Daily Rome Shot 173

Posted on 30 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
2 Comments

ASK FATHER: Priest anointed me and then, without confession, absolved me.

Posted on 30 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Recently I was in the hospital being treated for cancer. I had a private room and my wife was in the room with me. Suddenly a priest came into the room, introduced himself and asked if I was Catholic. He asked if I wanted to be anointed, I said yes. At this point the priest did anoint me and then absolved me of all of my sins. I am 81 years old, a cradle Catholic and am ashamed to admit, that for many reasons, I have not been to confession for many years. My question is whether this confession and absolution were valid. The priest did not ask if I wanted confession, he did not ask my wife to leave the room, he did not put on a stole of office, he did not ask me to confess a single sin and, finally, he did not ask me to recite an act of contrition. At this point he turned and left the room. I have recovered and have tried to locate this priest, but to no avail. I am very familiar with the form of confession and, from reading your blog, where you admonish us to “Go to Confession,” confession is very seriously on my mind. Each day in my prayers I implore the Holy Spirit to assist me in making a good, holy and worthy confession of my sins, my sincere hope is that this was a gift from God. What say you?

What a strange encounter.

I am glad that you recovered.   I am also glad that you, as a Catholic, are well-informed.

Two things must be dealt with.

In the first place, the Sacrament of Anointing is considered one of the “sacraments of the living”.  That is, it is to be administered to those who are “alive in grace”.  It must be received in the state of grace.

In the case that a person is incapable of making a confession beforehand, then the sacrament can be given and it will also forgive sins.  If the person is capable of making a confession, he must make his confession first, be absolved (i.e., brought back to life), and then be anointed.

It is wrong for a priest to anoint without first discerning if the person is in need of making a confession.

The next point concerns the absolution he gave you without hearing your confession.

There are occasions when it is impossible for a priest to hear a confession because there are people in the room, right there, who would hear.  In that case, in an emergency, a priest can simply absolve.   If the person recovers, however, he is bound to make a regular, full confession of his mortal sins in kind and number at the earliest opportunity.   This is how it works with “general absolution”, that is, without confession of sins of an individual or more people in an emergency.  All who receive that absolution must go to confession in the regular way.  They cannot receive “general absolution” twice in a row without regular confession.  The second time they would receive a “general absolution” it would be invalid, except when in danger of death.

Your wife could have stepped out for a moment while you made your confession.  There was no emergency or necessity there, even in time of COVID Theater.   He could have heard your confession and absolved you and then anointed you.  THAT was the proper order.

If you were not in the state of grace when he anointed you, the validity of the anointing was highly questionable.   The “general absolution” he gave you without confession of sins might have been valid.

My advice:

GO TO CONFESSION!

You don’t have confess or explain any of this to the confessor when you go.  None of it was your fault and you likely did not sin in that strange encounter with that priest at the hospital.  Just make your confession as you would from the last time you went.

And be grateful to God for your recovery and your chance to go to receive this mighty sacrament of God’s loving mercy the right way.   Make a good examination of conscience and go right away, as soon as possible.  At 81 you mustn’t fool around with being shriven.  It’s more important than other things on your schedule… which is really God’s schedule.

Make sure your wife goes, too. Your vocation is to help her to get to heaven.

If I could make a suggestion…. Because of this whole experience, after your confession and your penance you might recite the Litany of St. Joseph for yourself and your wife (HERE) and then the Daily Prayer for Priests (HERE) for that odd priest from the hospital.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION | Tagged
2 Comments

ASK FATHER: How to make a “Trinitini” Martini for Trinity Sunday and avoid committing heresy?

Posted on 29 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

QUAESITUM EST:

We are planning to have a special drink for the potluck to commemorate today’s Feast of the Trinity.

We were planning to do a “Trinitini”, a Martini with three olives to represent the three Persons in the One Triune God.

However, just want to check that we wouldn’t be falling into any heresy (e.g., Arianism, Partialism, Modalism, Tritheism…) by doing so.

What would you suggest? One olive? Three?

I respond saying that, in the matter of Martinis, heresy is very bad.

That said, let’s solve this problem.  In advance, I consulted a highly credentialed theologian to sort this out and to check my work.  No, really, I did.

