Amusing Diaconal Hijinx

Every once in a while you will encounter the bizarre practice of listing the names of wives of permanent (and married) deacons together with the names of their clerical husbands.  You might also see the wives troop into a church in procession alongside their deacon-husbands.

Fail.

That gives in the impression that wives somehow share in their husband’s diaconal character, even if they do support their husband’s diaconal ministry in their role as spouse.

Recently Deacon Greg Kandra as his blog (alas, with Patheos) had a piece about this – to wit:

An alert reader—thank you, Frank Weathers—pointed this out to me, from a parish in California:
Holy Name of Mary Parish Staff:

Fr. Rich Danyluk, SS.CC.
Deacons:
Marv and Sharon Estey
Mario and Irene Lopez, Spanish Ministry
Jose and Maria Guadamuz, Spanish Ministry
Al and Rita Austin

Seriously?

Go there for links and comments.

One of my alert readers – thanks JL – sent me the link to a Facebook discussion of the same post and issue.

15_07_08_screenshot_facebook_01

 

Amusing, indeed.  And not the least that our old pal Phyllis joined the fun.  She continues, it seems, her starry-eyed, quixotic push for the ordination of women.

I look forward to a document from the Holy See which could, as a poetic resonance, be entitled Ordinatio diaconalis.  It could have a paragraph which explains the obligation of clerical continence.

Oh, please let such a document be issued during the pontificate of Pope Francis!

Moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged , , , ,
12 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can I attend this invalid wedding?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

My wife’s niece is getting married this coming October. I asked her what faith she is and she couldn’t even tell me. I asked her what her fiancé’s faith was and she said catholic. I told her to put off her wedding and sign up for R.C.I.A and become catholic so her and her fiancé can be married in the catholic church and receive the sacraments. I also told her I was more worried about her salvation than her wedding at this point in her life. She sobbed of course, but appreciated my honesty. The next thing you know is there is a bounty on my head by her family because I upset my wife’s niece; go figure! My wife’s niece is getting married by a non-catholic minister and I’m wondering if I should attend this invalid wedding? I’m a devout catholic and want to know from you if I should promote this type of wedding?

A number of questions emerge regarding attendance or avoidance of weddings. Each has one or two details that are different from the previous question. Each questioner is looking for advice, guidance, support.

It’s all very telling. Weddings are important, both to individuals and to society. A wedding is not just about Titus and Sempronia exchanging consent and living happily ever after. Weddings have an impact on extended families, friends, parishes, and communities. Because of their importance, they cause stress. Because of their importance, they should be done right.

Pay attention, prospective brides and grooms!

Your wedding is not “your” day. It’s a day that can bring two families together, build up faith, teach important lessons to younger friends and relatives (and maybe some older ones as well), and set the tone for a happy, healthy, Christ-centered life together.

Unfortunately, many couples getting married take their direction on marriage not from the Church, but from society, or soap operas, or celebrities, or Mitzi the Wedding Planner who has the connection to the hot air balloon guy and the manager of Pawtastic Formal Wear dealing in mini tuxes for Scamp, the groom’s Lhasa Apso/Best Man.

For many, faith takes a back seat where weddings are concerned, if it comes into the picture at all.

Indeed, speaking of picture, I think many weddings are for the photos (given that “consummation” and cohabitation are looooong distant in the rear-view mirror).

Faithful Catholics are left to make difficult decisions, knowing how important weddings are, and seeing how frivolously some people take them. The bottom line question is always: Should I attend, or should I stay home?  “Should I stay or should I go?”

The answer is not always clear.

On the one hand, rigorists might say: Don’t attend anything other than a wedding between two Catholics in a Catholic church. Even then, be a bit skeptical because the couple may have been living together before marriage, might have a flutist playing a solo during the Offertory, and might serve box wine at the reception.  That box wine could be a deal breaker for me, too.

