:

I’ve never cried over Church related matters until last night after I was refused Confession.

I’m in grave mortal sin, and I tried to go to confession twice yesterday, but I had no luck. The first parish I tried the priest wasn’t there during the scheduled time. I checked the other parishes’ confession times, but those that offered regular confessions were already taking place and there wasn’t enough time to drive to any of them.

I really needed to go to confession sooner than later, so I went to my home parish a half hour before the Saturday evening Mass (I didn’t want to interrupt him while he was getting ready for Mass) started to see if he could hear my confession after Mass. (I avoid confessions there because it’s not anonymous and they don’t list regular scheduled times, but I felt I really needed confession and it shouldn’t wait)

He wasn’t there yet, but the deacon offered to call him to come to the church earlier to hear my confession before Mass (the rectory is next door). When the priest got there I asked if he would have time hear my confession (I had a feeling he wouldn’t have time before, but I though it wouldn’t hurt to ask).

I explained the situation and that I already tried at another parish, but the priest shrugged his shoulders and arrogantly told me he “[doesn’t] do confessions before Mass” and before I could ask if after Mass would work, he started walking away and told me if I wanted him to hear my confession I had to come when he schedules confession.

I felt so hurt that I when I got out to my car ( I opted out of his Mass after that incident) I cried so much because I couldn’t get to confession. I still can’t believe any priest who actually believes in the Sacrament of Penance would turn someone away like that. So now I’m stuck in grave mortal sin until I can find a parish that actually offers confession during the parish’s posted times.

Can a priest actually flat out refuse to hear a parishioner’s confession outside of their scheduled time, especially if the parish’s confession times are unlisted?

If someone makes a good honest attempt to get to confession, but for reasons beyond their control is unable, and ends up dying, are they still considered to be in a state of Mortal sin and damned to Hell?

What can I do to get priests around here to take the Sacrament of Penance and going to Hell seriously so I, as well as many others, don’t end up going there?

I am very sorry to read this.  It is a terrible thing to look for a confessor like that and to be disappointed.

Remember that God reads the heart.  Had you been hit by a bus while searching for a way to go to confession, I believe that God would have been merciful.

It would be great were there far more priests than there are.  It would be great if there were fewer priests who have a cavalier or negligent attitude about the Sacrament of Penance.

Pray pray pray and give concrete support for more vocations to the priesthood.

That said, there are a lot of elements here which I simply cannot figure out from this description.  For example, I can’t tell how long it was before Mass was to begin when the priest said he wouldn’t hear the confession.  Also, the writer suspected that he wouldn’t.  I am guessing that it wasn’t long before Mass.  What the priest really “arrogant”, or were the writer’s emotions so raw at that point that she heard something the priest didn’t say?

Priests should not refuse reasonable requests to hear confessions.   What would be a good example of an unreasonable request?   If someone were to approach a priest as he is putting on vestments for Mass – not a rare thing, by the way – he could decline to hear the confession at that moment.   If a priest did not, for example, know the native language, perhaps he could decline.  It the time before Mass was short, and the priest knew from long experience that the penitent was quite troublesome, or time-consuming, or otherwise less than brief, I think he could decline.  A priest on his way to a death-bed to give Last Rites could decline.

Another point that could be a factor – not necessary in this case, but in cases far and wide where priests are reluctant to hear confessions:

It may be that there is now ingrained in some priests and also penitents that this Sacrament of Penance – of Reconciliation – has to involve a long, drawn-out conversation, a rambling chat-session without much focus on confession of actual sins.  People think they are going to a therapist, rather than the priest in the confessional.  The confessional is also the tribunal in which the penitent is both the accused as well as the prosecutor.  The priest is not the prosecutor.  The penitent is.  It may be that over the last few decades of negligence of this sacrament and sub-optimal training in seminaries, the erosion of the sense of sin, and even the priest’s personal negligence of the sacrament, have contributed to poisoning the minds of priests when it comes to hearing confessions and confused penitents about what confession is for.

