ASK FATHER: Becoming “minister” of on-line “church” to do wedding

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

A church-going Catholic friend of my daughter was asked to officiate at the wedding of a non-Catholic couple, by becoming a “minister” of an on-line “church”. I assume that legally this is permissible as far as the State is concerned, but it seems a serious violation of canon law regarding the Catholic layperson. I’ve researched on line but haven’t been able to find a definitive answer, (at least not one from a trustworthy authority). But it definitely doesn’t pass the “smell test”. Secondarily, what suggestion do you have for my daughter, who was told of this plan by the bride-to-be, and who is friends with the minister-to-be’s wife? Thank you for your help.

1983 CIC can. 1364 establishes the penalty of excommunication for all those who apostasize from the faith, embrace heresy or schism. This has to be a conscious and intentional action. Someone who, poorly catechized, wanders away from the regular practice of the faith and starts attending a non-Catholic Church probably wouldn’t fall under the penalty of excommunication, although he would need a good, thorough confession to come back to the sacraments.

Someone who gets ordained in another denomination… well, that’s another story.

It would be difficult to explain how one could get ordained through mere negligence.

“Oooops!  Got ordained!   Sorry ’bout that.  Didn’t mean… hah hah….”

Requesting “ordination”, even from some crazy, online “church”, requires a conscious decision.  Well… I’ll grant that in the ancient Church they used to hold you down and ordain you against your will, as they did to Augustine of Hippo.  But that doesn’t happen now.  If it’s another putatively Christian denomination, one would be committing an act of schism (at least). If it’s a non-Christian denomination, we’re well on the way to apostasy.

These are serious things.

Catholics don’t, MUST NOT – take marriage lightly.  We don’t – MUST NOT – take the role of the officiant at a wedding lightly.

Someone who submits to ordination in another denomination, even if it’s “only” to witness a non-Catholic wedding is putting himself in pretty dangerous territory.  I wouldn’t want to answer for that in my judgment!

Moderation queue is on.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , ,
24 Comments

D. Albany: First TLM – PONTIFICAL! – in Cathedral in decades

For your brick by brick file

I received this good news from a reader:

Bishop Edward Scharfenberger celebrated the Extraordinary Form in his Cathedral Saturday.  This was the 1st time Mass has been celebrated in Albany’s Cathedral in decades.

15_03_14_Scharf_01

The New Evangelization takes a step forward.

Fr. Z kudos to Bp. Scharfenberger.

Posted in Brick by Brick, Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , ,
32 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can priests change the wording given in the Missal?

From a reader…

I recently heard a priest say: “We should go back to the [previous] version of the Missal, because I never had to change any wording. But now I have to change it all the time in the collect, for example. I don’t use the word ‘beseech’ in my daily speech, so why would I use it in Mass?”

I know the rule is “do the red, say the black.” But this made me wonder, how much latitude does the celebrant have to change the wording given in the Missal? Is the specific wording from the Missal less critical in, say, the collect than the Eucharistic prayer? What about some of the older priests who (for example) edit wording to make it more gender-inclusive, etc.?

Here’s some other words that Father might not regularly use: nincompoop, narcissist, nanocephalous….

The 2004 Instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum 31 states clearly,

[Priests] ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions. For as St. Ambrose said, ‘It is not in herself…but in us that the Church in injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church.’

There are a few places in the Missal itself where the priest is given an option, such as choosing between different penitential rites.

Nothing in the Missal permis the priest to, on his own authority, alter the texts that are given to him.

Sacrosanctum Concilium 22,3, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, establishes the principle that

“no person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

 

Father may not regularly use the word beseech in his day-to-day language, but the Church does in hers.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Priests and Priesthood |
38 Comments

ASK FATHER: Will the Extraordinary Form outlast the Novus Ordo? Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Mass in modern churchFrom a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Since His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has allowed the Latin mass to be celebrated by Priest without special per mission, many younger Priest and young Catholics have been celebrating the Latin mass more often. Do you think this is a comeback of the Latin mass? Do you the Novus Ordo may eventually be outnumbered by the Latin mass sometime in the future?

Good question.

It seems almost like a war of attrition, doesn’t it? Whose churches or Masses will empty faster?

I know, this seems like a pretty negative assessment, but I don’t see anything to be gained by false optimism.

In the short term, no, the Traditional Latin Mass or Extraordinary Form is not going to outstrip in numbers the use of the Novus Ordo.  There are many obstacles to the TLM, including the near complete ignorance of Latin among clergy of the Latin Church.  The destruction of integrated Catholic education and formation at levels before major seminary saw to this, despite the fact of St. John XXIII’s Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia.  

Enemies within the Church knew that they had to destroy the foundations, so Latin had to go.

