I am happy to report that in London, at St. James Church, Spanish Place, confirmandi will receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in the older, traditional, Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite at the hands of Bishop George Stack, auxiliary bishop of Westminster.
The rite will take place on 20 November 2010.
Contact them for information: info@latin-mass-society.org
My friend Greg Burke, the Rome correspondent for Fox News, scored an interview – video interview – with Msgr. Charles Scicluna of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who handles graviora delicta cases.
Vatican Prosecutor: Pope Showed “Frustration and Anger” Over Abuse Cases
August 23, 2010 – 8:51 AM | by: Greg BurkeIn an extensive interview with Fox News, the chief Vatican prosecutor for clerical sex abuse cases, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, said he watched Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s “compassion, anger and frustration” as the future pope reviewed hundreds of cases between 2002-2005.
When asked if those three years fundamentally changed Ratzinger’s view of the abuse scandal, Scicluna said the experience would change anybody.
“I think it was an eye-opener to the gravity of the situation and to the great sadness of priestly betrayal and priestly failure,” he said. “I think that anybody who has to review so many cases will certainly change his perspective on things, on human failings, but also on the great suffering they create.”
While Benedict has been accused of mishandling abuse cases, as an Archbishop in Germany, and also as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, Scicluna rejected those charges.
The priest, who grew up on the island of Malta, said those who worked with the future Pope in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were full of admiration for him and his “courage and determination” in dealing with the crisis.
“I am a direct witness to the compassion, the frustration and the anger that these cases instilled in Cardinal Ratzinger, the man, Joseph Ratzinger,” Scicluna said.
While Scicluna seems determined to avoid using the term “crisis,” he insists on calling sin by its name, and crime as well. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]
“People call this a crisis,” he said. “It is certainly a challenge to the Church, but it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to call sin sin in its face, and do something about it. It is an opportunity for the church to show itself determined in its fight against sin, against crime.”
While the sexual abuse of minors clearly does not take place only in church circles, Fox asked Scicluna if he thought the Catholic Church should be held to a higher standard.
“I think so,” Scicluna responded. “Because we do stand for a very clear message which should be a light to the world. So we do complain about the headlines sometimes, but the headlines are a reflection that the world takes what we say very seriously, and is scandalized when what we do does not correspond to what we say.”
Scicluna, whose official title is the Promoter of Justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said a priest who abuses makes a “mockery” of his vocation.
“There is a sacred trust which has been violated,” he said. “The priest has been ordained to be an icon, a living image of Jesus Christ. He is another Christ at the altar, when he preaches. Now when he abuses, he shatters that icon.”
He said the Church has to face up to the truth, even if it’s not very nice: “There’s no other way out of this situation, except facing the truth of the matter.”
Scicluna said the Church has to be severe with offenders, as Christ was: “He had words of fire against people who would scandalize the young. And if we stick to his words and are loyal to his teaching, we are on very good ground. We are not alone.”
Fr. Michael Rodriguez, a priest of the Diocese of El Paso, offered an op-ed piece to the local secular newspaper. It was printed on 2 August 2 in the El Paso Times.
Here is the piece by Fr. Rodriquez with my emphases and comments.
Rev. Michael Rodriguez: Every Catholic must oppose certain things
By the Rev. Michael Rodriguez \ Guest columnist
Posted: 08/01/2010 12:00:00 AM MDTI sincerely hope and pray that all El Paso Catholics will take to heart the precious and infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church [From the onset you get a sense of what ecclesiological camp Fr. Rodriguez identifies with. Also, you just know that his vocabulary will prompt liberals roll their eyes or, in the really hardened cases, throw a spittle-flecked nutty.] in the moral sphere, particularly those most relevant to our city at this critical juncture.
Remember: Every single Catholic, [No one gets a pass in El Paso …] out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty [Again, Father doesn’t speak nuance-ese.] to oppose (1) the murder of unborn babies, and (2) any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions. [What? Not "gay"? "Murder"? No euphemisms at all?]
Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, [ARGH! The S-WORD! Is making a distinction about sin really "pastoral"?] and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church. [NB: Father said "acts". He did not write about homosexuals, but about homosexual acts.]
Furthermore, a Catholic would be guilty of a most grievous sin of omission [Liberal eyes begin to bleed at this point.] if he/she neglected to actively oppose the homosexual agenda, which thrives on deception and conceals its wicked horns under the guises of "equal rights," "tolerance," "who am I to judge?," etc. [You know that the sky is going to fall on Father’s head because of this. That "wicked horns" bit is rather pointed, donchya think?]
