Obama Administration cancels conscience protections for health care workers

So much for common ground.

Do you remember Pres. Obama saying that his administration would protect the conscience of health-care workers when it came to actions which are morally repugnant?

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

They cheered him.

On CNA I read this:

Obama administration rolls back medical workers’ conscience protections
By Benjamin Mann

Washington D.C., Feb 18, 2011 / 08:23 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- President Obama’s Secretary for Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, issued new regulations on Feb. 17, canceling out numerous conscience protections for health care workers who have moral or religious objections to certain procedures.

The new rules claim to leave in place the protections for health care providers who oppose abortion and sterilization. However, they remove many other protections for caregivers, including those who are morally opposed to providing services such as in vitro fertilization, contraception – including chemical contraceptives that can cause an abortion – and facilitating sexual practices they consider wrong.

In her report describing the changes, Sebelius criticizes the Bush-era regulations, which clarified the rights of many conscientious objectors to opt of procedures, as “unclear and potentially overly broad in scope.”

Sebelius acknowledged in the final report that “a substantial number of comments in opposition to rescinding the 2008 Final Rule maintained that Roman Catholic hospitals would have to close, that rescission of the rule would limit access to pro-life counseling, and that providers would either leave the health care industry or choose not to enter it.”

In her Feb. 17 report, Sebelius sought to respond to Catholic health workers’ concerns by noting that “under this partial rescission of the 2008 Final Rule, Roman Catholic hospitals will still have the same statutory protections afforded to them as have been for decades.” [Remember when I called Phoenix Bp. Olmsted “the ghost of Christmas yet to come”?]

However, it was precisely in order to solidify those decades-old “statutory protections” in significant ways, that the 2008 rule was made in the first place.

“The Department supports the longstanding federal health care provider conscience laws,” the secretary continued, “and with this Final Rule provides a clear process to enforce those laws.”  [Is that what they are calling this?  “Final Rule”?  Mao could not have come up with a better name.]

The purpose of the 2008 rule, however, was not simply to reiterate the content of existing laws, but to clarify how they should be applied, and to provide explicitly for their enforcement.

For this reason, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had praised the previous rule as a “much-needed implementation of long-standing laws” – saying it clarified many “undefined terms” that allowed state and local governments to  “attack conscience rights as though they do not exist.”

With those “much-needed” rules and clarifications gone, Catholic hospitals and health care workers may find themselves facing difficult situations without explicit protections.

Sebelius pointed out that her department would still be willing to receive and consider their complaints. [Great.  And then what?  She decides? The pro-abortion “Catholic” Secretary decides?]

The portion of the 2008 rule that enables the Office for Civil Rights to investigate complaints from conscientious medical objectors is “being retained,” she said.

“Under this Final Rule,” she offered, “health care providers who believe their rights were violated will now be able to file a complaint with the Department’s Office for Civil Rights in order to seek enforcement of those rights.”  [And… in the meantime?  While they wait?  And who gets to decide what happens?]

Dr. J. Scott Ries, a board-certified family physician and a vice president of ministry at the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association, said the rule change touched on areas of “critical concern for pro-life patients, healthcare professionals and institutions.”

“The administration has made changes in a vital civil rights regulation without evidence or justification,” Dr. Ries said. He criticized the regulatory action as a move that “diminishes the civil rights that protect conscientious physicians and other healthcare professionals against discrimination.”

Remember this?  At Notre Shame?

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged ,
25 Comments

Caption Call

Caption Call

The Vatican Cardinals hockey team prepares for a crowded intra-squad practice.

Posted in Lighter fare |
23 Comments

PODCAzT 117: What the Catholic Church really says about same-sex unions

NB: iTunes users… I found that there was a second enclosure buried in these posts which screw up the iTunes feed. Let me know if you are not getting this on iTunes.

PODCAzT 117: What the Catholic Church really says about same-sex unionsAfter the release of that iTune app/tool to help people examine their consciences and, hopefully, make a better sacramental confession, there was a bit of hollering on the part of homosexual activists that the app was going to promote anti-homosexual bias and that homosexuals should be bale to marry and the app would poison people’s minds… blah blah blah.