On the other extreme, laxists might say: Go to every wedding of relatives and friends that you can! If third cousin Bobby is marrying his life partner Robby in a ceremony conducted by a Wiccan priestess at midnight in the old cemetery, Go! After all, it’s all about Luuuuuuvvvvv!   And love is never wrong, right?

Prudence (there’s our old friend, the mother of virtues again) should be our guide in all these situations. Rather than direct an answer specifically to the question (which really can only be answered by the questioner), let’s look at the principles and see if we can take away some answers.

QUAERITUR: What is our goal in approaching these difficult wedding situations?

We want to stand up for the truth, proclaim the beauty of the Catholic position, remain firm in our own faith, and avoid causing scandal. We want the bride and the groom, if Catholic, to see their wedding as a means of their own sanctification. We want those who are lapsed from the faith to return to a regular practice of it, and those who are outside of the Church to enter Her loving embrace. We want to keep our families and friends close and supportive of each other. We want to avoid tensions and stress and rather enjoy the time of the wedding as a graced time of happiness and love. That’s a pretty tall order.

We need to honestly ask ourselves some questions:

What would it mean if I attended this wedding? What would people think (especially and primarily my children, my spouse, my close family, the bride and groom)? What would avoiding this wedding mean? What would people think/conclude? Will my actions (attending or avoiding) help to draw anyone closer to Jesus Christ? If the marriage situation is less-than ideal, is it something that can be later fixed (e.g., a baptized Catholic couple marrying outside the Church, but who later could have their marriage sanated, versus a same-sex couple who’s “marriage” can never be recognized as such)?

When I stand before the Judgment Seat will I be able to say with a clear conscience, “Yes Lord, I (attended/avoided) that wedding with a clear conscience because I was acting out of love both for you and for the couple getting married, in the hope that my actions might either bring them close to you, or at least not cause them to fall farther away from you.”

 

Comment moderation is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , ,
30 Comments

Fr. Z’s Voice Mail – Leonine Prayers and a POLL

I have received a few more voicemails…

Remember, I don’t call back, but I listen to it.

  • Matt of the Navy, a husband and father, left a very supportive voice mail and feed back.  He is scared about the future.  So am I, but we have Christ’s promises and grace to sustain us in the difficult choices we make.
  • David from TX, about SCOTUS: Sorry, I didn’t understand the question.
  • AW, secular Carmelite, wants the Leonine prayers after all Masses, in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms.  She is writing to priests and bishops.  Good for you!  I agree.
  • [NEW] L in Sonoma complains that the registration process for the combox of this blog includes a password requirement which is over the top.  Sorry, L, but I have to have it this way in order to protect the blog from evil weirdos.  I can, occasionally, rarely, help with a manual registration if people have trouble.

And I had another from John in Philly, which I may deal with in a separate post.

Concerning the Leonine Prayers, yes!  Let’s have them back!  I think we should reintroduce them after Mass.  They take only a minute or two and they are mighty weapons in our spiritual armory.   Yes, we are the Church Militant, and we should start behaving like it!

The so-called “Leonine Prayers” are not obligatory. I don’t think they are obligatory even after Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form (watch below for the “But Father! But Father! You’re wrong!” crowd to chime in). Nevertheless, I also think we need these prayers today.

Furthermore, the reintroduction of the Leonine Prayers might help in places where people instantly start to yak it up in church after the last blessing and dismissal.  Let the recessional wait… or just get rid of it once in a while.  How about some silence?  But that’s another icthyian cauldron.

The Leonine Prayers came eventually to be associated with the conversion of Russia, but they were originally developed, over time and in stages, to help combat secular oppression of the Church.

I don’t see that Russia benefiting the world these days and no reasonable person can think that there are few attacks on the Church, or on Christians.  If nothing else, we should get down on our knees and pray for Christians being murdered and martyred by Islamic terrorists.

In these USA, I would like to see the American Bishops promote the Leonine Prayers during this time when true marriage is under attack. Since the SCOTUS decision Obergefell v. Hodges has changed the laws of the lands, many enemies of the laws of nature and of nature’s God are going to try to force Catholics to violate their consciences. Secularists and their liberal catholic bed-partners will work relentlessly to drive faithful Catholic voices from the public square.