We need a revival of the sacrament of penance.  People should clamor for confessors.   They should mention constantly that they need more times for confessions.  Perhaps they should even write notes for their weekly envelopes saying: “When Father schedules more confessions, I will give more money.”   I am picturing picket lines, people carrying signs saying “ISAIAH 1:18!” and “JOHN 20:23!”.  Hugh crowds jam the narthex of parish churches, surround empty confessionals and chant “HEAR OUR SINS!” and hold up banners with the priest depicted as Jesus healing a leper and also depicting the priest as the mercenary running away from the flock with the wolf comes.  They would start hunger strikes….

“But Father! But Father!”, some are about to type. “Isn’t this…”

Okay.  I know. I’m ranting.  I have been watching cable news this last week and the images have swayed me a bit.

The young priests I know are on fire to say Mass reverently and hear confessions.  When the biological solution picks up speed and these younger fellows take over, there will be a slow shift back to normalcy.

In the meantime, to anyone out there who has felt a sense of panic because of the strong burden of the sense of being in mortal sin, I applaud your desire to find a confessor right now.  I also must remind you that things being as they are, you may have to be endure a longer wait than you would prefer.

At the point, people will be tempted to start adding their own stories about priests who refused to hear a confession.  PLEASE RESIST THAT TEMPTATION.  We know it happens.  We all have our horror stories.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, New Evangelization, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged ,
54 Comments

Creepy homosexual demonstration at Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral

Really creepy people.  It is very creepy to disrupt legitimate worship services.

They are cowards, too.  You can bet they wouldn’t do this at a mosque.

And to think that Rahm Emanuel will soon be mayor there.

From LifeSite News:

Gay protesters swarm Chicago cathedral, police do nothing

by Kathleen Gilbert

Fri Feb 25

CHICAGO, February 25, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The city of Chicago ordered its police force not to enforce the law against a mob of homosexualist activists who disrupted Mass at the Holy Name Cathedral to protest “anti-gay bigots” who support the Church’s teaching on marriage.

The Gay Liberation Network staged the rally on the eve of Valentine’s Day, shouting and chanting loudly as churchgoers entered to celebrate Sunday Mass. The demonstration’s primary target was Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who has spoken out in defense of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Protesters had staged a similar disruption around the same time last year.

In response to the protest, George, who was not present at the cathedral, acknowledged that the issue is deeply emotional on both sides but, “No matter the issue, Catholics should be able to worship in peace, without fear of harassment.[It’ll get a lot worse.]

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released a video of the protest showing rainbow flag-waving protesters shouting and holding signs stating, “It’s time to stop being nice to anti-gay bigots.” “The Catholic leadership has ranged itself against equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for too long!” declared one homosexualist protester. Others called for an end to government cooperation with the Church’s charitable activities on the basis of its “bigoted” views. [Very creepy people.]

Churchgoers withstood the angry protest passively. One said that the pastor present for the Mass “was almost attacked and was called a bigot.” The Chicago Tribune reported that there was a small counter-protest defending traditional marriage and Cardinal George.

While it was illegal for the protesters to disrupt a religious service, the Chicago City Council announced that police would not enforce the law in this instance [WHY?  Why will they not enforce the law?] – a move that NOM castigated.

“It’s outrageous that the city of Chicago stepped in and basically told police not to enforce a law for this one occasion,” said NOM president Brian Brown.

“Gay Liberation Network is not above the law. If the city believed the ordinance was unconstitutional they should either repeal it for everyone, or go to court to get a determination. What happened instead was indefensible: stripping Catholics of their legal right to attend religious services peacefully.” [It’ll get worse.  These are very creepy people.]

“We don’t know yet if this signals a new phase in the gay marriage movement: organized protests at churches nationwide.”

Jeff Field, a spokesman for the Catholic League, told LifeSiteNews.com that the city council’s refusal to protect the Catholic worshippers was “disappointing to say the least.”

“Everybody has a right to practice their religion. For the city council to deny that right for Catholics is disappointing,” said Field, who pointed out that Muslims and Orthodox Jews shared a religious dedication to traditional marriage. “You wonder if they would allow protests in front of a mosque or a synagogue during their religious services,” he said. [Picture that.]

H/T Sancte Pater

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , ,
104 Comments

QUAERITUR: How old can an altar “boy” be?

