A priest comments on the Baghdad massacre

Fr. Raymond de Souza had a comment about the massacre of Catholic Christians in Baghdad.  This is from Catholic Education Resource Center with my emphases and comments.

His Wrath Upon Their Heads
FATHER RAYMOND J. DE SOUZA
The blood of Baghdad screams out to heaven and earth. [The phrase is evocative.  The phrase “screams out to heaven” can only be completed in a certain way.]

There has been an orgy of violence in Iraq this week, as terrorists have set off a series of bombs, murdering well over 100 people. But what happened last Sunday was so utterly horrific that it merits special, and thunderous, condemnation, backed up with lethal force if necessary.

On Sunday, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group stormed into the cathedral of the Syriac Catholic Church, Our Lady of Deliverance, during the evening Mass. They immediately killed the priest offering the Holy Mass – three priests in all were murdered. They began shooting members of the congregation, and held hostage others who took refuge in a locked room. When the security forces stormed the church, the jihadists killed as many as they could, and some of them set off the suicide bombs on their belts.

Close to 60 Catholics were killed. In their cathedral. At Mass. It has now come to this, where Christians are killed at prayer by Muslim fanatics. [It sounds very much as if they were killed precisely from hatred of Catholicism.]

Christians have been in Iraq from the earliest centuries, long before there was an Iraq or, one might note, there was Islam. Jihadists have launched a campaign with genocidal intent, aimed at driving out every last Christian from what they consider to be an Islamic land. It is now clear that the only place such jihadists envision for Christians in Iraq is the grave.

The Catholic archbishop has been killed. Priests have been riddled with bullets upon leaving their churches. Ordinary Christians, trying to live a quiet life, have been subject to harassment, threats and violence. Iraq in the aftermath of the American invasion has been particularly dangerous, but antiChristian violence stretches across the Islamic world.

“Christians are slaughtered in Iraq, in their homes and churches, and the so-called ‘free’ world is watching in complete indifference, interested only in responding in a way that is politically correct and economically opportune, but in reality is hypocritical,” said Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignace Joseph III Younan after these latest killings.

Indeed, the international community issued the usual boilerplate condemnations, most of them refusing to identify those responsible. [This is the usual situation.] The same statements could have been used had the Rotarians decided to massacre the Salvation Army. In the Church, too, there is often a reluctance to support vigorously Christians under attack, and to call things by name.

“As in the past and still existent today, some imbalances are present in our relations,” is how the final statement of the recent Vatican Synod of Bishops on the Middle East characterized Christian-Muslim relations. Imbalances? As in the imbalance between the jihadist throwing the grenade and the Catholic family being blown up?

The blood on the altar makes it clear. No amount of goodwill, no amount of dialogue, no amount of circumlocutory evasions, no amount of supine prostrations – nothing will dissuade the jihadists. So let us not abnegate ourselves over the dead bodies of our fallen brethren in Christ. Let us speak frankly of those who want to kill us.

Allahu Akbar – God is great! So those Catholics on Sunday heard the jihadists shout in the church. Can there be any greater sacrilege than to kill the innocent at prayer, while shouting that God is great?

The jihadists respect neither man nor God, not even their own. They have killed their fellow Muslims and bombed mosques. The Christians killed on Sunday were Iraqis, their fellow Arabs, their fellow citizens, their neighbours. They kill because they are seized with a murderous hatred. The least we can do is to summon a righteous anger in return. [I wonder if this needs to be expanded with a review of the tenets of Islam concerning the spread of Islam and dealings with the infidel.]

The Christian always hopes for conversion and offers forgiveness. There must also be justice and prudence, and prudence demands that those who would kill in the name of God are best despatched quickly to their judgment.

Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. So Scripture teaches us, and so it must be for us, leaving vengeance to the Lord, and imploring the grace of conversion and reconciliation. But let us not blanch from raising our voices to the Lord, with righteous anger and hot tears, that He might visit His vengeance upon those who did this, bring down His wrath upon their heads and exact upon them a terrifying justice in full measure.

That’s not the language of imbalances; it is the anguish and agony of the shepherd when the flock is being slaughtered.

WDTPRS KUDOS to Fr. de Souza for his forthright comments.

Posted in The Drill, The Last Acceptable Prejudice |
26 Comments

Fr. Finigan and his scalpel on spirichooaliddy

This evening I had supper with His HermeneuticalHelp. Fr. Z in  England!ness himself!  Fr. Tim Finigan!

He has on his excellent blog a good look at:

The dangers of “Woman’s Weekly” spirichooaliddy

I will give you a line or two.  I want you to go there and spike his stats in a spectacular fashion.

The Eucharist guarantees that every relationship is sacred; [Seriously – every relationship? Adulterous ones? Child abusing ones?] that no bitter tear or heartfelt wish is ever wasted; that nothing is ‘merely’ human any more; [That’s the key – Rahner-lite – “everything is grace”] that no sin is ever left unredeemed;

Fr. Finigan dissects the whole thing.