Think about it:

O God, our refuge and our strength, look down with mercy upon the people who cry to Thee; and by the intercession of the glorious and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of Saint Joseph her spouse, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints, in Thy mercy and goodness hear our prayers for the conversion of sinners, and for the liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.

There are some variations of translations, but … I ask you: Is that not a great and appropriate prayer for the challenges we are facing right now?

So, let’s pray the Leonine Prayers, on our own, if we have too.  And I also suggest adding to them, as I do after every Mass, a Memorare for our bishops.  I have a short list of bishops I pray for after every Mass, though you could offer it for all our bishops.

Let’s have a poll…  anyone can vote.

Choose your best answer.  The combox is open for those who are registered and approved.

The Leonine Prayers

View Results

Wanna leave me voice mail?  You have three options:

 WDTPRS

 020 8133 4535

 651-447-6265

Since I pay a fee for the two phone numbers, USA and UK, I am glad when they get some use.  I have occasionally thought about how to integrate the audio into posts, when there are good questions or comments, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

TIPS for leaving voice mail.

  1. Don’t shout.  If you shout, your voice will be distorted and I won’t be able to understand you.
  2. Don’t whisper.  C’mon.  If you have to whisper, maybe you should be calling the police, instead.
  3. Come to your point right away.  That helps.
Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged ,
17 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Was there a good point you gleaned from the sermon you heard as you fulfilled your Sunday obligation?

Let us know.

Meanwhile… for the 6th Sunday after Pentecost… whether there are good points in it or not…

Posted in Four Last Things, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
44 Comments

ASK FATHER: Priest who baptizes any baby brought to him

From a reader…

I know of a local Ukrainian Catholic priest who baptizes any Catholic baby (whether Roman or Eastern Rite) who is brought to him by their parents (whether or not the parents knew of this priest or if a relative or friend referred them to this priest). In most of these cases, the parents who want the Baptism of their child/children from this Ukrainian Catholic priest do not practice their Catholic faith, and/or the parents are not married, and/or one of the parents is not in the picture, etc. And in most cases, the Roman Catholic priest(s) they’ve went to have refused the baptism of their child/children for all of the above listed reasons. The UC priest’s reasoning for doing all of these baptisms is that he believes that the child should not have to suffer (I’m guessing the effects of original sin by living their lives unbaptized) and that it’s not the baby’s fault that their parents are in some of the above listed reasons.

Is there anything wrong what this Ukrainian Catholic priest is doing?

Is there a violation of Canon Law? Are the Roman Catholic priests right or wrong for refusing baptism in these cases? Who is right and who is wrong here?

Liberality, or mercy, is a virtue. Prudence remains the mother of all virtues. Prudence instills temperance and strength into liberality, lest it devolve into mushy sentimentality or pompous fanaticism. Prudence helps us to keep the apple cart between the lines along the narrow path.

Holy Church – with Our Lord – wishes that all men be baptized. How different would the world look if everyone shared the Catholic faith? Problems would not be obliterated, but just imagine how wonderful a truly Catholic world would be.  That’s something that the Devil works to thwart… and pretty successfully, too.

From the outset the Church rejected frivolous baptism. Baptism requires something of the person being baptized. In the case of children to be baptized, it requires something of their parents, and sponsors.  Otherwise, to save everyone from the effects of original sin, we would have long ago sent priests (probably Jesuits) up in planes with water canons, to fly around the world baptizing everyone.

The Church asks in can. 868 that all those who administer the sacrament of baptism to children do so only when there is “founded hope” that the child will be raised in the faith. The parents, or those who stand in their place, must have a commitment to raise their child as a Catholic before we can licitly baptize that child. A priest who baptizes children without exercising that prudential judgment in discerning whether or not the parents truly are committed to raising their child Catholic errs.  The baptism is still valid, mind you.