I pointed out in my review that the app clearly identified homosexual actions as sinful.

I got some hate-mail because of my support of that app and because of my statements, in keeping with the Church’s teaching and with right reason, that homosexual actions were disordered and sinful.

I decided today, after reading something especially ridiculous, to share with you listeners the 2003 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled
PODCAzT 117: What the Catholic Church really says about same-sex unions
Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.

It was signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and it was ordered published by soon-to-be Blessed John Paul II.

The document is addressed to bishops so that bishops can write statements tailored to their regions. It argues from reason, as well as from Scripture, tradition and the Church’s documents.  It explains clearly why unions between homosexuals aren’t marriage, aren’t like, marriage, can never be, and must never be legally recognized as such.  Homosexual actions are sinful and the shift from tolerance of homosexuality to its legitimization tears at the bonds of society.

PODCAzT 117: What the Catholic Church really says about same-sex unionsEveryone should know about this document and should review its contents.  It not only provides some arguments for your discussions, but it tells Catholics in particular how to address the controversy.  There is a specific section in Catholic Politicians and how they must approach legislation proposing recognition of same-sex unions when it comes up or where it exists as law.

These Considerations from the CDF can help voters evaluate candidates for office.

This is a very useful document friends.  Bishops need to know it.  Priests should keep it in mind when preaching.  Voters should take it to heart when considering the controversies of our day.

Finally, these PODCAzTs were nominated for an award, and you can vote once per day by going HERE.  And you can vote for WDTPRS in the Best Blog category.  Please vote each day!


Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Global Killer Asteroid Questions, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, PODCAzT, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
6 Comments

29 July Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference – 2nd Session

I received this Press Release from the St. Colman’s Society for Catholic Liturgy

Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference
Benedict XVI and the Roman Missal
Second Session
Cork, Ireland
29 July 2011

St Colman’s Society for Catholic Liturgy is pleased to announce that the second session of the Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference will be held at the Imperial Hotel, Cork City, Ireland on 29 July 2011.
The second session will consist of a presentation of the new English language translation of the Roman Missal.
Prof. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD will chair the seminar.
George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney and President of the Vox Clara Committee will moderate the session and deliver the key-note address.
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, New Jersey, and Chariman of the Liturgical Commission of the United States Catholic Bishops’ Conference will also address the session.
Mons. James Moroney, executive secretary of the Vox Clara Committee and a member of the faculty of Saint John’s Seminary in Boston, will provide an extensive introduction to the details of the new English translation.
Monsignor Moroney is also adjunct faculty to the Liturgical Institute in Chicago and the International Consultation on Theological Education in Rome.
Further information may be obtained from the Society’s Secretary at 00353 21 4813445 of at Colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk .
Registration for the second session of the Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference may be made at Colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk.

Contact:  The Secretary
Email:  Colman.liturgy@yahoo.co.uk
Tel: 00353 214 813445

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged , , ,
Comments Off on 29 July Fourth Fota International Liturgy Conference – 2nd Session

Australia: Some priests claim they will refuse to use the new English translation of Mass

The fruits of the “Spirit of Vatican II” are detaching from the vine.

There was an article the Australian site The Age, I believe of Melbourne, about some priests who claim they will refuse to use the new, corrected translation of Mass.

Church’s revamp of Mass sparks rebellion by priests
Barney Zwartz And Leesha McKenny
February 19, 2011

THE Catholic Church faces open defiance over the introduction of its new Mass translation this year, with a dozen priests indicating they will refuse to use it and hundreds of others ”steaming” over a lack of consultation. [I wonder why Fr. Joe Bagofdoughnuts from Tall Tree Circle thinks he should have a say in this matter.]

The Mass has become the latest battleground in the culture wars between progressive Catholics and traditionalists suspicious of the reforms of the 1960s Vatican Council, [Doesn’t this introduce an irrelevant factor? Isn’t this about the translation of the Novus Ordo?] of which probably the most important was changing the Mass from Latin to the local language of worshippers. [Let’s not get started on the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium said that Latin was to be retained.]

