POLL ALERT! WaPo on religious freedom of military chaplains and homosexuals

POLL ALERT!

The Washington Post has a rather slimy question with a poll concerning religious freedom and the US Military, especially in regard to “don’t ask – don’t tell”, which concerns the identity of homosexuals.

Here is the WaPo text:  What beliefs ban gays?

UPDATE: Dec 2, 9:18 a.m.: Sandhya Somashekhar reported Thursday that among the findings in the Pentagon’s study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is widespread concern within the chaplain corps that permitting gays to serve openly may infringe upon the freedom of religious leaders to express their disapproval of homosexuality. Who will win when gay rights and religious freedom collide?

One example of those conflicting rights, articulated by Terry Mattingly at GetReligion.org is here: “What if a traditional Catholic priest hears the confession of a Catholic soldier — gay or straight — who is in a sexual relationship that violates the Church’s teachings and tells this believer that he or she must repent? Does the soldier have the right to protest, saying that the chaplain has declined to show proper care and respect?”

What do you think?

I know that was a bit incoherent.  But there is a POLL you might want to look at.

The form:

The results at the time of this writing 1740 GMT:

Posted in POLLS, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , ,
12 Comments

More about Msgr. Pozzo’s interview with Vatican Radio

NLM usefully posted some highlight of Msgr. Guido Pozzo’s interview with Vatican Radio, posted in VR’s German section.

After looking through the Italian text which I obtained, I can share a few other things in my fast translation.  I read German pretty well, but I translate Italian faster, and Italian was clearly the original language.

Pay close attention to his comments about resistance to the older form of Mass and how that resistance must be overcome.  It must be overcome, of course, because it is wrong.

3
Q: The Pope asked for “charity and pastoral prudence” for traditionalist faithful.  Now, at the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, you are a kind of fire department for cases in which don’t go that way. Where do you find resistance?  What what motivations?

The expression “vigilare” translates Greek “episcopein”.  Vigilance is the primary competence of the bishop.  In this sense the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” exercises the office of observation and vigilance over the application of the Motu Proprio. There still now exist certainly some prejudices and resistance against the Mass in the antiquior rite, either from ideological motives or in part because the request for the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is considered an expression of contrast and opposition to the liturgical reform desired by the Second Vatican council.  It is clearly necessary to overcome and challenge these still widespread prejudices and to recover, above all, the unity of the history of the liturgy, the unity of the lex orandi as an expression of the unity of the lex credendi, even in the specificity of the liturgical forms of the one Roman Rite.

3 bis
Q: A clarification: Which objections move a parish priest/pastor or bishop who has no respect for the old Mass to refuse requests?

There are prelates who above all see the risk of a nostalgia or an aesthetic sort, purely ornamental, formalistic, in the request for the old rite.  This, however – I don’t want to exclude that in some cases this can also be true – indicates, in just a general way, a kind of bias.  Because the antiquior rite has on the other hand a profound richness that must be non only respected, but rediscovered from the vantage point precisely of the liturgy as it is also celebrated today.  And so these biases, these oppositions, have to be overcome through a change of a forma mentis.  A more adequate liturgical formation is needed.

[…]

6
The Motu Proprio does not speak of the formation of priests who want to learn the say the Mass according to the old books.  According to some this is a lacuna (gap), inasmuch as it requires not a little training to celebrate the old liturgy.  To this point, what can you advise to priests who are interested?

Certainly the problem of the priest who is suited (idoneo) for the celebration of the previous Rite is of great importance and urgency.  I must say that often the motive for which individual Ordinaries have problems in responding favorable to the request of a stable group of faithful to assist at Mass in the antiquior rite is precisely the lack of priests suited to its celebration.  It is necessary, therefore, that the faithful making the request, have come understanding and great patience.  I am of the opinion that in seminaries there should be offered to seminarians the possibility of learning adequately to cerebrate also the Extraordinary Form.  I am not speaking of an obligation, but of the possibility.  Where it is possible, one could make use for this preparation of priests of religious institutes which are under the jurisdiction of Ecclesia Dei and which follow the traditional liturgical discipline.  However, what seems to be essential is liturgical and theological formation for which it is necessary to reject radically the idea that there exists a pre-Conciliar liturgy in opposition to a post-Conciliar liturgy.  There is a growth and deepening in the history of the faith and of the Church’s liturgy, but also in continuity and in substantial unity, that cannnot and must never be lost or diminished. This is the line, the plan that must be follow also in view of a better preparation of clergy.

[…]

9
Will the Holy Father one day celebrate a great Mass in the Extraordinary Form?

I think you are asking the the wrong person!