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a pastoral letter on marriage in November 2009, which is endorsed by our own local bishop, his Excellency, Most Rev. Armando X. Ochoa.
This pastoral letter states the following: [I’ll edit here. The pastoral letter is pretty good, btw. …][…]
Abortion and homosexual acts are unequivocally intrinsic moral evils. And friends, this objective truth doesn’t depend on the opinion of the majority. [Blood is now pouring from liberal ears and noses as well.] Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous [YEEEEEHAW!] consequences. [And 9.5 in style points for that "pestiferous". He rode that bronco to the very end!]
Fr. Michael Rodríguez is the parish priest at San Juan Bautista Catholic Church.
This prompted a response on the part a man with an even tougher job than Fr. Rodriguez, His Excellency Most Rev. Armando X. Ochoa, Bishop of El Paso.
Bishop Armando X. Ochoa: Catholic Church advocates compassion
By Bishop Armando X. Ochoa \ Guest columnist
Posted: 08/22/2010 12:00:00 AM MDTAs Bishop of the Diocese of El Paso and chief teacher of our local church, [Which means, rightly, that Fr. R is not…] I would like to share some pastoral reflections [NB "pastoral"] on certain issues that are important for the well-being of all God’s people.
First of all, I would like to state that previous columns claiming to speak for Catholic Doctrine were the personal opinions of individuals and do not necessarily express the belief of the Catholic Church. [Right. The opinions of Fr. R do not, of necessity, express the belief of the Catholic Church. But, do Fr. R’s view by chance coincide with the Church’s teaching? Let’s review. Abortion is murder of an unborn human being. CHECK. Homosexual acts are objectively sinful. CHECK.]
[But here is new information…] I continue to pray for peace along our region and offer my condolences to the families on both sides of the border who have lost loved ones to the ongoing unrest. [There is a lot of tension in El Paso.] I am also concerned for the families who have had to leave everything behind to escape the violence in Ciudad Juárez. It is my ongoing prayer that our two border cities can work closer to build a more peace-filled community. [So, the bishop is situating Fr. R’s comments in the context of the region’s tension. Fr. R’s comments were addressed to all Catholics, and therefore most of the Latio community. The bishops implication is that Fr. R’s comments have made that tension worse. I don’t know whether that is the case or not, but it is clearly the bishop’s concern.]
The Church has been unmistakable about its consistent defense of the unborn. It continues to call every Catholic and person of good will [Fr. R also addressed all Catholics but he did not speak explicitly about non-Catholics who are people of good will.] to understand the Church’s teaching on the death penalty and other end-of-life issues. Every child has a right to life.
Likewise, the Church is a supporter of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. These teachings come from a tradition that wants to promote the good of society. [Not just "from a tradition". If I am not mistaken, they come from God, and from God to us through both tradition and reason in light of the natural law. But pay attention…] My concern in writing this reflection is not to change these teachings, [quod Deus avertat] but to offer a more pastoral understanding in dealing with them. [There is that "pastoral" again.]
When we talk about abortion and homosexuality, we are talking about human beings dealing with all kinds of concerns and unresolved challenges. Our Church does not want to simply judge and condemn, but first to offer Christ’s love and compassion. God’s first and primary law is love and how love of others is at the same time our love for God. [Okay. This is so. At the same time, when Jesus saved and then forgave the woman caught in adultery, He admonished her to sin no more. It is also a work of mercy, a dimension of compassion, both to admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant. It may be – and this is just supposition on my part – that many Catholic and non-Catholic alike, have never heard some of the things Fr. R wrote expressed with that sort of stark clarity. Is it possible that stark clarity can also be a tool of the compassion His Excellency affirms?]
As Church we want to journey with everyone as they search for meaning in their lives. [This is the language most people are used to hearing and reading.] We believe that Christ offers this meaning. The use [wait for it…] of harsh words of condemnation is not the approach Christ invites us to have toward one another. Intolerance closes the door to learning and deeper understanding of each other. [Let’s pick this fine and correct statement up and turn it about and examine it from all sides. What popped into my mind as I read this were the Lord’s harsh words in Matthew 23. Surely the Lord was not lacking in compassion even as he verbally thrashed the Pharisees with the truth. St. Paul, invoking the meekness of Christ, in 2 Cor 10-13 doesn’t mince words about those who have sinned and have been admonished more than once. Was it a lack of compassion that drove virtually every single Father of the Church to use scathing invective when defending the Regula Fidei and Tradition? Have Popes who issued stern condemnations and anathemas throughout the Church’s entire history been without compassion? Was there a dearth of compassion at the Second Vatican Council when the Council Fathers stated in Lumen gentium 14 that people who reject the Church, knowing that it is the Church Christ founded, cannot be saved, or when they taught in Gaudium et spes 51 that abortion is an unspeakable crime? In every one of these examples, there were high tensions in the community. I am not disagreeing with His Excellency, mind you. I am musing to myself about what constitutes "pastoral" and "compassion". At the same time I am thanking God that I am not now nor ever will be a bishop, who actually has to make decisions about this dilemma.]