Prudential judgment is a delicate thing. One priest might have obtained the “founded hope” in the simple request of the parents to have their child baptized. Another priest might only have founded hope if the parents are registered members of the parish who attend and contribute every week.

It seems to me that both such priests are extreme cases and not truly being prudent, but only God knows their hearts. It would have include a case-by-case investigation to get to the bottom of the matter.

The question of baptizing children whose parents do not belong to one’s particular ritual Church is a bit of further complication. The newly baptized child’s rite is not determined by the minister of his baptism, but by the ritual Church of his parents. So if both parents are Latin Catholics, their child (under the age of 14) will be Latin Catholic, no matter who performs the baptism. Still, one should not baptize the children of parents who do not belong to one’s Church unless there is a serious need (such as no priests of the parents’ Church available).

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Both Lungs, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
21 Comments

ASK FATHER: Same-sex confusion, false understanding of marriage, and nullity

From a reader…

This may be more of a canon law question (and therefore not necessarily your expertise), but I was rueing the number of Catholics rejoicing with the recent SSM ruling, and it strike me, if they are married, is it possible the marriages are in fact null because of their support for SSM? My understanding that part of the requirement is understanding the nature of marriage, if you support it, do you really understand it? Anyway, a hypothetical really, but thought it could be a thought provoking proposition (and one where I would benefit from more learned individuals).

Hypothetical situations are generally not the most helpful ones for understanding canon law. The law is designed for real situations, and takes into consideration the complexity of the human person. Each of us, and each marriage situation is unique. Though the law speaks in generalities, it does so with the understanding that it is going to be applied in specific, real situations.

The understanding of marriage that’s required for positing a valid act of consent is pretty basic. Can. 1096 establishes that matrimonial consent requires that the parties “be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, order to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.”

A case might be made that a certain hypothetical person lacked sufficient understanding of marriage because he lacked the understanding that it must be between a man and a woman, and that he thought it could be contracted by any two persons, regardless of sex.

Proving that would be difficult.

The whole situation brings to light the need to pray for – and to teach! – a better understanding of marriage among our children.

Unless the next generation gets this right, our society will head down a very dark alley.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
16 Comments

CQ CQ CQ – Ham Radio Saturday – UPDATED – Echolink use

LinkingExample Echolink

Echolink

I don’t have too much to report on the Ham front today. I’ve been busy with other things.

There was a field day last weekend but I was unable to get involved. There was a 1st Mass to attend on Saturday and may other pressing things. On Sunday I had two Masses, so that was that.

I had an email (at last… they are pokey in responding) from the people who made my Juicebox. You might recall that it had discharged and I couldn’t get the batteries going again. I wrote to the company… I’ve only been trying to resolve this since APRIL. Anyway, they are sending two new batteries (when… who knows…) and I will do the work of swapping them out myself. The Juicebox has an Anderson Power Pole option. And that leads me to my next point…

My Kenwood T140 came (from a reader) with an Anderson Power Pole cable. So, when I get the Juicebox going again, I’ll have a good power source for the Kenwood. I’ll try setting it up with a Buddistick.

Other than that, I’ve been doing a little Morse and lacksidasically looking over materials for the Extra exam. I have a couple little Baofeng UV-5r radios now. One is tuned to the local repeater and I have reached out a few times to local regulars I hear doing some rag chewing. One, as it turns out, is a reader of this blog who recognized my voice. One of the other radios I would like to set up to listen to local LEO/Fire etc., but I haven’t figured that out yet. One should go into my Go Bag in my car.

I got the Baofeng data cable, but I wasn’t able to get the software to install.  That’s going to take a little effort, it seems.

I will switch on my Echolink program for a while today, if any of you check that. One of our readers here (who sent the Kenwood) has made his node availble to us: 554286 – WB0YLE-R  (Thanks!) Remember: You must be licensed to use Echolink. BTW… there is a great iPhone app for Echolink. I can see quite a few hams using that method to connect.