The new translation is a more literal version of the 400-year-old Latin text, [400?] which changes what the faithful say and has been heavily influenced by a Vatican advisory committee headed by Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney.

Supporters say the new text is more elevated and reverent, while critics say it is artificial, uninclusive and stilted.  [What is missing from this?  They don’t touch on the issue of accuracy.  The new translation is more accurate.  Accuracy is not the same as “more literal” that they mentioned above.]

It will be introduced gradually in Australia between June and November and will be compulsory at every Mass in English.

National Council of Priests chairman Ian McGinnity said hundreds of his 1600 members were ”steamed up” at the Vatican’s lack of consultation, [First, I doubt very much that all 1600 members were angry.  Second, they must be terrible impressed with themselves if they think they should have been consulted.] and were concerned that the unidiomatic language would alienate Mass-goers, most of whom had used only the present form all their lives. [Ah yes, the Lefebvrism of the left once again.]

He said most priests would not decide how to respond until they saw the changes, [The smart ones want to see the text.] but at least a dozen had told him, ‘I’m not changing.” [What do you want to bet most of them are at least 60 years old?]

When the church changed from Latin to English it accommodated those who dissented, [How many things, dear readers, are wrong with that statement.] and priests should be given time to adapt. [For pity’s sake.  We have been dealing with the for years.  There has been and there still is time to “adapt”.]

Asked what sanctions a local bishop could apply, Father McGinnity said: ”I really don’t know. I suppose he could suspend a bloke. But given the [priest] shortage, it’s unlikely.” [Perhaps bishops should suspend priests who refuse to use the new translation!]

Sydney priest John Crothers said he could not in good conscience use changes he believed were against the Vatican Council. [That battered old chestnut.]

He said he had told Cardinal Pell this at a clergy conference last year. ”I said at the conference, ‘I won’t be doing it, and where do I stand there?‘ [Sounds a bit like Luther.] And he’s just said that he expected all the priests will do it,” Father Crothers said.

In Ireland this month, 400 priests publicly denounced the new Mass as ”archaic, elitist and obscure” and urged their bishops to delay changes to the Mass for five years until the clergy and laity were consulted. [Consulted?  To what end?  Makes you wonder about the old “Interdict” option, no?  The only problem is they probably wouldn’t care.]

Melbourne Archbishop Dennis Hart, vice-chairman of the international translation committee, said consultation had been extensive, but there would have to be ”dialogue and encouragement” for opponents. ”I think a lot of the criticism is really a fear of what we think the thing is, and when we get to the reality it’s not like that at all,” he said.

If they don’t like the new translation, there’s always Latin.

I can understand priests who get their back up about changes.  At a certain age, priests tend not to like change.

Australia: Some priests claim they will refuse to use the new English translation of MassI don’t have a huge problem with open criticism of the new translation.  Make your arguments!  Bring out your texts and your reasons!  Have at!

But it is simply wrong to defy the proper authority of the Church and of the local bishops to whom they publicly promised obedience.

It is wrong to refuse to use the new translation.

What these men are doing is more damaging to their flocks and to themselves than implementing a translation allegedly so flawed that it should not be used.

Communicating concerns in private is one thing.  Go ahead!  Write letters!  Have meetings behind closed doors!  Beat your fists on the floor!  Froth!

Going to the main stream media to express open defiance for ecclesial authority … another thing altogether.

Their grandstanding about defying authority does harm to the people of God.  I fear they are also endangering their own souls.  They are eroding the respect of Catholic people for ecclesial authority and placing themselves at the center of attention.

I hope that when The Day finally comes around for the new text to be used, these men will choose obedience.  After all the stink they are raising now, a choice to submit to proper authority would help to repair the damage.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , ,
65 Comments

A reader shares first experience of Mass in the Extraordinary Form

VOTE FOR WDTPRSFrom time to time I like to post comment from readers about their their first experience of a TLM, Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

This was in my inbox this morning.  The writer has negatives and positives to express.  I was interested to read how, for her, so much seems to have hinged on the priest’s actions and attitude.

My emphases and comments.

