
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.







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?
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.
World Over Hot Take: @BishopPaprocki on the the bishop’s coming to a consensus on worthiness to receive communion: “The fact is I think president Biden is traveling around the country going to different churches and dioceses…it does pertain to every bishop.” @EWTN 8PM E TONIGHT pic.twitter.com/QRf3Ljvzx4
— Raymond Arroyo (@RaymondArroyo) May 27, 2021
___ 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 DuckYour 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
The list is growing… of persecuted priests.
I understand that there is a fund to help Fr. Parker. HERE
From a reader….
QUAERITUR:
At my last Confession, during the absolution, the priest said: “I absolve you from your sins, in the name, etc.” Note that he did not say “from ALL your sins”. Does this mean the absolution is invalid? Any information you can offer me on this topic is greatly appreciated. Thank You.
It is a pleasure to be able to answer this question. Usually when I get questions about the form of absolution it has to do with Fr. Jackass who screwed around with the form, thus sewing doubt in the minds of penitents about whether or not their sins were forgiven.
Fathers! DON’T SCREW AROUND WITH THE FORMS OF SACRAMENTS.
If you heard the priest say “I absolve you from your sins, in the name, etc.”, that’s the proper and valid form. The proper form does not include “all”.
The post-Conciliar, Novus Ordo form:
Deus, Pater misericordiárum, qui per mortem et resurrectiónem Fílii sui mundum sibi reconciliávit et Spíritum Sanctum effúdit in remissiónem peccatórum, per ministérium Ecclésiæ indulgéntiam tibi tríbuat et pacem. Et ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii,+ et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
The traditional form, also used today freely by any Latin Church priest confessor:
Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis (suspensionis) et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde, ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, + et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication (suspension) and interdict, in as much as I am able and you require. + Thereupon, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
In both cases, no “omnibus/cunctis… all”.
Also, there were a couple of additional, and beautiful, prayers in the traditional form which could for a good reason be omitted.
If the priest were to say “all”, that would not invalidate the absolution. But the priest should not say “all” because “all” is NOT part of the form.
So, friend, your priest seems to have stuck to the form…. though you didn’t include the first part. One assumes that he stuck to the form. Provided that you did your best to confess in kind and number all your mortal sins, were sincerely sorry, and had a firm purpose of amendment, you are good to go. The sins you forgot are also wiped away in that confession.
There is nothing so bad that one of us little mortals can do that the infinite power of our loving God can’t remedy, provided we ask for forgiveness. And the way God wanted us to receive forgiveness and restoration for post-baptismal sins is precisely through the Sacrament of Penance which He instituted.
On that note… everyone…
GO TO CONFESSION!
ADDENDUM: 28 May 2021:
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Two days ago, I went to confession. The confessor, however, changed the wording of the new rite form to say “I absolve you from your GUILT”, not “sins”. Was this invalid?
That was INVALID.
This priest should be given a copy of the true form of absolution. If he persists in using the wrong form, invalid form, he should be reported to the local bishop, in writing, and with a view to informing the Congregation.
Today during Holy Mass for Ember Wednesday in the Octave of Pentecost, I read in Latin from Acts 2 what Peter said about the End Times…
I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth beneath, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
As it turns out, on this very day the moon did turn into blood. Today there was a Blood Supermoon Total Lunar Eclipse. The Moon is closest to the Earth in its elliptical orbit, and because it appears larger we call it a Supermoon.
Also, I note that at SpaceWeather, a CME struck the planet, which sparked a geomagnetic storm. Watch for aurora.

The Sun is waking up from “solar minimum”. There will be more sunspots, to the delight of ham radio operators everywhere. However, NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observatory has noted a strange sunspot. It is ring-shaped, which is weird, but it is also “sideways”. The magnetic field of sunspots is general aligned East-West. This one is aligned North-South, perpendicular to the Sun’s equator.
What does this mean?
I have absolutely no idea.
However, I do find it interesting that we read about a Blood Moon at Holy Mass on the very day of a Blood Supermoon.
“Wonders in the heavens”.
On this day in particular, I had wanted to put aside highly negative news.
However, to paraphrase Trotsky, we might not be interested in war, but war is interested in us.
My mail box is filling with notes from people about the rumor that some document is forthcoming from Francis or some office of the Curia which would, in effect, return the state of use of the Traditional Roman Rite back to Ecclesia Dei days, that is, that diocesan priests would need some sort of additional permission to use the Traditional Roman Rite, either from Rome or from the local bishop.
Such a document would be a huge mistake.
Attacks and even rumors of attacks on Summorum Pontificum underscore what I have said ever since it was released: it was perhaps the single most important thing that came out of Benedict XVI’s pontificate (other than his resignation) and it was a monumentally important gift for the whole Church. The Enemy knows this. The critical importance of Summorum for the renewal of the Church is confirmed by attacks on it.
Here is a brief explanation of what is up.
Pais Liturgiques (original in French, not my translation):
For some time now, the warning signs about Summorum Pontificum have multiplied: the majority of Italian bishops and the heavyweights of the Curia, in particular at the Secretariat of State, have convinced the Pope that the liturgical traditionalization of the young clergy was “Worrying” and that the “right to the traditional mass”, instituted by the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, was an attack on Vatican II.
On Pentecost Monday, opening in Rome the meeting of the Conference of Italian Bishops, the CEI, the Pope first washed the heads [I sense an idiom here: he gave them a beating] of the Italian bishops, who are dragging their feet to put the Italian Church in a generalized state of synod because they consider it an expensive idea and totally unnecessary. Old man’s mania, some even say.