The first thing we have to deal with is the notion of “making” a Trinitini.  We have to stipulate that, in this vale of tears (with which, of mine enemies, I sometimes will flavor my Martinis) the Trinitini can’t make itself.

To make a non-heretical Trinitini, you must “make” three Martinis simultaneously, from the same gin, in a pitcher.  TO SERVE: Pour them, simultaneously but distinctly by measure, remembering that, in the West,* the second measure comes from the first and the third measure comes from both the first two, into one large well-chilled glass such that you have the three Martinis in one glass which has three garnishes.  The three garnishes, for the three Martinis in one glass, symbolize the three missions of the Martinis.  So, the Trinitini will have its lemon twist (a “Perfect” Martini), its pickled onion (which has layers), and its olive (without stuffing).  Hence, in the one glass containing the three Martinis would be the distinction of the three-in-one nature of each Martini, each sharing in the same nature but distinct, and all working together in everything, but with different missions.

I believe that would avoid most of the heresies listed above.

And, please, serve straight up.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you doubters are now mewling, don’t you know that a Martini with an onion is really a Gibson?!?  You are a heretic by introducing into the Trinity different kind of … um… you know… it’s a… YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

Dear skeptic, be not afeared.  The combined identity of the Martini with onion (which has layers) and the Gibson underscores the two natures in Christ.

Moreover, do not be concerned with the issue of the “blending” of the three Martinis as they are simultaneously and distinctly poured.  This is taken care of by the concept of perichoresis.  The relationship of the three Martinis in one Trinitini is like a “dance” which realizes both their oneness and threeness in an interpenetration leaving them nevertheless distinct. (Cf. John 17:21: “That they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us”.)  Do not doubt that the Spirit is present.  And, that they may all be in us, pour carefully.

QUAERITUR: Would it be okay to substitute a hot pepper for the olive?
RESPONSE: Affirmative.  And it could be appropriate so long as the heat of the pepper doesn’t distract overly from the flavor of the other two garnishes.

On the vital issue of shaking or stirring.

It is okay to make the three Martinis by stirring (cf. perichoresis… circumincession), but not… NOT… by shaking.    Quod Deus avertat.

Lastly, it seems to me that, given what we can tell of God’s sense of humor, the Trinitini should be dry.

With that, it’s time for Vespers.

*There is an question about Eastern Trinitinis.  I’m not sure this is doable but one might have to try to pour the third measure from the first, but through the second measure.   I’m skeptical.  And THAT might just give added proof, pun intended, to the Filioque.

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Lighter fare | Tagged
11 Comments

ASK FATHER: If the priest says an invalid absolution and I drop dead after… what happens to me?

Posted on 29 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Father, a question – if a penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and they go to confess their sins to a priest, and the penitent does everything necessary on their part for the sacrament to be valid, but then priest uses an invalid form of absolution – and the penitent may well have insufficient theological and liturgical knowledge to know that invalid form is invalid – is the penitent still in a state of mortal sin? If they have a sudden heart attack and die on their way out of the confessional, did they die in a state of mortal sin?

Frankly, we can’t know for sure about the state of the person in that scenario.  However, I think our God is a loving and merciful God, who knows us better than we know ourselves.

Just as “baptism of desire” is a thing, whereby the person isn’t baptized but God treats him as if he were, especially because he would have been if he could have been, I suppose that God will be merciful to the penitent sinner who has done his very best to confess all mortal sins in kind and number, with a firm purpose of amendment, and then longs for valid absolution.    Through no fault of his own he was denied valid absolution.   If he didn’t know enough to raise a question, he is not to blame.

How well this question underscores the importance of knowing by heart and really meaning a good, traditional Act of Contrition.  We should know it, understand all its components, and truly mean it when we say it both in and out of the confessional.  And we should say it often, as part of our regular prayers along with Acts of Faith, Hope, and Love. After all… we never know.

AND GO TO CONFESSION!

This raises a question, however, of ignorance which is either culpable or inculpable, ignorance of something important that we, as Catholics ought to know and, through our own fault haven’t made the effort to learn, or something important which is outside the normal stream of things Catholics could be expected to know.

If a priest doesn’t know what the true form of absolution is, and he blithely blathers in the confessional, I hold that he is culpably ignorant.  He is guilty of sin in regard to his lack of knowledge of something so fundamental to his work as a priest that he cannot be excused for not knowing it.   We hold doctors and dentists, etc., to know the basics of their trade and we hold them guilty if they don’t or if they don’t make some effort to stay abreast of new developments and to refresh their knowledge.  So too with priests.