From a reader:

Is there an upper age limit to serve as an altar “boy” at a TLM? I am a 35 year old father who converted at about age 30.  I’m encouraging my six year old son to consider becoming an altar boy and I find myself wishing that I had had the chance to be an altar boy when I was his age.

The Mass we attend has quite a few young dads and I wonder if we could put together an “emeritus” crew of altar servers? I wouldn’t want to be in the regular rotation (our altar boys to a fantastic job) but I think it might be fun to serve occasionally and would really make a lasting impression on our children as to the importance of our Catholic faith.

An 80 year old Cardinal once served Mass for me.

There is no upper age limit.  So long as a man can do the job decently, he can serve.

While I’m at it, the introduction of father and son serving teams can be a useful in easing altar girls out of the sanctuary.  I saw this done in a parish and it was very effective.

I think it is a very good idea to get men involved in serving, especially if they are younger and thinking of a vocation to the priesthood.

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

VERY COOL! Out-of-print books scanned and online

With an enthusiastic biretta tip    o{]:¬)    to His Hermeneuticalness, I share this very cool information for your consideration.

Splendid collection of scanned books

Don Paco of the Ite ad Thomam blog, has scanned hundreds of volumes for the Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library. The amazing collection includes many text books would help you to earn that “Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist” mug: there are some real gems there. As well as the works of St Thomas, there is also Mansi’s Sacrorum Conciliorum and the entire Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique to give just a couple of examples.

The files come with a request for donations – $10 per file or $500 for the whole collection.

I appreciate Fr. Finigan’s mention of the Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist mug!

Put some Mystic Monk coffee in it!

Then vote for WDTPRS today and every day until the voting is over (soon).

Then sign the Summorum Pontificum Petition.

I just thought I would get some of these in and give you all a few things to do.

Posted in Just Too Cool |
Comments Off on VERY COOL! Out-of-print books scanned and online

WDTPRS Sexagesima Sunday

SexagesimaIn the traditional Roman calendar this Sunday is called Sexagesima, Latin for the “Sixtieth” day before Easter.  This number is more symbolic than arithmetical. Last week was the first of these pre-Lenten Sundays, Septuagesima or “Seventieth.  The pre-Lenten Sundays prepare us for the discipline of Lent, which once was far stricter. Purple is worn rather than the green of the season after Epiphany and there is a Tract instead of an Alleluia.

The prayers and readings for the pre-Lenten Sundays were compiled by St. Gregory the Great (+604).   In the Novus Ordo of Paul VI there is no more pre-Lent, which was a real loss.

This prayer was in the 8th c. Liber sacramentorum Engolismensis.

COLLECT:
Deus, qui conspicis, quia ex nulla nostra actione confidimus:
concede propitius; ut, contra adversa omnia,
Doctoris gentium protectione muniamur.

I don’t think this prayer in any form survived to live in the Novus Ordo.  The jam-packed Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us that conspicio means “to look at attentively”.  In the passive, it is “to attract attention, to be conspicuous”.  Conspicio is a compound of “cvm…with” and *specio. The asterisk indicates a theoretical form which has to do with perception. The useful French dictionary of liturgical Latin we call Blaise/Dumas says that conspicio refers to God’s “regard”, presumably because God “sees” all things “together”.

The last word here is from munio, which is “to build a wall around, to fortify, …protect, secure, put in a state of defence; to guard, secure, strengthen, support”.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, You who perceive that we trust in no action of our own:
propitiously grant; that we may be fortified against every adverse thing
by the protection of the Doctor of the Gentiles.

This is a very interesting and ancient prayer, in that it makes explicit reference to St. Paul, the Doctor of the Gentiles.

Remember that the Roman Station today is the Major Basilica of St. Paul “outside the walls”.  Very few prayers of the Roman Missal display such an intimate connection with the place the Mass was celebrated in Rome and the readings.

In the Epistle from 2 Cor 11 and 12 St. Paul gives us a portrait of how we must live, the battle we face as Christians, the suffering we may be called to endure.  It is an apt reading before Lent, to inspire us to consider the discipline of our Christian life.  The Gospel is the Lord’s parable about the sower of seeds.  Some seeds make it but many do not.  Some people hear the Word of God, but many hear it and fail.  It is our own disposition that makes the difference, not the seed that the Sower sows in us.