73

UPDATE:

After an attempted contact in the “WDTPRS Cafe” I did a couple level tests at the ECHOTEST node and found that my mic was waaaay too quiet, underpowered.  I switched to a new USB port (powered) and that helped.

UPDATE: 5 July

It looks as if someone tried to contact me via Echolink at 03:36 CDT and again at 0649 CDT (I was just heading off to Mass).  From the log information, this may have been a priest!  I see your call N____ but I won’t post it here.  I looked for you in Echolink, but didn’t find you.

I am quite interested networking with clerical hams! … yes… I wrote that: “clerical hams”.

I could write “clerical amateur radio operators”, just what fun is that?

Posted in Ham Radio, Mail from priests | Tagged , , , , ,
24 Comments

Excommunication of same-sex ‘marriage’ Catholic SCOTUS Justices for Heresy

From Ed Peters, distinguished canonist, on Catholic SCOTUS Justices (Kennedy, Sotomayor) who ruled for Obergefell v. Hodges:

Obergefell and canonical criminal law

Dcn Greg Kandra calls attention to a question floating around out there, namely, [QUAERITUR…]should Catholic justices who voted to impose “same-sex marriage” on America be excommunicated? We can deal with most of that question pretty quickly.

Excommunication can impact any Catholic (there are no exemptions for those in high civil office), but it can be incurred only for twelve specifically delineated crimes (CLSA Comm. 932, not counting a couple of excommunicable crimes listed outside the Code). Now, voting to impose “same-sex marriage” on a nation (or, taken more broadly, gravely damaging the common good) is not among the canonical crimes punished by excommunication, and even Canon 1399 (sometimes derided, if unfairly, as a “catch-‘em-all” penal norm) would not suffice for so-called automatic excommunication (a canonical institution that presents its own legal complications, but let that pass). In short, I see no excommunication readily imposable on Catholic justices who voted to impose “same-sex marriage” on America.

But, [But…] two points remain for Catholics to consider.

1. For reasons outlined here (chiefly that—aside from the compelling natural law demonstration that marriage is possible only between a man and woman, a demonstration that should be understandable as a matter of human reason—the Church teaches with infallible certainty that marriage is possible only between a man and woman) I think that some Catholic justices have, indeed, manifested their opposition to Church doctrine (Canons 750 § 2 and 1371, 1°), doing so, moreover, “in published writing” and in a way that “gravely injures good morals” (Canon 1369). The canonical sanctions referenced for such offenses are, however, ‘indeterminate’ (justa poena) and, I would hold, do not extend to excommunication. To be sure, a number of very important procedural steps would need to be observed before moving on these norms (and the track record of thinking-through, let alone enforcing, penal canon law has not been strong in our day) but, [But…] at the very least, the fact that such an argument can even be made suggests a basis for some kind of pastoral intervention toward those Catholic justices who hold that “law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes”, let alone toward those who voted to impose “same-sex marriage” on America.

2. If, as seems likely, Church teaching that marriage can exist only between a man and woman is taught not just infallibly (as a ‘secondary object’ of infallibility) but as being divinely revealed (making it a ‘primary object’ of infallibility), then, a Catholic’s obstinate denial of such a truth is canonically “heresy” (Canon 751) punishable by excommunication (Canon 1364 § 1), an automatic one at that—and is not just ‘opposition to Church teaching’ punishable by a ‘just penalty’. I leave it to theologians to hammer out whether Church teaching on the male-female foundation of marriage is simply, but infallibly, Church doctrine (I am sure it is at least that) or whether it is part of divine revelation (I am strongly inclined to say that it is), but either way, prominent Catholics asserting that marriage is whatever the State wants to make it, is a grave ecclesiastical problem.

Grave Ecclesiastical Problem™.

Yes, I would say so.

Posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, SCOTUS, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
60 Comments

ASK FATHER: Sunday obligation and career conflicts

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I read your recent answer to a man whose work schedule keeps him from attending Mass.