[…]

There is more, and in time to come I may get to that as well.

Posted in Linking Back | Tagged , ,
7 Comments

REVIEW: Pilgrim’s Guide to Rome’s Principal Churches

My friends at Angelus Press sent me a copy of A Pilgrims Guide to Romes Principal Churches by Fr. Father Tylenda, SJ.  Softcover, $29.95.

This is a handsome and useful book for anyone who is going to go to Rome and plans to visit churches, or who will be living in Rome for a while.

The book covers 51 important Roman churches, giving a history and description of each so that you are sure to see the most important features.  It includes floor plans and many photos.

In the back of the book you find a bibliography, glossary, and an index of artists.  The artist index is useful if you are trying to hunt down, say, all the painting by Guido Reni found in churches (a few are in museums).

I can tell that most of the photos are fairly recent, too, given the glimpses of scaffolds and cars and fashions.  You don’t see, as in some books, cars from 1955.

The book is a softcover, and it really does flex and bend well.  The cover is tough and the paper should be durable.  It is made to be hauled around.  The only drawback is that it is a little heavy.  But the positives outweigh that point.

You could consider this as a Christmas gift to someone heading to Rome.

Posted in REVIEWS | Tagged
10 Comments

“And the old deserted Year / Seems dying with the day”

With a tip of the biretta to the Laudator.

Thomas Caulfield Irwin (1823-1892), December:
It is bleak December noon,
Winter-wild and rainy grey:
By the old road thinly strewn
Drifts of dead leaves skirt the way:
Oh! the long canals and drear,
And the floods o’erflow the weir,
And the old deserted Year
Seems dying with the day.

By the banks the leafless larch
Shakes its boughs in dismal plight;
The blank bridge’s lonely arch
Marks the sullen sky with white:
Beyond the current flows
Through banks of misty snows,
And the wind the water blows,
Here and there, a little bright.

From the dim and silent hill
Looks the moon with face of care
O’er the sad fields, frosty still,
And the icy brooklet there;
And nooked beside the way
The hamlet children play,
Whispering weirdly in the grey
Of the dumb cold evening air.

W.H. Auden, ed., Nineteenth Century Minor British Poets (New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1966), gives the poet’s name as William Caulfield Irwin (pp. 10, 194, 366), but he seems to be mistaken.

Posted in Poetry | Tagged , ,
7 Comments

Deacon’s Q&A about Extraordinary Form to create unity in multicultural parish

Here is an offering from the Catholic Sentinel, the twice monthly publication of Oregon Catholic Press, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Portland.

Rev. Mr. Cummings answers a question.

Why is the Latin Mass not offered more?

[Scottish-born, Irish-trained] Deacon Owen Cummings

Q — I was wondering, if unity is an important part of catholic teaching, why is it that we do not see the traditional Latin Mass offered more generously? In the past, anywhere you went to a Catholic Church the Mass was exactly the same (only the homily was in the vernacular). So, with an increasing number of parishioners who speak Spanish and other languages, why do we not offer this Mass more often so that we can come together and celebrate Mass without either group (the English speaking and the non-English speaking) feeling lost? [A great question.]

A — This is a very good question, but a complex question, and it shows a real sensitivity concerning the unity of the parish and, indeed, of the Catholic Church as a whole. [Indeed it does.]

Latin has traditionally been the language of the Western Church, and it seems to me that in some respects Latin may be understood as a badge or a symbol of our catholicity.  [Indeed it is.]

That’s one of the reasons why various parts of the Mass are often sung in Latin, [Often?  These days?  Perhaps a little more often than before.  But, … often?  How about where you live?  Is this your experience?  It seems to me that the Deacon may be using just a little slight of hand here, perhaps to give the impression that Latin actually is being used… plenty of Latin, surely enough Latin… so much that we really don’t need any more.] e.g., the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei. At the same time, the church [read “Church”] has judged that celebrating in the vernacular languages better enables the active participation of all the faithful in the celebration of the Mass.  [The Church also made this judgment in Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.“]

Having access to the words and their meanings throughout the entire celebration, including the liturgy of the word, helps us to be more spiritually disposed for the reception of Holy Communion. [I hope this is the case.  Is it possible that more people today are “spiritually disposed” to receive Holy Communion since the vernacular has been in use than they were before, when Latin was in use?] This access becomes even richer when one considers the more expanded repertoire of theological meaning in the new English translation of the Roman Missal that goes into effect on the first Sunday of Advent 2011. [“even richer”!  I sure hope so.  I am not convinced that we have seen lots of riches yet.]