I read you enjoy hearing about your readers’ first TLM experiences, so I figured I’d share mine. I attended the only TLM available in Saskatchewan. It was a High Mass with about 30 people (the majority were converts according the Mass organizer), and after much anticipation and excitement to finally have a chance to experience what all the hype is about (I’m not normally where I have easy access to a TLM), I can only describe it in two words, disappointing and confusing.

It was disappointing because after reading so much disdain from other readers about the NO and how much more reverent the TLM is, I didn’t find it anymore reverent. The biggest complaint I’ve heard is how irreverent the NO’s “cattle drive” is for communion, so the irreverence at the TLM really irked me. The way TLM has been described, it sounded like some reverent event where people get on their knees to receive communion ever-so-reverently on their tongue, while the priest recites a much longer communion distribution prayer, giving a better understanding of what Jesus actually did for us. I’m going to give the priest the benefit of the doubt and assume he recited the communion prayer silently, but the “line ‘em up; knock ‘em down. NEXT!” at the communion rail, was a lot less reverent.  [This seems to have more to do with the priest than the rite of Mass or the attitude of the congregation.]

It felt more like the priest was trying to break last week’s communion distribution speed than anything else.

I also found it very confusing. Thankfully I sat next to a nice lady who guided me through the little Latin/English Mass booklet, but I couldn’t for the life of me follow along. I think somewhere I got a misunderstanding of what active participation meant because I was under the impression that there was very little active participation involved in the TLM. I was wrong. Between trying to follow along and sing the responses in Latin, and making sure to stand, sit, kneel, genuflect and make the sign of the cross in all the right places, I was (attempting) to actively participate more than I had ever experienced in the NO. [Now I’m confused.  That sounds like a good thing.] It didn’t take long for me to get lost until I recognized the sound of the Preface from the NO and the bells at consecration. [I am still confused.  How do you not know where you are in the first part of a TLM?  With the exception of the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Novus Ordo follows pretty much the same structure once you get to the Kyrie.] I wasn’t even sure when Mass was officially over and it was okay to leave because nobody left for like ten minutes. It was just very confusing. [Nobody left?  Perhaps they were praying after Mass?  Making an act of thanksgiving?  That is not a flaw of the older form of Mass or a problem with the congregation.  The problem rests in people rushing out immediately (or even before) Mass is ended.  No?]

But I do have some good things to say about the TLM [Actually, some of the negatives seemed like positives, to me.] and my experience. First, I have to tip my hat to the priest who had to be pushing 90, yet seems a lot younger. Hopefully there’s another priest to take over once he retires, otherwise there will be no more TLM. I still have mixed feelings about the lack hymns (by hymns I mean real hymns, not those “Jesus is a Friend of Mine” type songs), but the Gregorian chant does trump a lot of those new Mass compositions for the NO. My experience has not put me off from the attending the TLM per se, but I still prefer the NO Mass as long as I can find a parish that doesn’t turn it into an overly-liberal progressivist Mass.

An interesting collection of observations.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
63 Comments

QUAERITUR: What do I say in the Eucharistic Prayer when there is no bishop?

From a priest reader:

In the very near future my bishop’s resignation will be accepted by the Holy Father. I was wondering what the correct thing to do will be when praying for the bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer.

I have seen various things done in other dioceses when they are without a bishop: praying for the recently retired bishop, praying for the retired bishop from two bishops ago when the most recent bishop was moved to another diocese. Something about those don’t seem right.

It makes sense to me simply to omit the bishop part when there is no bishop. Is there any official protocol? Any other thoughts?

I suspect that when that day comes around, the chancery will send out to all the priests some sort of directive about what to say during Mass.

In the meantime, this is my understanding.  I am happy to receive correction in this.

Leaving aside what bishops say about themselves during the Eucharistic Prayer, here is my understanding of what priests say.

We are obliged to mention the local, diocesan bishop by name when there is one.  If there is a coadjutor or auxiliaries, we can mention them by name or in a generic way (e.g., “his coadjutor/helper bishops/auxiliaries”), but we are not obliged to.  It is up to us.  If there is some other bishop who isn’t of the diocese present, it is not foreseen that his name be mentioned.  However, I think you have to mention the name of a bishop who is the “apostolic administrator”, because he is effectively the local bishop.  You don’t mention a resident bishop “emeritus”.