Priests need refreshers and continuing education.  Priests need to know the basics.   A soldier or other warfighter who doesn’t know how to operate properly the system of weapon he has been given, such that in the fight he chokes and fumbles, endangers the mission and the lives of his squad.   He and his team and his officers are guilty for his incompetence.

Likewise, in the Church if a priest doesn’t know the form of absolution, or he is using the wrong form of absolution such that people get out of the confessional either scratching their heads or else not absolved, there will be actual hell to pay in the judgment of his formators and his superiors.

Is a woman employed by the French Department of a university a good professor if she can’t read French well enough to get through a novel by Victor Hugo?   And who hired her?  Who gave her her degree in the first place?

Is a priest of the Latin Church, of the Roman Rite, fully trained and equipped if he doesn’t know the language of his Church and Rite, Latin, and doesn’t know to celebrate both the Novus and Vetus Ordo?   NO.

And who is to blame for his not being properly trained?

BISHOPS.   They control the seminaries.  They control the curricula.

So, if a man does his best in the confessional and the dopey priest, for whatever reason, doesn’t give him a valid absolution, and if the penitent drops dead of a heart attack two steps away from the confessional door, is he doomed?

I can’t bring myself to think that he is.  I trust in God’s mercy.

On the other hand, I tremble for that priest in his particular judgment.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World | Tagged , , ,
7 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 172

Posted on 29 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Photo by Bree Dail.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
5 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 171

Posted on 28 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
4 Comments

ASK FATHER: Why do bishops tuck their crosses under their jackets.

Posted on 28 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a  reader…

QUAERITUR:

Thank you for your excellent blog! Can you explain why some bishops hide their pectoral crosses by pulling the cross across the chest and tucking it under their jackets? There is something a bit disturbing about it as it feels as though they are deliberately hiding the cross, and it’s something I’ve wondered about for a long time. Thank you for your insight in this small matter. And may God bless you!

Ah!  Finally a break from the insignificant stuff, like validity of sacraments, to something really important: ecclesiastical haberdashery.

I have never been a bishop and I have never played one on TV.  I did in a play, once, but that’s another universe away.    My point is that I have never had to deal with wearing a pectoral cross on a daily, all day, basis.   Therefore, my speculation is worth precisely what it is worth.

I suspect that the tendency of bishops, when wearing a suit (in Italian: in borghese) to tuck their pectoral crosses into their pockets is more a practical matter than a statement of meager faith or cowardice in view of bearing witness to their faith.   I suspect that the cross “gets in the way” a lot.  “Which the irony is rich!”, as Preserved Killick would say.

Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23

Back in the day, bishops wore their cassocks.  Back in the same day, bishops did not just let their pectoral dangle on a too-longish chain, thus becoming an obstacle (there’s that irony again).  They would generally hoist the cross up (more irony) and with a hook suspend it from a button or from a specially placed button hole, thus letting the two slack lengths of chain drape to either side.   That was practical, because it kept the cross under control and it also looked spiffy.   There were, of course, variations and exceptions.  For example, you will see photos of John XXIII with the hitched up version and without.  But it is safe to say that was a general rule of style.

I wouldn’t read too much into it, except that right now, the hitched up version could signal a more traditional inclination.

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

OLDIE POST: “Bob, you’ve been traded to Archdiocese of Red Bird.”

Posted on 27 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

NOTA BENE: I originally posted this back in 2012.

I ran across this by chance looking for something else. It struck me as opportune, given what is going on in some places… the lot of some tradition-leaning priests.   It’s a bit ironic that, in 2012, the cleats were perhaps on the other foot.

I have watched Moneyball a couple times.

The movie offers grist for our mill.

In one scene Carlos Peña is curtly traded by the A’s to the Tigers because of internal team management (vision) conflicts.

Priests are mostly treated like indentured servants.  The “Dallas” thing made this worse.  The lack of charity and justice with with many priests have been treated should fill many with concern and anger.

Leaving aside – without question – all cases of priests who commit crimes, could a baseball model work better?

After all, this isn’t a game we are playing!