The more generous availability of the older Latin Mass by Pope Benedict was not intended to supplant the various vernacular translations, [okay…] and it was not intended to address the multicultural nature of parishes and dioceses. [hmmm… is that so?  What was the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church intended to address in its global diffusion?  And what does it accomplish now where it is used?] In his letter to the bishops on the occasion of the publication of the apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum the Pope wrote: “The use of the old (1962) Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.” [Does that seem like a non sequitur?  That said, I note that the 1983 CIC can. 249 has something to say about the preparation of clergy and Latin.  Or am I wrong?]

[Watch this conclusion…] We need to find other ways to deepen the unity of our multicultural parishes beyond the actual celebration of the Eucharist, even as the Eucharist remains the bedrock of our unity in Christ.  [Ummm… “other ways”?  Why?  Why can’t the older form of Holy Mass, which obviously cuts across centuries and all cultural groups and even several living generations not be one of the tools for fostering unity of different groups in a parish?  Why is it dismissed by the writer so swiftly?  The writer even concedes points about catholicity earlier on.  Pope Benedict intended that the older form of Holy Mass – holy in times past, still holy now – be used and that it exert an influence of some sort.  This is a time for the “New Evangelization”.  Shouldn’t we be using all the tools we have?]

Treat this fellow’s arguments seriously.

Make your case for or against the use of the TLM in a multicultural situation.

Posted in New Evangelization, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill | Tagged ,
49 Comments

A different take on Russian roulette

I have a hard time trusting the press when reporting things such as this.  I am inclined to believe what LifeSite reports.

Still, I think this requires additional explanations.

I thought that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were drawing closer in many respects.

Need more irony?

Russian Orthodox Church approves condom use in wake of Pope Benedict’s remarks

BY THADDEUS BAKLINSKI

MOSCOW, December 1, 2010 (LifeSIteNews.com) – Even though Pope Benedict XVI did not approve the use of condoms in the massively misreported statement he made to interviewer Peter Seewald, the Russian Orthodox Church has now issued a statement saying the use of condoms is acceptable.

“The Foundations of the Social Policy of the Russian Orthodox Church distinguishes between abortive and non-abortive contraception. Priests can allow people to use the latter,” [Priests can allow?] said Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the synodal Department for Church and Society Relations, to the Russian news service Interfax.

Father Vsevolod added that he did not mean that the Church approves of “any egoistical decisions made by spouses not to have children.

The archpriest further remarked that people who are infected with HIV should not rely on condoms but rather abstain from sex.

Fr. Vsevolod called on these people to “seriously think whether they should have sex because infection can spread not only by direct sexual contact.”

A request to the office of His Grace Job, Bishop of Kashira and the Administrator of the Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Canada, for comment and clarification on the statement by Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, was not returned by press time.

Contact information for the Russian Orthodox Church in Canada:

Office Of The Patriarchal Parishes In Canada
10812-108 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T5H 3A6
Phone: 780-420-9945
Fax: 780-426-5163
e-mail: bishjob@telus.net

Posted in The future and our choices | Tagged ,
27 Comments

Which apps are apt for Apple?

I noted at the site of the young Papist that Apple decided to remove the Manhattan Declaration from their app store.  I noted at the same site that the obviously illegitimate “catholic” group “Catholics For Equality” – a pro-homosexual organization – is going to promote its own smartphone apps.

I wonder if Apple will take the fake catholic homosexual group’s app but refuse to have the Manhattan Project’s app.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged
16 Comments

RECENT POSTS OF INTEREST

Here are a few recent posts you might not want to miss.


Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on RECENT POSTS OF INTEREST

Interview with Msgr. Pozzo, Secretary of the Pont. Comm. “Ecclesia Dei”

Over at NLM there is a very useful entry, which also asks from some help from people who are competent in German.

At the German site of Vatican Radio there was an interview with the Secretary of my old haunt the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

I am sure the discussion over there will be interesting, as it is going to be here.  Do check it out.

My Preamble: For quite a while I grew less and less enthusiastic about the idea of a “clarificatory document” about Summorum Pontificum.  I am a bit more optimistic now.  Given the fact of ongoing talks with the SSPX, it is not at all likely that such a “clarificatory document” would not be quite favorable toward more traditional interpretations and aspirations.  See if you can discern something of that in what follows.

My emphases and comments.

Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary on Three Years of Summorum Pontificum
by Gregor Kollmorgen

The German Service of Vatican Radio today carries an interview with Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, on the occasion of three years of Summorum Pontificum. NLM will try to provide a full translation (if any of our readers would be willing to help, that would be greatly appreciated – email addressed can be found at the top of the left side bar). [If you can help them, please go offer your services.] In the meantime, here are a few salient points:

1. (When asked about resistence to the usus antiquior:) The old Rite of the Mass has a deep richness that needs not only to be respected, but also to be rediscovered, for the benefit of the liturgy, also as it is celebrated today. These prejudices and resistance have to be overcome by a change in the forma mentis, the disposition. A more adequate liturgical formation is needed. [And yet I am aware of a cases in which bishops are claiming that it is not permitted under Summorum Pontificum to expand the use of the 1962 Missal.  I suggest a change in their forma mentis is in order.  Otherwise, perhaps the “Bux Protocol” might be applied.]

2. (When asked whether interest in the usus antiquior is growing:) I would say growing. Also, because we observe that especially in the younger generations there is interest in and popularity of the old form of the Mass. And this is surprising news. [Huh? “Und das ist eine überraschende Neuigkeit.”  Yep.  That’s what he said.  But… surprising to whom?  It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone working in the PCED.  It might be a surprise to a hardened liberal of the “Spirit of Vatican II” stripe.  ]

3. (When asked about numbers of faithful interested in the Extraordinary Form:) It is certainly clear, too, that the value of the Extraordinary Form of the Rite has nothing to do with numbers. Both forms are equal in value and dignity. [This needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated.  Opponents of Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum and all the Catholic faithful with legitimate liturgical aspirations that run in the traditional vein claim that “Extraordinary” is supposed to mean “rare”.  Clearly that is not the case.]

4. I am of the opinion that one should offer seminarians in the seminaries the opportunity to learn the celebration in the Extraordinary Form properly – not as an obligation, but as a possibility. [I disagree.] Where possible, one could make use for the formation of the priests of those institutions which are under the jurisdiction of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and follow the traditional liturgical discipline.  [I disagree with the Secretary here.  I think that a priest ought to know how to offer the liturgical worship of his Church, his Rite.  If there are two forms of the Roman Rite, then a seminarian ought to know both of them.  Furthermore, I think that when a rector of a seminary stands in front of a bishop to declare that the deacons were suitably trained for the ministry of priests, and those seminarians were not trained in the older, Extraordinary Form, then there is a problem with the rector’s statement.  And as long as I am ranting, what about 1983 CIC can. 249?]

5. In the letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio, Pope Benedict mentioned on the one hand the need to update the calendar of Saints, i.e. to insert the Saints proclaimed after 1962, and on the other hand that certain prefaces from the Missal of Paul VI should be incorporated in order to enrich the collection of the prefaces of the Missal of 1962. [Some of my traditional friends are against such a change.  I am not.  I am for it.] The Commission Ecclesia Dei has set up a study process to comply with the will of the Holy Father. Here one will soon, I think, arrive at a proposal, which will shortly be submitted to the Holy Father for approbation. [That’s news.]

6. I think we must also recognize that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite offers a more extensive reading of Scripture than the Missal of 1962.  [My very traditional friends will be pleased to read this part:] Nevertheless, an amendment of the Missal of 1962 in this regard is not easy, because one has to keep in mind the relation between the biblical readings and the antiphons or responsories of the Roman breviary for that day. It bears recalling, too, however, that under Pope Pius XII a number of additional readings for the commons of Saints has been added. Therefore, one can not rule out a possible extension for the readings of the Mass. That does not mean, however, that one may as a bishop or priest celebrant subjectively and arbitrarily change the sequence of the Lectionary or mix the two forms, so that the character of both is lost.

[And this is something that I have been repeating for many years now. ] 7. In light of these explanations (sc. in the letter to the bishops), it is clear that the Catholic faithful are urged to avoid participation in the Mass or the reception of the sacraments from a priest of the FSSPX, because they are canonically irregular.  [That said, it is still possible to fulfill one’s Mass obligation at an SSPX chapel.  However, if there is an alternative, I suggest strongly that you chose the alternative.  Stick to that which is approved.]

WDTPRS kudos to NLM for getting on this fast.  I hope they can get the whole thing done soon.

Posted in Brick by Brick, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged ,
24 Comments

Card. Ratzinger wanted a revision of penal section of Code in 1988

My friend John L. Allen, Jr., the nearly-ubiquitous fair-minded columnist sadly still writing for the NCR has an interesting piece you will want to read with care.

Keep in mind that while “smoking gun” is usually a negative image, this is a clearly more positive use.