We might consider that in the context of Holy Mass, the Eucharist, the Host we dare to receive, is the seed Christ the High Priest sows in us.  St. Paul teaches us a stern lesson the reception of the Eucharist by the worthy and the unworthy.  We are in control of our disposition to receive what God offers.  Our Lenten discipline, which these pre-Lenten Sundays remind us of ahead of time, helps us with God’s grace take better control of that over which we can exercise control.

SECRET:
Oblatum tibi, Domine,
sacrificium vivificet nos semper et muniat.

An oblatum is a thing that is “offered”.  This is from offero, “to bring before; to present, offer” and in Church Latin, “to offer to God, to consecrate, dedicate; sacrifice”.  An “oblation” is something sacrificed to the divinity.  An “oblate” is someone consecrated to God.  The sacrificium oblatum here is what has been placed on the altar for the Sacrifice: bread and wine.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
May the sacrifice which is offered up to You, O Lord,
quicken us always and secure us.

This prayer, concise as it is, has layers of meaning.  First, we have the concept of “vivify… give life” which is also “restore”.  This is coupled with “defend… strengthen… protect”.  There is the positive, but also the dire.  If we need protection, that means there is something out there which is dangerous.  There is something in us that is dangerous as well, and this needs to be “restored… brought to life”.  So, the oblatum sacrificium on the altar must not only be the bread and wine, but also our own aspirations and weaknesses.  Think of the preparation of the chalice moments before.  A tiny amount of water, symbolizing our humanity is joined to the wine, representing Christ’s divinity.  The water is taken in and transformed in to what the wine is.

POSTCOMMUNIO:
Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus,
ut, quos tuis reficis sacramentis,
tibi etiam placitis moribus
dignanter deservire concedas.

This prayer survived into the Novus Ordo as the Post communionem of the 1st Week in Ordinary Time.  It is also, if I am not mistaken, used for the 2nd Sunday of Lent in the older Missal.  This would be a good question for you Latin students. Quaeritur – There are four instances of the ending is: How are they different/similar?

LITERAL VERSION
Humbly we beseech You, Almighty God,
that You may grant that those whom You refresh with Your sacramental mysteries,
may also serve You worthily
in pleasing moral conduct of life.

Here we are picking up on what is implied in the invocation of St. Paul at the beginning of Mass. There is no proper disposition for reception of the Blessed Sacrament, or admission to the Beatific Vision, without a proper Christian conduct of life.  Good works, which are good through the merits of Christ, and the graces we are given in the sacraments, make us worthy of eternal life.

This time of pre-Lent reminds us that our season of penance is coming.

Posted in WDTPRS |
2 Comments

Bringing spaghetti to a gun fight: NCR writer attacks Dr. Peters, Peters responds.

National Catholic ReporterAn Irishman was walking down the street one day and, to his delight, he saw a big crowd surrounding a couple of blokes coolly and systematically duking it out.  The Irishman, let’s call him Sean, shoved and elbowed his way though the crowd to the inner circle and, in a lull, shouted, “Is this a private fight or can anyone join?!?”

Don’t go to bed tonight without reading Dr. Ed Peter’s response to Sean Michael Winters of the National Catholic Fishwrap in regard to canonical questions surrounding NY Gov. Cuomo’s public reception of Communion while causing public scandal (cf. c. 915).

Dr.Peters, arguably one of the big guns in canon law in the USA, has already shot holes through a response issued by the Diocese of Albany.  HERE.

Winters, who throws spaghetti at people he doesn’t like, brought spaghetti again – to a gun fight.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , ,
45 Comments

QUAERITUR: Holy Communion at two Masses on the same day?

From a reader, comes a question I have answered quite a few times, but which bears repetitio.

Are there any circumstances in which one can receive Communion more than once a day? I spent Christmas at Clear Creek Abbey in OK and I noticed that some of the locals received Communion at midnight Mass and then again at one of the other Masses. I really wanted to receive again but I chose not to just in case.