He has set his scalpel to something that remains a problem in the Church, particularly among the dumb… and liberal nuns.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
8 Comments

“It is good to strike the serpent’s head with your enemy’s hand.”

William Oddie of The Catholic Herald has an engaging piece about the mutual interests of Catholicism and Islam.

It may be pretty much impossible to have discussions on doctrine, but we have common ground in combating secularism and the dictatorship of relativism.

Here is a quote from Mr. Oddie:

But [Islam] is not, in the end, open to Catholicism, which unlike Anglicanism is an essentially dogmatic religion (that’s why, in the end, ARCIC foundered; there is only a marker buoy to record where it sank). So, incidentally, is Islam, even if its dogmatic content is more difficult to determine. But both religions believe that they have been given the truth by God; and while we are about it, we don’t even believe in the same God, since one non-negotiable Islamic belief is a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, along with the Incarnation, the Resurrection and much else besides.

If there is a doctrinal issue that must be clarified, it would be that of whether or not we pray to the same God.  I know that there is a statement in a document of Vatican II about this which leaves open a positive response to that question.  I am inclined to think otherwise.

Furthermore, I believe that there was a sort of common ground initiative some years ago at a UN confab in Cairo, concerning contraception.

But think about the obvious problems involved both in the decision to cooperate manifestly and deciding to not cooperate.

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

QUAERITUR: I saw a woman walk away with Host, put It in pocket

Help. Fr. Z in England!
From a reader:

At my confirmation “spirit” day my parish priest asked me to altar
serve. At communion one of the eucharistic ministers gave the host to
a lady and I saw her walking very far with it and I started walking after her, she cracked it in half and I believe she put half of it in her pocket. I ran to the deacon and he just said “thanks” and I told the priest and he said “Sometimes people make mistakes”. I almost cried. Who do I go to right now? He won’t make any announcements and he really doesn’t seem like he cared. I am questioning how much he believes in the true presence. What should I do?

No Communion in the handA terrible experience to be sure.

What should you do?

There is little you can do at this point about what happened in the past.

However, if this is something that is happening regularly, then it must be brought to the attention of proper authority.  That means the local bishop and/or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.   The CDF would be involved because it would involve profanation in a concrete instance.  Concerning the regular practice of Communion in the hand which could be leading to danger of profanation, you would contact the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

In the document Redemptionis Sacramentum we read:

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

It may be that the woman who took the Host or part of the Host had the desire to take it to a sick person at home and therefore thought a) she was doing a good thing or b) she had the right to do it.

Again, if this is happening regularly in that parish, or more than one person is doing this, then there is definitely “risk of profanation”.  If the parish priest is unwilling or unable to something about “risk of profanation”, then higher authority must.

What should take place in that parish, in my opinion, is that the pastor should give a workshop with clear instruction about how to distribute and when not to distribute.  Also, he should post in the bulletin and also preach from the pulpit about the proper manner of reception of Communion.  If there are more than one instances of this he should suspend Communion in the hand.

If this sort of thing is happening in the parish regularly, and the priest and the deacon(s) seem uninterested, then you may have the responsibility to bring this to the attention of the bishop of Congregation.

Toward the end of Redemptionis Sacramentum we read:

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

You can always write to your local bishop, explaining what you saw happen, and then ask what you ought to have done after the parish priest did not seem concerned.  You always have the right to write to the bishop, and in this case you did already speak with the pastor.

If you write, don’t editorialize and don’t run any one down.  Be brief and respectful, sticking closely to the facts without lots of additional commentary.

Finally, I think that Communion in the hand increases the risk of profanation exponentially.  For that reason it should be suspended everywhere.  But that is above my pay grade.

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

QUAERITUR: using old Mass rubrics in the new Mass

From a reader:

Recently, our apostolate targeted priests to say the Ordinary Form properly as well, and even encourage the use of the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form, in the Novus Ordo. Nonetheless, one of our priest consultants (who is very, very supportive of Summorum Pontificum, and the proper celebration of the Liturgy) told me that according to Canon Law (and some of his Canon Lawyer friends) that it is forbidden to do so. And that the priest celebrant must only do exactly what is written in the rubrics of the Ordinary Form. I guess my question was, is this is indeed the case? And would you consider the Ordinary Form celebrated in the rubrics of the Extraordinary a liturgical abuse?

Technically, there is not to be a mixing of the rites or forms.   I would consider the Novus Ordo celebrated more like the TLM to be an improvement.  BUT!… BUT… there is at this point to be no mixing of the forms.

On the other hand, the Pope says that there should be a mutual enrichment.

Mutual enrichment will certainly be easier to figure out in the case of a priest’s ars celebrandi and with music, and with perhaps issues of the calendar and the addition of new feasts, etc.