Vatican offers ‘smoking gun’ to defend pope’s record on sex abuse
by John L Allen Jr on Dec. 01, 2010

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

Amid ongoing debate over Pope Benedict XVI’s role in the sexual abuse crisis, the Vatican today claimed that a newly unearthed piece of correspondence shows that as far back as 1988, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pressed Rome to adopt “swifter and more simplified procedures” for punishing priests guilty of “grave and scandalous” conduct.

The conduct Ratzinger had in mind, the Vatican implied, included the sexual abuse of minors.

Ratzinger’s recommendation was not adopted at the time, a senior Vatican official said, because of stalled debates over the penal section of the church’s Code of Canon Law. Yet Ratzinger kept at it, the official asserted, and today his suggested reforms have largely become binding church law.

The revelation came in an essay authored by Spanish Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta, the number two official at the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which was published today in slightly abbreviated form by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, and is scheduled for full publication tomorrow in the semi-official journal Civiltà Cattolica.

Such high-profile play suggests that the Vatican regards Ratzinger’s 1988 letter as a sort of positive “smoking gun,” demonstrating that the future pope grasped the seriousness of the sex abuse crisis far earlier than previously believed.

English language versions of the essays were given to NCR by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi.

Arrieta wrote that the Council for Legislative Texts has been working on a revision to the penal section of the Code of Canon Law since 2007, at the request of Benedict XVI. [That is interesting in itself.] In the course of research, Arrieta wrote, a February 1998 letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger came to light. The letter was addressed to another Cardinal, José Rosalío Castillo Lara, who at the time was in charge of the Vatican office which eventually became the Council for Legislative Texts.

In the letter, Ratzinger argues that in practice, changes to the Code of Canon Law adopted in 1983 meant that bishops around the world “are likely to experience considerable difficulty” in imposing penalties on priests who commit grave crimes.

Ratzinger does not specifically cite the sexual abuse of minors, but Arrieta implies it was understood.

For “the good of the faithful,” Ratzinger writes, Castillo should consider adopting “a more rapid and simplified penal process.”

By way of background, Arrieta explains that the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law was intended to implement in concrete legal terms the theological vision of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). When it came to the penal section of the law, Arrieta wrote, the accent was on subsidiarity and decentralization, meaning that responsibility for imposing punishment fell largely on local bishops and religious superiors.

Moreover, Arrieta wrote, the new code contained strong due process measures to protect the rights of the accused – so much so, he said, that in hindsight, they did not always “allow the collective interest to be effectively safeguarded.”

Though Arrieta does not spell it out, one key reason that bishops around the world typically did not try to formally laicize abuser priests during the 1980s and 1990s was because the legal procedures for doing so were perceived as lengthy, cumbersome, and uncertain.

It was against that backdrop, Arrieta suggests, that Ratzinger wrote the 1988 letter.

At the time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was responsible for handling petitions for dispensation from the obligations of priesthood. Ratzinger expressed frustration to Castillo that church law at the time considered such a step a “grace” granted to the priest, as opposed to a penalty.

Arrieta reports that Castillo wrote back to say that changing the penal section of the law would not only “endanger the fundamental right of defense,” but it might encourage bishops to rely on “pastoral” rather than judicial solutions.

Arrieta says that just a month later, in June 1998, Pope John Paul II issued a new constitution for the Roman Curia, Pastor Bonus, which gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responsibility for “more serious offenses against morals.” Arrieta implies that Ratzinger prompted that move, and wrote that “it is quite unlikely a choice of this kind … would have been implemented if the overall system had been working well.”

Arrieta concedes that the reform was imperfect, since it was never clear exactly what these “serious offenses against morals” were, or the circumstances under which bishops were obliged to turn them over to Rome. That gap was not filled until 2001, with another document from John Paul II titled Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

Arrieta notes that after that document appeared, Ratzinger pressed for “special faculties” from John Paul II, essentially exceptions to his own rules, allowing abusers to be removed from the priesthood without a church trial in especially serious cases.

Finally, Arrieta points to one additional sign of Ratzinger’s concern: His role in 1997 as a member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Vatican department that oversees mission territories. According to Arrieta, Ratzinger backed granting the congregation “special faculties” to handle crimes by priests administratively rather than through formal canonical procedures, reflecting the “scarcity of resources of every kind” in many parts of the developing world.

In sum, Arrieta wrote, the “decisive action” of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in attempting to streamline the church’s penal procedures, at least in part as a response to the scandal of sex abuse by priests, is “one of the ‘constant elements’ that have characterized his Roman years from the very first.

Posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse | Tagged ,
7 Comments