I’d like to go down that road a little further. I’m a commercial pilot. My schedule (which is written in stone) keeps me on the road 7 days at a time. I miss Mass every other Sunday because my duties do not allow me to attend during the 7 days I am “on duty”.

However, I am now at a point in my life where I “could” retire at some significant monetary loss. My wife and I are living on my income, but could live on social security and savings (401K/IRA) at this point.

Question: Does my obligation to attend Mass on Sunday dictate that I quit my job and retire?

At my age, the chance of landing another flying job that would allow me to attend Mass on Sunday approaches zero, but one never knows.

Being a Christian requires certain sacrifices. Being Catholic requires even more sacrifices.

Being a member of Holy Catholic Church allows one freely to request, from the treasury of grace the Church has built up, some accommodations.

Ironic, isn’t it?  We live in a secular world, which makes fewer and fewer concessions to those attempting to live according to the dictates of the Church.

To determine the exact line between reasonable sacrifice and foolhardiness is difficult. Certainly, one should never put one’s family in an unnecessary state of financial uncertainty. Additionally, one should never place an undue burden on the State to provide!

If you can work, work, rather than rely on government assistance or charity.  (εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω! – 2 Thess 3:10)

Giving up one’s job in order to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation can cause readjustment of priorities in life. If it is too much of a burden, don’t do it. Yet, if it’s the difference between eating hamburger or dining on prime rib six nights a week, the sacrifice might be spiritually appropriate. Consider that the earthly “banquet” is temporary, while the heavenly is eternal.

Before making such a decision, talk the matter over with your wife, check with your accountant, and consult with your pastor or a trusted priest in order assess the situation.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
12 Comments

UPDATE REVIEW: The ULTIMATE Priest’s Gift – Super Cool Portable Altar

Do you remember when I posted about the coolest gift for a priest ever?  HERE  There is  a carpenter who makes portable altars of wood, rather like a suitcase, with wings that fold out, and an embedded altar stone.

St. Joseph’s Apprentice

After I received the first beautiful altar, which a priest friend immediately wanted to borrow, I offered some suggestions for improvements.  The carpenter took them to heart!

Another priest friend recently obtained his own, upgraded, portable altar.  He brought it over and I shot some photos.

In its case.

 

This one is considerably lighter than the one I have.  Different wood, I believe, and construction have taken quite a few pounds off.

 

The altar, closed up.

    

One of the improvements I recommended were slots to place altar cards.  He added them!

 

This version of the altar has a storage compartment under the element that holds the altar stone.

On the altar stone you can see a certificate of its provenance, that it was duly consecrated.  I checked out the sepulcher for relics.

 

This version utilizes supports for the “wings” that fold out.  Mine uses the drawers that pull out from the sides.  Mine doesn’t have the central compartment.

The only concern I have is that the surface has to be pretty level and even for these side supports to work.  Great if you are on a table.

The carpenter’s wife makes altar cloths to fit the altar!  That’s really helpful.  My altar didn’t come with cloths.

 

Not only are the cloths fitted, one of them is a cere cloth!  This is important with a wooden surface.

The Cross sits atop.  However, he added a little tongue/groove – one of the improvements I suggested – so that it will more easily stay in place.

  

My friend told me that there was a little book stand, too.  I didn’t see it.

 

 

Pretty spiffy.

I would like to swap mine out for this, or at least have some of the upgrades!

This might be the coolest priest gift ever.  It might also, in the future, be one of the most useful.

As the persecution of the Catholic Church mounts, it may be that we will lose a lot of our properties.  Priests might have to take things on the road.

Also, lay people might want to have one of these stored away. Stock up on altar wine, hosts, candles and squirrel them away with your altar.

Otherwise, leave it set up all the time as a home altar!  You could put a shelve over it for statues and hand a fine piece of religious art over it…. even a baldachin, much in the style of some home chapels I saw in palazzi in Rome.

Posted in Just Too Cool, Linking Back, Priests and Priesthood, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged ,
17 Comments