Furthermore, it leads to divisiveness within the body of Christ. [cf. Matthew 10:34.] It is time for us to learn how to work with each other, even when and if we disagree. Too many people have suffered because of a profound lack of compassion and a perceived arrogant intolerance.
Recently, in our scriptural readings, we have seen that when the Israelites entered the Promised Land after the exodus, they encountered the Canaanites, whom they considered to be a sinful race which was to be exterminated. This mind-set persisted until the time of Christ. [But Christ and the Apostles, and the Fathers, and Popes down through history somehow kept using hard language. Did they fail to understand something about being "pastoral"? Pope John XXIII at the time of the Council said that he wanted the Church to shift her style of teaching. Fine. But see my examples of the Council’s teaching, above. There were still moments for blunt language.]
With his arrival, he indicated that this outlook was no longer to be held by his followers. Jesus’ own response to the marginalized was always one of love. He constantly preached that love is not exclusively for those who are dear to us. He proclaimed that we must love our enemies and pray for our persecutors. [To the marginalized, yes! Look how he treated the lepers and the blind and lame and diseased and widows and Samaritans and some public sinners. He was gentleness itself with some public sinners. But not all public sinners. I cite: ""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness." ]
Our love for others is to be like his own, all inclusive. Every individual is made in the image and likeness of God and for this reason all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
God is the judge of our lives, and we are called to spread his Gospel of compassion and justice. [Were Fr. R’s comments in his op-ed unjust?] While it is important to offer a teaching on human sexuality which may not be popular in modern society, the Church, nonetheless, upholds that each person be treated with dignity and respect. [QUERY: Does that mean that we never say that a sin is a sin?]
I urge all of our pastoral agents to reach out to individuals with a homosexual orientation and their families with compassion. This can be done without compromising Church teaching in any way because our pastoral care demands no less from us.
The Most Reverend Armando X. Ochoa, D.D., is Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of El Paso
This is a really interesting situation.
I started out willing to back Fr. R’s piece. As I read the Bishop’s response I was initially disappointed. When I see the word "pastoral", I get worried that something is going to go all wobbly.
That said, I am trying to engage this tough situation and see it from different sides.
I think perhaps a guiding hermeneutic here could be:
“Soyez toujours le plus doux que vous pourrez, et souvenez-vous que l’on prends plus de mouches avec une cuillère de miel qu’avec cent barils de vinaigre… Always be as gentle as you can and remember that one catches more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a hundred barrels of vinegar."
St. Francis de Sales was bishop of a place where there was a lot of tension. He found a way to teach with clarity and compassion. Nevertheless, St. Francis the bishop also used stern language.
Thus, I circle around to questions:
Remember: The Bishop, writing his public correction of one of his priests, is writing within a particular set of circumstances. We must allow that that particular time and place may have not been the right time and place for the style of Fr. R’s correct but hard message.
It seems that SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson is a bit worried.
To his latest piece, which I received by email from a reader, I add my emphases and comments.
Before we start drilling, however, here are a few points to keep in mind while reading Williamson’s letter.
Let’s drill.
ELEISON COMMENTS CLXII (Aug.21, 2010) : DISCUSSIONS BLIND-SIDED ?
While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, reports from France and Germany together with a rumour [rumour, indeed] from Rome spell danger for Catholics. That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine. ["Political" is, in his view, bad. But is "political" to be so reviled? More on that later.]
From France and Germany, I was told me [a bit more rumor… I grant this this is acknowledged as rumor. He is not hiding the fact that these are things he is being told. Fair enough.] a few weeks ago that a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are only hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. [This, I am sure, vexes him. I believe it is a good and Catholic desire to desire harmony with Peter.] If – repeat, if — this is true, it is very serious. [read: bad] Such Catholics [Note the disparaging tone.] may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, [You see… Rome isn’t the real Rome. The present Roman Curia, "Rome", doesn’t match the nearly Platonic idea Williamson is presumably qualified to identify. One could wonder if his judgment in about Rome is as trustworthy as his judgment about other controversial issues.] but they get low marks for not grasping [here it comes] that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, [note "doctrinal"] there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church. [Williamson get to determine what the "true" Church is?] Such Catholics [Again. Is he signaling a growing separation between himself and the majority of the followers of the SSPX?] may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre as they see him, but they have not understood what he was all about. [But Williamson knows!] They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans. [Not "true" Romans. Who made Williamson the arbiter of what is truly Catholic?]
Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, [I think this means "Giving preference to coming to some practical arrangement over coming to an agreement on doctrine…". But is his statement correct? Is there a sharp contrast between "doctrine" and "politics"?] unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement. Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them. [Is it not possible for there to be a legitimate "political" dimension to theological discussion?]
Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. [That is an unfair reading of Vatican II. But he has misread facts of history before. Consider, for example, Lumen gentium 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."] Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well [The implication is that the Pope set aside "truth" for the sake of unity.] – and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! [The idea of "normal" here must be, "the Pope is close to the end of the span of normal human life".] So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be [And so he veers into pure supposition. He doesn’t really know anything.] looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. [Again, we must raise the possibility that what he calls "political" might actually be a legitimate course of action when considering the ecclesiological (theological) ramifications of this continued wound to unity.] It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.
The rumour [again] from Rome is precisely [an odd juxtaposition of "rumour" and "precisely", n’est ce pas?] that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, [NB…] yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II’s 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, [Note the loose language. What does "accept" mean, here?]yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism. [And knows what the "true" Church is, not the soft modernist Benedict XVI.]
Thus all seekers of unity would be content. Only not believers in Catholic doctrine.
DANGER !
Kyrie eleison.
It may be that Bp. Williamson doesn’t understand clearly what Popes are for.
Popes guard and foster unity.
Bishops and Cardinals can help the Pope do this, but it is especially the Pope’s job to deal with unity. When there is a break in unity, or a chance to foster it, Popes who do their jobs well, seize the opportunity with both hands. When they do, they don’t fail to defend the Faith.
Anyone can put on a miter and say Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica. Only Popes truly provide for unity.
The problem is people rarely like to see the process involved in fostering and guarding unity. They like the language and the idea of promoting unity, but – as in the similar case of making sausage – they don’t like to watch it being done.
Popes pull the sheep into one flock… sometimes coaxing… sometimes using a stick.
When Popes don’t do this, they are not very good Popes. When they do a great job, they can even get the nickname "Great".
What Pope Benedict is doing isn’t about power (politics), it is about unity.
Unity is forged and shaped and at times coerced.
Unity is messy and arduous business. Just look at what Popes Leo I and Gregory I had to deal with.
In the history of the Church there have been many theological/political compromises for the sake of unity. Someone versed in the history of Holy Church’s dogmatic theology will instantly recall the compromises, hammered out after decades of sharp conflicts, over language to describe how, for example, the Son is "homoousios" with the Father. Eventually, and after a lot of fights, a clear teaching emerged and was given voice in a formula. Then there was the long period of work so that the formula would be accepted by more and more people who had different ideas about how to express very hard things. The history of the Church involves constant "political" compromises. All human interactions are, after all, "political".
When there are difficult theological questions on the table, the position of the "other side" must be given its due. Greater precision can be sought down the line and after reflection which has the benefit of time.
Through the history of the Church all major and even minor points have been arrived at through political methods, by debates and tussles and compromises, by messy striving and even conflict.
If there is a Motu Proprio out there – let’s call it SSPXorum coetibus – Pope Benedict – the Pope of Christian Unity – would be providing cover to SSPXers. He would be giving them an honorable escape route out of separation and into greater unity. SSPXers would have honorable cover so they can come into unity with Rome without giving in on the documents of Vatican II.
If what Williamson is describing is accurate, if there is some Motu Proprio for SSPXers coming along the lines of Anglicanorum coetibus (and we don’t know that there is), then Pope Benedict would be saying to SSPXers,
"I won’t require you to sign off on the documents of Vatican II, which you don’t like. Instead, you SSPXers can sign off on just the Catechism. Accepting the Catechism is enough for unity and an ecclesial structure of your own in unity with Rome."
This is why Williamson is spooked.
Williamson is saying that in accepting the Catechism, SSPEXers would actually be accepting the modernism of the Vatican II documents. This is why Williamson paints this alleged deal as "political".
Just what the Pope of Christian Unity has in mind for the SSPX is a matter of conjecture. But it would not surprise me in the least were he to offer something very like his solution for more traditionally-minded Anglicans.
SSPXorum coetibus? We shall see.