Then, once the journalists had left the debating hall, the Pope addressed a theme that unites many bishops on the Peninsula: the execration of Summorum Pontificum. Francis confirmed the upcoming publication of a document that he was urged to write, intended to “reinterpret” the motu proprio of Benedict XVI. The publication was indeed delayed, because the document seems to have provoked objections and brakes, especially on the part of Cardinal Ladaria and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who argued that it would provoke worldwide unrest of uncontrollable oppositions. Despite everything, the Secretariat of State would push for the publication of the text, the essential provisions of which would be as follows:
– communities [e.g., FSSP, ICK, etc.] celebrating in the ancient form could continue to do so;
– on the other hand, diocesan priests should now obtain specific permission.
It is obvious that this document, inapplicable in many countries including France, will have above all a symbolic significance: to make the celebration of the traditional Mass no longer a right, but a tolerated exception. [What rich irony… remember when Kasper talked about Communion for adulterers as “tolerated but not accepted”?]
The traditional anti-mass pressure group, at Saint-Anselme University, at the Curia and at the CEI, thus leads the Pope towards a major political error: the latent discontent of a whole section of Catholics in the face of doctrinal approximations, weaknesses in the face of German excesses, the multiplication of disconcerting statements to say the least, risks turning into a real “fed up” [ras-le-bol – a state of being completely fed-up, of having had enough]. Instead of striving to feel what a very living part of the Christian people thinks and aspires to, they would be driven to despair and exasperation.
The peace of the Church, especially the liturgical peace, to which Benedict XVI had contributed a lot with his wise liberating text, is deliberately torn: a return to the worst years of the post-Council period is coming.
A gloomy outlook. Alas, trads tend to be a little gloomy. On the other hand, open war on tradition might result in something that those in charge really don’t want. “¡Hagan lío!”, after all.
However, one can understand some people will be frightened by these rumors. However, even though there seems to be some concrete data points, they are still just rumors.
At this point there is no such document.
CONSIDER THIS: This could be a campaign of disinformation. Italians are really good at this game. Put out some rumors that are sure to rile up a certain sector and then stand back and watch their behavior. When they react negatively, you can say, “See! It would be right to get rid of these people! Look at how they are behaving!”
But let’s game this out in our heads.
Firstly, it is important not to run around with out hair on fire.
Next, because situational awareness is important in every sphere of life, we should consider, calmly, what might be coming down the pike.
Just to riff on that Kasperite Proposal I mentioned, above, remember that that came from a synodal (“walking together”) process that lead to a post-synodal (“walking together”) document that did not explicitly permit Communion for manifest adulterers, but strongly hinted at it in a footnote, the infamous n. 351. It could be that whatever comes out about the Traditional Roman Rite and Summorum Pontificum will not be clear and explicit, but will rather be a kind of dog whistle, a message to bishops and other ideologues that open war on traditional Catholics will be… how to put it… “tolerated but not accepted”.
There could be just enough of a message, shrouded in deniability – “Oh, heavens no! We love our traditional Catholics! We would never allow them to be mistreated!” – that hostile or ambitious bishops will have cover to get out their long knives and take out their traditional leaning priests. After all, just look around now. We can name names.
Furthermore, that point made by Paix Liturgiques at the end must be and, hopefully, will be weighed: how much more abuse will people take? Especially in light of all the other garbage that is being allowed, nay rather, fostered in the Church, how much more marginalization and mistreatment will tradition-leaning Catholics take before something snaps?
One hopes that if there is such a document, or – who knows what it is – voices such as Card. Ladaria’s will have a strong say in the matter.
Such a document, as rumored, would be a real mistake.
It is too early to tell what the effects of COVID Theater will have on Mass attendance as we move forward. My suspicion is that, after a brief spike, the numbers at Masses will plummet in those places that go back to the old “normal”.
However, over the last year or so, many priests have learned to say the TLM and have quietly implemented it in their parishes in a peaceful way according to Summorum Pontificum. The number of people who attend the TLM now is growing. And those people tend to be more supportive financially of the Church than Novus Ordo attendees. These “strong-identity” Catholics, or also “strengthening identity”, will not want to lose what they have found.
I suspect that the “powers that be” who hate and fear the TLM are so ideologically blinkered that they would not care of the post-COVID renewal of the Church was shattered.
The TLM is a rebuke of effeminacy. It is a “no” to the world St. Paul warns of. It is a bulwark against Modernism. It has to be crushed so that Modernism can continue its infection, the world can subsume more and more of the Church’s ethos, and effeminacy and perversion can force itself into every crevice.
Pace Tacitus, these powerful ideologues would rather create a wasteland and then call it ‘peace’, rather than allow the organic renewal of the Church to take place through the natural process of people freely being able to vote with their feet.
If people want the Novus Ordo, fine, they can have it. If people want the TLM, fine, they should be able to have it. The whole thing will in time sort itself out. I have a strong idea of what it will look like if allowed to proceed. So do the powers that be. Hence, the lawless, heartless St. Peter’s Mass Suppression Stunt.
Ideologues fear freedom. In their view, people have to be controlled. The only freedom people are allowed by ideologues to have is the freedom to agree with their ideology.
In effect, it comes down to bullying.
In the meantime, in the absence of a document that can be read, rather than rumored, keep moving forward. Do not let up. Do not slow down. Keep encouraging and helping priests to learn the TLM. Even if such a document were to come out, there would be all the more reason for priests to learn the TLM!
Keep going. Keep building. Relentlessly and joyfully.
¡Hagan lío!