When the diocese has no resident ordinary bishop, you leave that cause out.  The same applies with there is no Pope.  You leave that clause out.  If there is no Pope and no local bishop, you leave both clauses out.  I do not believe you mention the name of a “diocesan administrator” in place of the local ordinary bishop.

When you visit Rome, by the way, since the Pope is the local bishop, you mention the Pope’s name and then exclude the other clause.  When the See of Peter is empty, you omit the whole thing.

These rules would apply to the Extraordinary as well as the Ordinary Form.

For myself, I mention the name of the Pope and only the local ordinary bishop without any other additions.   That’s what the black and red indicate.  However, after every Mass, either in private, or quietly to myself in public, I say a Memorare for a list of bishops with whom I have had some contact or who have particularly difficult mandates.  The devil hates bishops with unrelenting malice. Bishops need our special attention in prayers.

And about that “Any other thoughts?”… Why yes!

[CUE MUSIC]

Mystic Monk CoffeeWhen you’ve had a hard day of it, when things have been challenging or perhaps people are on your case, when you’ve been beset by financial cares and worried about the souls of those under your protection, try to imagine the burdens a bishop carries and then console yourself with a big WDTPRS mug of piping hot Mystic Monk Coffee!

New Translation MugThe Enemy of the soul and all the forces of hell are fallen angels.  That means that they are untiring, unrestrained by space and matter, and possessed of an intellect vastly beyond our own.  Even while they are constrained in some respects by God and warded off by our angel guardians, they are nevertheless capable of confusing us, stimulating our baser parts and appetites, troubling our memories, and doing the same to all those around us.  In their pride and pain they desire to us to be separated from God in agony for eternity just as they are.

They hate priests and they hate bishops even more than they hate priests.  To bring down a bishop is a great blow.

That’s why you should refresh your supply of Mystic Monk Coffee!

Mystic Monk Coffee, roasted by traditional Carmelites in Wyoming, will keep you bright and focused so that you can pray for bishops and priests!

What’s bad about that?

Mystic Monk CoffeeThe Monks 4 Favorites might be a place to start if you haven’t had their coffee before.  Four packs and free shipping.

“But Father! But Father!”, I can hear some of you saying. “It is really okay to drink coffee while praying?”

Not to worry.  It is okay to pray while drinking coffee!  See?

Bishops everywhere will appreciate your prayers, whether you are drinking coffee or not.

Mystic Monk Coffee!

It’s swell!

QUAERITUR: What do I say in the Eucharistic Prayer when there is no bishop?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests | Tagged
30 Comments

WDTPRS: Septuagesima

SeptuagesimaFor the Collect in Sunday’s Ordinary Form, 7th Sunday of Ordinary Time, here.

The prayers and readings for the Masses of these pre-Lenten Sundays were compiled by St. Gregory the Great (+604), Pope in a time of great turmoil and suffering.  Pre-Lent is particularly a time for preaching about missions and missionary work, the evangelization of peoples.  In the Novus Ordo of Paul VI there is no more pre-Lent.  A terrible loss.  We are grateful that with Summorum Pontificum the pre-Lent Sundays have regained something of their ancient status.

NB: The antiphons for the first part of Mass carry a theme of affliction, war, oppression.  We hear from 1 Corinthians on how Christians must strive on to the end of the race.  The Tract (which substitutes the Gradual and Alleluia) is the De profundis.

COLLECT:
Preces populi tui,
quaesumus, Domine, clementer exaudi:
ut, qui iuste pro peccatis nostris affligimur,
pro tui nominis gloria misericorditer liberemur.

This prayer, as well as the other two we will see, is in versions of ancient sacramentaries, such as the Gregorian. Our wonderful Lewis & Short Dictionary says ex-audio means “listen to” in the sense of “harken, perceive clearly.” There is a greater urgency to exaudi (an imperative, or command form) than in the simple audi. Clementer is an adverb from clemens, meaning among other things “Mild in respect to the faults and failures of others, i.e. forbearing, indulgent, compassionate, merciful.” We are asking God the omnipotent Creator to listen to us little finite sinful creatures in a manner that is not only attentive but also patient and indulgent.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
We beseech You, O Lord, graciously to hark
to the prayers of Your people:
so that we who are justly afflicted for our sins,
may mercifully be freed for the glory of Your Name.