I get a huge amount of e-mail every day.
May I plead with you e-mail senders about a few things?
I consider an e-mail to be an invitation to read and respond, not an obligation.
NB: If you send a note asking prayers for something, – and a remarkable number of you do – I stop on the spot and say a prayer. More serious issues are remembered when I say my daily rosary or during office or Mass. Sometimes I think there should be an order of religious who take live prayer requests via e-mail and chat and pray for people in that moment. But I digress.
Your e-mail is appreciated (well, mostly) and useful (well, mostly). But you could be of great help – please! – by considering my pleas!
Times have changed,
And we’ve often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
‘Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
By way of Mulier Fortis we know what goes on in Black Fen when His Hermeneuticalness is away.
I toppi ballano, as we say in Roma.
Servers. What next?
From a reader:
Today I attended a mass at my university and had a difficult experience with one of the Eucharistic ministers. I approached with my hands folded in order to receive a blessing (no communion for me this time), and she refused to offer it. She simply went on saying "The Body of Christ", expecting me to receive. I was not in the appropriate state of grace to do so, so I was forced to simply walk away. Do you think that there is some local custom that I’m unaware of with regards to blessings, or is this the case of an improperly trained minister?
There are a few issues here which must be unsnarled.
First, lay people who are helping to distribute Communion have no business giving blessings. Therefore, I am glad that the person didn’t attempt to bless you in the manner of a priest. Yours is a good example why lay ministers of Communion should never make the gesture of blessing in the manner of a priest. Such a practice confuses people, just as you were confused in the moment you described.
Second, it is a matter of debate whether blessings should be given at the Communion rail at all. I am of the opinion that they should not be. Holy Mass has its moment for a blessing: at the end. The time of Holy Communion is the time for Holy Communion, not for blessings even if they are from the deacon or priest.
Third, it strikes me that this whole blessing thing at Communion time evolved from a overly sentimental notion that no one should be excluded from being able to go forward.
Fourth, a great deal of psychological pressure is placed on people who for one reason or another have no reason to go forward at Communion time. The practice of row by row Communion increases the psychological pressure. In my opinion it should be slowly by surely eliminated.
Fifth, I think the shortened Eucharist fast also played its part in putting undue psychological pressure on people to go forward at Communion time. In the past, if a person was in the state of sin, it was possible for people assume that she had eaten something rather than that she had committed some black and unspeakable delict.
Sixth, if you know you are not in the state of grace, then I recommend that you make a spiritual communion while remaining in your pew. You may not have ever heard of "making a spiritual communion". I am sure that the readers will chime in about this in the combox, below.
Seventh, we must help people shake the idea that they are obliged to got forward, on the one hand, or that, on the other, they have the right to receive even if they know they are not in the state of grace.
Let Communion time be for Communions, whether actual or spiritual.
Via our friends at Rorate:
From Corpus Christi Watershed:
Award-winning filmmaker and Watershed staff member Eric Hinojosa has been living in Lebanon, working tirelessly to bring to fruition a documentary film about the Blessed Massabki Brothers, the Emir Abd El-Kader, and the events surrounding the 1860 massacre in Damascus. The film tells of heroism and sanctity, showcases fascinating characters and sheds light on the Christian community in the Middle East.
(To see the 12-minute trailer, click here.)
It looks like it might be an authentic shoe-string production.
The film/documentary is called Fire in Damascus. The context was the conflict of Maronites and Druze.
According to the 2005 Martyrologium Romanum the Massabki brothers, Bl. Mootius, Raphae and Benedictus are celebrated on 10 July.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
Jack in NH on YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS: “Please pray for my wife- in for day surgery on Tuesday, but still in the hospital today( Thursday), in great…”
on 26 May 1991: 35th anniversary of ordination – It was Trinity Sunday and St. Philip Neri: “I will never forget the tears (of joy) you shed while saying Mass at Pope St. John Paul II’s tented…”
on ASK FATHER: “Ghost” or “Spirit”, which is it? Wherein Fr. Z Rants.: “This is the only change that I can think of that made some sense. It’s, in a way, worse than…” on ROME 26/5– Day 62 & 63: NEWS: “After a number of false starts 1. Q×g7+ . . . . N×g7 2. N(h5)-f6+ If . . . .…”
on YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS: “For those being ordained in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, the Diocese of Austin and the Diocese of Victoria this next…”
on YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS: “For son in law to find a full time job (have been praying St Joseph novena for over a year)…”
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
Vatican Prosecutor: Pope Showed “Frustration and Anger” Over Abuse Cases