Also, I think some of the Altar servers at my (FSSP) parish might serve at more than one Mass on weekdays and receive communion twice.
Would this be permissible? (There are other servers available so that they wouldn’t have to serve twice)

First, there always was permission for people to receive both at Christmas Midnight Mass and again on Christmas morning.  No problem there.

YES, you may receive Holy Communion at two Masses on the same day.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says:

Can. 917 – Qui sanctissimam Eucharistiam iam recepit, potest eam iterum eadem die suscipere solummodo intra eucharisticam celebrationem cui participat, salvo praescripto Can. 921, § 2. … Someone who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it again (iterum) on the same day only within the Eucharistic celebration [i.e. Mass] in which the person participates, with due regard for the prescription of can. 921 § 2.

Can. 921 § 2 says that if a person is in danger of death, he may receive Communion even it is not in the context of Mass.  That is Viaticum, however – a special case.

That iterum does not mean “again and again”, but “again one more time”.

Also, that “Eucharistic celebration” does not mean just any service involving Communion.  It means Mass. That was cleared up by the Holy See in an official response to a dubium.

If a person attends or serves Holy Mass, and then for some reason attends or serves another Mass that same day, yes, Communion may be received a second time.  It is not obligatory to receive.  One may receive a second time.  This was a change with the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the subjects of the Latin Church.  So, it applies to Latin Church Catholics even if one or both of those “Eucharistic celebrations” were, say, the Divine Liturgy at the local Maronite or Ukrainian Catholic Church.

I don’t know what the Eastern Code says in this regard.  I have little doubt that we will know soon after I post this.

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

A clarification about my statements concerning SSPX bishops

Whenever I post something about the SSPX, and I mention that the priests and bishops of that Fraternity are suspended, I get loads of email protesting that they aren’t.

They are.  Sorry.

That said, I sincerely hope and pray that they will be reconciled with Pope Benedict and the Church of Rome sooner than later.  Please, O Lord, sooner rather than later!

Just because the excommunications of the SSPX bishops were lifted, that doesn’t mean that those bishops are not still suspended.  They are.  The lifting of the excommunications means that they are now free to go to confession.  That is about it… so far.

However, I made a comment in one post that sounded as if I didn’t think that the SSPX bishops were “Catholic” bishops.   Lots of email, some of it nasty, most of it tedious, very little well-considered, came to the inbox.

But it did get me thinking.

The SSPX bishops are out their doing there own thing, and in that sense they are independent. However, they are still Catholic bishops.  I apologize if, through a slip or poorly written phrase, I inferred that they were not Catholic.

They were consecrated – most say “ordained” today – with the Catholic rite for bishops, by a validly consecrated Catholic bishop.  They incurred an excommunication when they were  consecrated, but they were validly consecrated as Catholic bishops.  They are Catholic bishops who ar not in union with the See of Peter in a manifest way, however.  They are oddities in that they do not have sees, dioceses, even titular, much less residential.  In that sense they are independent.  But they are Catholic.

But wait!  There’s more!

I have thought about this for a bit since the objecting email has come my way.  I have also been thinking about lot about what has happened with the whole concept of “bishop” since the Second Vatican Council.  This is sparked in part by discussions surrounding an Instruction on Summorum Pontificum.

You see, I think Summorum Pontificum was a great gift for all priests, even those who want nothing to do with the older form of Mass or traditional worship (or doctrine, for that matter.  Summorum Pontificum was quite simply the first thing a Pope did in a long time in a concrete way to  build up the person of the priest in the Latin Church!  Thus, I have been thinking about priests and bishops these days.  Even liberal priests who are way out there, should defend Summorum Pontificum with tooth and bone and vigor.

I also consulted a couple good canonists about the status of the SSPX bishops. I didn’t want to put a foot wrong.

What I came away with is this.

Again, the SSPX bishops are Catholic bishops.   Sorry if I suggested otherwise.

However, before the Second Vatican Council, there was a canonical and theological school of thought that saw bishops more or less as priests with additional jurisdiction. The seven-stepped Holy Orders included four minor orders and three major orders.  Episcopal consecration was not canonically considered a sacrament in itself.