The first thing long time readers of this column will note, as well as you who attend mainly the Novus Ordo, is the profoundly different tone of this prayer.  It is just as succinct as most ancient Roman prayers.  It has the classic structure.  But the focus on our responsibility and guilt for our sins is very alien to the style of the Novus Ordo.  For the most part, such direct references to our sinful state were systematically excised from the ancient prayers which survived in some form on the post-Conciliar Missale Romanum.

SECRET:
Muneribus nostris, quaesumus, Domine,
precibusque susceptis:
et caelestibus nos munda mysteriis,
et clementer exaudi.

This ancient prayer was also in the Mass “Puer natus” for 1 January for the Octave of Christmas.  The first part of the prayer is an ablative absolute. In the second part there is a standard et…et construction.  The prayer is terse and elegant.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Our gifts and prayers having been received,
we beseech You, O Lord:
both cleanse us by these heavenly mysteries,
and mercifully hark to us.

In the first prayer we acknowledge our sinfulness and beg God’s mercy.  In this prayer we show humble confidence that God is attending to our actions and we focus on the means by which we will be cleansed from the filth of our sins, namely, the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, about to be renewed upon the altar.

As the Mass develops there is a shift in tone after the Gospel parable about the man hiring day-laborers.  An attitude of praise is introduced into the cries to God for help.

POSTCOMMUNIO (1962MR):
Fideles tui, Deus, per tua dona firmentur:
ut éadem et percipiendo requirant,
et quaerendo sine fine percipiant.

Glorious.

In an ancient variation we find per[pe]tua, turning “by means of your…” into “perpetual”. That éadem (neuter plural to go with dona, “gifts”) is the object of both of the subjunctive verbs which live in another et…et construction.  Requiro means “to seek or search for; to seek to know, … with the accessory idea of need, to ask for something needed; to need, want, lack, miss, be in want of, require (synonym: desidero)”.  Think of how it is used in Ps. 26(27),4: “One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after (unum petivi a Domino hoc requiram); that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life.”  Quaero is another verb for “to seek”, as well as “to think over, meditate, aim at, plan a thing.”  The first meaning of the verb percipio is “to take wholly, to seize entirely” and then by extension “to perceive, feel and “to learn, know, conceive, comprehend, understand.”

Notice that these verbs all have a dimension of the search of the soul for something that must be grasped in the sense of being comprehended.

The New Roman Missal – 1945:
May Thy faithful, O God, be strengthened by Thy gifts,
that receiving them they may still desire them
and desiring them may constantly receive them.

The New Marian Missal – 1958:
May Thy faithful people, O God, be strengthened by Thy gifts;
that in receiving them, the may seek after them the more,
and in seeking them, they may receive them for ever.

Saint Andrew Bible Missal – 1962:
O Lord, may your faithful people be made strong by your gifts.
By receiving them may they desire them.
And by desiring them, may they always receive them.

Just to show you that we can steer this in another direction, let’s take those “seeking/graping/perceiving” verbs and emphasize the possible dimension of the eternal fascinating that the Beatific Vision will eventually produce.

A LITERAL ALTERNATIVE:
May Your faithful, O God, be strengthened by Your gifts:
so that in grasping them they will need to seek after them
and in the seeking they will know them without end.

In this life, the closest thing we have to the eternal contemplation of God is the moment of making a good Holy Communion.  At this moment of Mass, which so much concerned struggling in time of oppression, we strive to grasp our lot here in terms of our fallen nature, God’s plan, and our eternal reward.

I don’t believe this prayer, like Septuagesima Sunday, made it into the Novus Ordo, to our great impoverishment.

Posted in WDTPRS | Tagged
8 Comments

Some recent posts of interest

As they scroll on down the road, here are some links to recent posts of interest.