In Moneyball, the main characters want to get the stats down to one number. The overriding task of the Church is to get as many people as possible to heaven (i.e., keep them out of hell).

Sooooo….

A scene at the chancery of the Diocese of Black Duck:

“Hey Bob, do you have a moment?  Have a seat…..

[Father “Just Call Me Bob” Liberal sits down in Msgr. Manager’s office.]

“Father Bob, you’ve been traded to the Archdiocese of Red Bird.  Here is the number for Msgr. Rossi’s office.  He is their Manager and he is expecting your call.  Good luck and God bless you, Father!”

Later, in Red Bird, Msgr. Rossi receives Father’s call:

“Bob!  I’ve been expecting your call.  Welcome to the Archdiocese of Red Bird!  We believe with the Cardinal Archbishop, Bob, that you’ll be a fine fit with our diocese’s “Spirit of Vatican II vision”. His Eminence wanted me to tell you that you will be a great asset here as chaplain to the Aging Post Catholic Lesbian Sisters Who Evolved Out Of Perpetual Adoration Of Jesus In The Poor-Oppressing Bejeweled Monstrance.  Check your email for your airline ticket.  We have already contacted a moving company for you, Bob.  Your condo is ready. See you soon!”

And so, the small market Black Ducks, who because of a shift to a more traditional Catholic vision has been ordaining 6 men a year – good farm teams in parishes and from elsewhere – send the 55-year old liberal “Bob” to the big market Red Birds – who ordained 1  and where his liberal vision is still the norm.  In exchange, the Black Ducks receive 2 younger priests. Their love of the older liturgical forms made them sub-optimal for the Red Birds. The Black Ducks also picked up a priest-canonist who had to refused to rubber stamp annulments at the Red Bird Tribunal.

Baseball is the game God loves the most.

Is it analogous to how the Church is might be governed?

I dunno. Maybe.  Maybe I am just venting even as I throw out some ideas for discussion.

Consider: Isn’t this how bishops are handled these days?

In the ancient Church, moving a bishop from a diocese (to which they had been wedded) to another diocese was considered adultery.  That model has, it seems, changed.

Obligatory membership in territorial parishes is all but over. Law will eventually reflect this change (unless the global economy collapses first and people can’t just drive around anymore).

Incardination is less than the vinculum particolare that the Council Father’s idealized.  The assignment of priests to parishes is limited to 6 years with a possible renewal.  What’s with that?  Can a priest really do anything in a parish in that time?  I think not.

Everyone is on the move.  If lay people have multiple careers, well….

Since dioceses and parishes are so heterogeneous these days, well….

There are lessons to be learned from the scenario in Moneyball.

Given our challenges right now, we have to think outside the box.

First, let’s accept that our entire Church is “an island of misfit toys”.  Nevertheless, some toys can fit better in, and be happier in, another “fit”.  Then “market forces” can take over… okay… call it divine providence.

We have to depend on Our Lord’s promises to the Church.  Christ didn’t promise that the Church would prevail against Hell in the Diocese of Black Duck, but we know that He uses us for His plan and purposes.  We must use our gifts and work out in prayer and in the tangle of our minds and with the help of grace and from history to discern His will.

As times change, the basics remain the same.

We must, however, change our approaches at the times require.

So.

“Father, have a seat…”

Yes? No?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
10 Comments

UPDATE: Wherein the Bishop of Black Duck gives pastoral care to a pro-abortion ‘c’atholic politician

Posted on 27 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE: 27 May 2021

I’ve lately read that some 60 bishops are pressuring that the issue of Communion for pro-abortion politicians NOT be even be discussed at the USCCB meeting.   I don’t get it.   The Lord says that if there a problem with one of the brethren, after talking with him about it first, and if that doesn’t help take it to the Church.   But no bishops don’t want to talk about something that is really serious and a public scandal.  They don’t want to talk about upholding the law they took oaths to uphold.    What with that?   Talk about and then vote on it.

In any event, I saw this snippet with Bp. Paprocki, Bishop of Illinois’ state capital.  I thought it a good addition to my earlier post.

___ Originally Posted on: May 18, 2021

On 7 May 2021, the Prefect of the CDF, Card. Ladaria, sent a Letter to Archbp. Gomez, currently President of the USCCB.  The letter addresses the issue of the formation of a national policy about Communion for public figures who support and promote moral evils.