Since Vatican II and Christus Dominus, there has been a huge shift in the theology of the sacrament of Holy Orders.  The episcopate is now firmly considered a sacramental stage, not just the addition of jurisdiction.  It is even referred to mostly as “ordination” rather than “consecration”.  The episcopacy seems to stand its own, apart from priesthood, even though bishops and priests are both liturgically sacerdotes (they consecrate the Eucharist, they forgive sins, etc.).  If I am not mistaken, once upon a time bishops had to get faculties from the Holy See every five years in order to function as bishops.  No longer.  That reflects a huge theological change underlying the canonical change.

“But Father! But Father!”, you might be saying.  “What has any of that to do with the SSPX bishops?  Why can’t you just get to the point?!”

The SSPX bishops are, perhaps you can argue, more post-Vatican II bishops than they are pre-Vatican II bishops.  They are acting in a way that would have been unthinkable before the Council.

The SSPX bishops are working not as priests with jurisdiction given though a canonical mandate from the Holy Father. They are acting as bishops in their own right, standing apart, doing bishop things without a mission entrusted to them.  They are, moreover, anomalous in the sense that they don’t at the moment have dioceses, even titular.

This is very radical indeed.  The Church hasn’t seen this before.  Bishops – free standing – without dioceses – but who are still Catholic bishops?  It’s all very avant-garde.  The implications are hard to take in.

A bishop without a diocese is like a bride without a groom.  It doesn’t make theological or canonical sense, in any traditional way of thinking about bishops and how they fit into Christ’s plan for the Church.  This requires a radical new theological vision.  A new ecclesiological perspective.  Something more progressive than what the Council Fathers foresaw.

Are the SSPX in fact a fruit of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council about bishops – not in the sense of being against the Council, but actually being more radical than the Council?

Are they changing our theology about bishops?  Pushing ecclesiology onto a whole new playing field?  Taking notions about bishops farther than the Council Fathers even wanted to go?

The SSPX bishops may in a way be rather like Fr. Kung.

Fr. Kung thought the Council was not nearly radical enough in changing the out-dated structures and hierarchy and the Church’s ossified theology.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
100 Comments

ALERT! WDTPRS POLL ACTION ALERT!

VOTE FOR WDTPRS

ALERT!

Right after helping this blog by voting in the Reader’s Choice Award (click at the right), would you look at this poll on the site of the Wall Street Journal?

Here are the results at the time of this posting.

Please vote in this poll.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, POLLS | Tagged , , ,
13 Comments

Catholic Herald (UK) – Wm. Oddie opines about Pres. Obama

From William Oddie of the UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald comes this strong opinion piece about the President of the United States.   I generally dismiss transatlantic views of any POTUS.  This commentary, however, caught my attention because it concerns the President and the Catholic Church.  He also quotes at length from Archbp. Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis, my native place.

PS: For a few days more you can still get the discount on the digital full version of the weekly edition of the Catholic Herald.

My emphases and comments.

Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church

We need to be alert: he is not without influence, even on this side of the pond

By William Oddie on Friday, 25 February 2011

Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?

I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson). [A good observation.  And now Pres. Obama has directed his administration not to defend federal law regarding marriage.  Interesting.  No?  Pres. Obama considers DOMA unconstitutional.]

What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.

VOTE FOR WDTPRSAs  a Senator, [which wasn’t all that long] he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. [Consistent with what he did when still in Illinois.] This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.

In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. [Other words come to mind, including “feckless”.] In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. [A law degree.] Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis [with many others] protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr  John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:

“Dear Father Jenkins:

“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.

“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.

“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.

“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.

“Sincerely yours,

“The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”

Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that  “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.” [Be sure to listen to my PODCAzT about the 2003 CDF document on same-sex “marriage.]

The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman.  It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities:  Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it.  This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the  convolutions of the American legal system. [I think he’s got it.  By Jove, I think he’s got it.]

According to the CNS,

“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”

This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:

The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.[Don’t President’s take an oath to uphold the Constitution?]

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.

What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.

I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.

I am sure this will rouse some commentary.  Let the comments be civil, or I will lock you out.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged ,
15 Comments