Mutual enrichment will eventually have to occur with rubrics as well.  That is the point of “organic growth” over time.  I don’t know how that will work out or when.  I suspect it will take a long time.  First, use the older Mass is increasing.  Also, younger priests are celebrating the newer form of Mass with fewer abuses than their older brethren.  There are also those priests who say the Novus Ordo having learned also the older form.   Then there will be the factor of the shrinking of congregations attending the Novus Ordo and the slow increase of those going to the older Mass.

For now I would say that the older form of Mass should be celebrated as it is in the book.

I think the Novus Ordo should be celebrated as the book says, just saying the black and doing the red… but in close continuity with our many centuries of tradition, and under the clear influence of the older Mass.  In some ways the Novus Ordo hasn’t had a chance yet, since it has been so abused by so many for so long.  Yes, we must admit that the very structure of it and the use of vernacular and the dreadful table altars have opened the Novus Ordo up to far more abuse.   But the Novus Ordo has to be given a chance.

Lastly, it is said by some (by me) that the more the Novus Ordo is celebrated like the older form, the better it is.  If that is the case… if the older form is truly the paradigm, doesn’t that raise a question?

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged ,
22 Comments

Noblesse ought to oblige.

PLEASE CHECK THE UPDATES, below.

In Spain at Sagrada Familia Queen Sophia refused to kneel before GOD and receive the Body of her Divine Saviour in the manner that the same Divine Savior’s Vicar on earth has pointed to as the most appropriate.

Noblesse ought to oblige.

UPDATE: 10 Nov 1015 GMT:

A friend sent this and I must, in justice, share it with everyone (edited).

As much as we would like it or suppose it, Queen of Spain never converted to Catholicism….

Remember, they even had a double wedding, one catholic, one orthodox, as forbidden as that may be in general. It still is common practice in Greece.

She however is by far the best and most faithful member in the Royal Family, and she does not fear to be unpopular in shabby Spain, even on the usual social issues ….

So the way she received communion is the orthodox one, and none other she would accept. And receiving communion is according to can. 844 § 3.

I was unaware that the Orthodox received in the hand.  I thought they received under both kind and directly in the mouth through the use of a spoon.

Nevertheless, I happily receive correction in this matter if this is the reason why the Queen received in that manner.   At the same time, when one is in Rome, one does best to receive as the Romans.  When I go to am Eastern Catholic Church and receive the Sacrament, I receive in their manner of receiving.  Food for thought.

UPDATE: 10 Nov 2344 GMT:

Someone sent via email:

I suggest you watch the video from the Barcelona mass. The picture of
the queen is a little misleading. She wasn’t at the kneeler in front
of the Pope. He went over to her and she was on a platform above him
in a very awkward position. I doubt she was being disrespectful.

Of course there was no link to the video.

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

A social engineering experiment that didn’t work so well

It looks as if the openly homosexual Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is going to resign.

I suspect he will not be joining a Ordinariate of Anglicanorum coetibus.

It seems that Robinson wants more time with his “husband”.

Blech.

I guess that was a social engineering experiment that didn’t work so well.

I’ll now go wash.

Posted in Throwing a Nutty | Tagged
14 Comments

QUAERITUR: harmonizing with the priest during the doxology

From a reader:

Please don’t think I’m a heretic, but I was at one of those great
circumstances where multiple celebrants sang the last part of the
Eucharistic prayer (which I think is the doxology). They sang it
together and on key. That is so wonderful.

I would love to have a musical setting where it would be possible for
a cantor, choir, or congregation to harmonize with the celebrant(s). I understand it would confuse roles to have non-priests sing any of the same words as the priests. How would I explore this?

You don’t explore it.  It is forbidden for anyone other than the celebrant and, if present, concelebrants to sing that part at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer(s).  Even priests or bishops who are present, but not concelebrating, cannot sing that together with the celebrant.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
30 Comments

What is your good news?

Do you have some good news?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
42 Comments

QUAERITUR: I heard “excommunication” in the words of absolution!

From a reader:

While I am praying my Act of Contrition in the Confessional, I hear
the priest praying in Latin. Sometime I hear him say the Latin word
for excommunication and this always makes me afraid that he has judged
that one of my sins was extra bad… something that needed an
un-excommunication. Is it normal for a priest to use that word?

No, do not make that assumption and don’t worry about this at all.

The older form of absolution, which more traditionally-minded priests of the Latin Church can use, includes a line about lifting whatever censure might have been incurred to the extent that he has the faculty to lift them and there is need.

The usual form was and is, with my emphases:

May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you. And I by His authority release you from every bond of excommunication (suspension) and interdict, in so far as I am empowered and you have need. And now I absolve you from your sins; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. R.: Amen.

You can see the logic of the formula.  First, the censure is lifted so that the person is able to receive the absolution of sins, and then the sins are absolved.

Also, it is not uncommon that priests start reciting the formula quietly once they hear you getting on with your Act of Contrition.  That is pretty standard.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
6 Comments