Ladaria’s letter is not all that it could be (as Fr. Murray pointed out).  It isn’t really all that much, as a matter of fact.  It repeats – and this is not bad – what has been said before.  That said, constant repetition without subsequent action demonstrates weakness or … worse.    Incessant reference to dialogue, when for decades with the same people dialogue has been entirely fruitless, is tantamount to Samuel Beckett’s oft quoted phrase:

All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

When it comes to bringing these public figures around by dialogue, the US bishops are getting better and better at failing.

The other day pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi told a reporter who asked about her Archbishop’s (Cordileone) letter concerning Communion and support of abortion:

“I think I can use my own judgment on that but I’m pleased with what the Vatican put out on that subject. Did you read that?”

Dialogue isn’t going to cut it with the likes of Pelosi and Biden.  Not by itself.

Archbp. Cordileone responded to Pelosi’s remark with a statement.  He repeated what Pelosi already knows, the number of the unborn who did not come to light because of abortion.  Just before the end of his statement he also repeated what Card. Ratzinger wrote in 2004 to US Bishops (which McCarrick lied about):

[Ratzinger] goes on to say in that letter that, if these dialogues

prove to be fruitless, then, out of respect for the Catholic belief of what it means to receive Holy Communion, the bishop must declare that the individual is not be admitted to Communion.

However, Cordileone concludes:

Speaker Pelosi’s positive reaction to Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, then, raises hope that progress can be made in this most serious matter.

With due respect to His Excellency, if Nancy Pelosi is pleased with what Ladaria wrote to Archbp. Gomez, that must give us pause.   If Fishwrap’s Madame Defarge is pleased with Ladaria’s letter, we should hope for a better letter in the near future.

We will agree that dialogue has to continue.   At the same time other means should be applied.  Maybe… maybe… Cordileone is establishing the groundwork.

Here’s is another way of approaching pro-abortion catholic pols beyond “sola sermocinatio“.

The esteemed Bishop of Black Duck, Most Rev. Jude Noble, would surely write the following to the notorious pro-abortion Mayor of his See’s city.

The Honorable
Nanette Harry
Mayor of Black Duck

Your Honor,

You recently made a statement reported by the press in which you said that you would “make up your own mind” about receiving Holy Communion even after having been instructed multiple times about supporting the evil of abortion.

Your recent statement has brought me to make up my mind.

Given your unswerving support of and promotion of abortion, and given your apparent unwillingness to change your position and make public reparation for the scandal you have caused, in my role as your bishop and in accordance with Can. 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I herewith admonish you, Mayor Harry, not to present yourself for Holy Communion within the Diocese of Black Duck.

I have also made a public statement about the same.

Moreover, I have issued a directive, also made public, to all the priests serving in the diocese that they are not to admit you to Holy Communion until after such a time as you make a public statement that you regret all your efforts to promote the grave evil of abortion and that you shall endeavor to make some kind of reparation for the damage that you have done.

As your bishop, I also admonish you not to receive Holy Communion anywhere outside this diocese.

I ask my brother bishops everywhere to respect my decision on this matter.

Because you, as Mayor of Black Duck, are a national figure, I invite all my brother bishops of this nation to help me in my pastoral concern on your behalf.   I ask them to defend the Church’s teaching, uphold the Canon Law, and correct among the faithful any false notions your history of support for abortion may have fostered.

I am available to speak with you in private about this matter, to explain in detail why I am doing this and what it means.  Do not hesitate to contact me if you would like counsel about how to make reparation for your past public action in support of such a great moral evil.   I will also continue to speak in public about this matter.

Mayor Harry, for years I have faithfully urged you, with hope encouraged, and in charity pled that you to alter your stance on procured abortion.  Dialogue alone is no longer sufficient in itself.  My duty before the Savior, before the flock entrusted to me by the Church, and before your own soul, requires both the above and what follows.

I will pray for you every day and take on a penance for your intention.  I have invited all the priests of the diocese to do the same, in their own way.

Assuring you of my good will and prayerful best wishes, I am your devoted shepherd in Christ,

+ Jude Noble
Bishop of Black Duck

 

 

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Canon Law, Emanations from Penumbras, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ,
16 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 170

Posted on 27 May 2021 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Photo by Bree Dail.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
1 Comment