First, think about the

WDTPRS Spiritual Bouquet for Pope Benedict for St. Joseph’s Day (19 March)

Some recent posts of interestAnd also…

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on Some recent posts of interest

News from an Italian source about the Instruction on Summorum Pontificum

News from an Italian source about the Instruction on Summorum PontificumThere is a good deal of hand-wringing going on right now about the possibility that the upcoming “Instruction” about Summorum Pontificum will water-down the provisions which the Supreme Pontiff made the law of the Latin Church.

About this Instruction, I gave an initial comment here.

Such an Instruction has been expected, like Godot, for a long time.  I long ago stopped hoping for it.  I actively stopped hoping for it, as a matter of fact.

But it is coming and many people, in anticipation of its arrival, are chewing their own skulls in anxiety.

I can understand why people would be upset at the reports about the Instruction.  So many who mourned the loss of the older forms of worship have been mistreated by the Church’s shepherds.  Many who knew the older forms back when, and younger people who prefer them now, are still being treated like second-class trash who get to sit in the back of the bus.  And there only grudgingly.   You can understand why they would be anxious about this Instruction, given how many positions of power are still in the hands of enemies of the Holy Father’s vision and provisions.

Now we see this.

Paolo Rodari writes on Palazzo Apostolico with my emphases and comments in my rapid translation.

They are writing here, here and here that in the Vatican they are trying to water-down the implementing decree [“Instruction”] of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

In substance, according to the blogs mentioned above, the decree instead of giving a greater impetus to the Motu Proprio, explaining to bishops how to implement it in a better way, would say that the old liturgy is a concession made only to “traditionalists”, in recognition of their particular ‘sensibility”.  The blogs still write that the fabricators of this watering-down are Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the Maltese promoter of justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Antonio Card. Canizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

I personally made the necessary verifications and I can say that, according to sources inside the Vatican, the news items given here above, “are completely without foundation”.  The implementing decree will not water-down anything and neither Scicluna nor Canizares are working in that sense.

The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which today is presided over by the Prefect for Doctrine of the Faith William Joseph Card. Levada, already has the text of the decree ready, [I have the sense that someone has told the writer something along the lines of “Get this out there so that the trouble-makers will stop making a fuss!”] is waiting for the difficult work of the translations to finish, and counts on publishing it all (if the translations aren’t subject to delays) before Easter.

Take that for what it is worth.  Rodari doesn’t offer anything that can be verified either.

We don’t know what the text will say.  Most of the people who are talking about the text to me in private – most, not all – don’t know what is in the text.

Given that we don’t know many of the actual details of the text, I can only recommend that people who are deeply concern get on their knees and pray that Pope Benedict be strengthened in his mandate as Vicar of Christ and that his enemies – far from him and close to him – be weakened and confounded.

Do what a committed Catholic warrior would do for a cause that is dear.

I have started a month long “novena”, a Spiritual Bouquet for Pope Benedict to end on 19 March, which is the Holy Father’s “name day”, the Feast of St. Joseph.

Please participate in this Spiritual Bouquet.

In the meantime, drink some Mystic Monk coffee and, if you want to sign something, go to this site and put your signature to a kind of open-letter or petition.

Also, in the next days and weeks consider that the Holy Father is unlikely to put his signature to something which would so undermine his position and authority.

Finally, I will ask the readers for some help with something.

We could use an up-to-date list of the members (not the workers) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the members (not workers) of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.  We need to know who has been involved in this and who may also need prayers.  It would be nice to get this before the 2011 Annuario Pontificio is released.   Please don’t waste our time with “This guy used to be the list” or “I think he is a member” or even worse “I think X should be on it!”  We need facts, not old news or guesses.  If you don’t know, don’t write about it.

And now…

From the the Enchiridion of Indulgences, #25:

A partial indulgence is granted to the Christian faithful who, in a spirit of filial devotion, devoutly recite any duly approved prayer for the Supreme Pontiff (e.g., the Oremus pro Pontifice):

V. Let us pray for our Pontiff, Pope Benedict.

R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and bless him upon earth, and deliver him not to the will of his enemies.

Our Father.  Hail Mary.

Let us pray.

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Benedict, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged
19 Comments