By the way, the Code of Canon Law in can. 249 requires… it doesn’t suggest… it requires that all seminarians be taught both Latin to the point that that they are very proficient (bene calleant).  They are also to be taught any other language useful for their ministry.  As far as the law is concerned for programs of formation, this is not an either/or question, this is a both/and issue.

The problem is, by the time men come to seminary, and men are often older today than once upon a time, it is a little late to bring them from zero to 60 in four years.  So, what do we do?  Add a couple more years of formation?  Have a couple propaedeutic years for Latin and Greek, other basics of a classical liberal education which they ought to have had and which a Catholic seminary formation presupposes?  What do we cut from the curriculum to make room?

I know of one school in Rome which has determined – with great courage – to reform their 1st Cycle to include a propaedeutic year including Latin and Greek.  This is absolutely necessary.   But the fact remains that men have to have a foundation in Latin before they get to major seminary.  This simply has to happen.

I digress.

Another obstacle to the TLM is the hatred that squishy-identity Catholics have for it, because of its emphases on sacrifice and it’s clarity about the Four Last Things.  When you start experiencing Mass in the older form, you begin hearing “No!” to your baser passions and you begin to encounter something transcendent and, indeed, frightening.  It is a harder path.

In the longer term, will the TLM survive and the Novus Ordo die out?  I suspect it won’t look like that.  I suspect that something along the lines of what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI thought would happen will take place.  That is, having jump started the more organic path of liturgical development, with the greater frequency of the older, traditional forms alongside the Novus Ordo, some tertium quid will eventually emerge, wherein the two forms have influenced each other in a process of “mutual enrichment”.  They will exert what I call a “gravitational pull” on each other and the Roman Rite will organically develop.

What is clear to me, however, is that we urgently, desperately need a renewal and revitalization of our sacred liturgical worship.  Without a solid liturgical base, no initiative of evangelization (or of “New Evangelization”) will bear lasting fruit.  Every aspect of the Church’s life flows from and back to our worship of God, which we owe by the virtue of Religion.

Therefore, we need more and more celebrations of Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

One of the reasons we need wider use of the Extraordinary Form is because of the knock on effect it produces through the priests who learn it.  When young priests learn the older, traditional form, it shapes their priestly identity in a way that the Novus Ordo simply cannot.  The deepening and strengthening of the identity of the priest at the altar will in turn produce effects among the people who are entrusted to the priests pastoral care.

Meanwhile, I suspect that we will see a more and more divided Church.

Far and wide we will see a deemphasis on doctrinal clarity that will, coupled with vague liturgical worship, produce weak and vague Catholic identity among a majority of those who self-identity as Catholic.  A sort of Immanentism Lite will continue to enervate Catholic identity.

On the other hand, there will be some Catholics who are fortunate enough to have solid priests and bishops who maintain sound and reverent sacred worship, who teach with clarity true Catholic doctrine without watering it down under the pressure of the world, the flesh and the devil.  I fear, however, that they will be isolated in enclaves, oases, ghettos.  Through the Church’s history, in times of trouble, there has been a temptation to isolate, to preserve the core by separation.  This tendency, human as it is, in part brought about the rise of monasticism.  In the modern world, however, in which is nearly impossible to isolate oneself on a mountain top, I fear that strong identity Catholics may disengage from other Catholics and from action in the public square.  This is why I am always nagging traditional Catholics to be active in their parishes, to be the first to get involved with parish initiatives and, especially, corporal works of mercy.  Strong or hard-identity Catholics simply must be more engaged with their parishes and active in the public square.

We have to be willing to suffer and make sacrifices.  That’s the path of the traditional, faithful Catholic.  All else is … something else, maybe even another religion.

We cannot abdicate “Catholic identity” to the squishy, to the “Olympian middle” that we see on the rise in the blogosphere these days.  In a way, I think that is more pernicious than the obvious radicals of the Fishwrap and America and The Pill, who are really feeling their oats these days.

Okay, I’ve ranted enough.

On that note, I saw today, thanks to an alert reader, this piece in USA Today:

Latin Mass resurgent 50 years after Vatican II

VATICAN CITY — Fifty years after the traditional Latin Mass was abandoned by the Roman Catholic Church, it is making a comeback.

The Second Vatican Council ruled a half-century ago this month that the Mass could be said in local languages while the priest faced the congregation. The longer Latin Mass involved elaborate choreography, and the priest’s back was toward the pews. [That old canard?  No, everyone was facing the same direction!]

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI formally allowed the majestic Latin Mass to be more accessible to congregations. Since then, participation has mushroomed.

“Interested Catholics now realize it’s not some peculiar thing tucked away in an embarrassed corner,” said Joseph Shaw, chairman of the Latin Mass Society based in the United Kingdom. “Once they’re in the door, the Mass speaks for itself.

Many enthusiasts of the Latin Mass are too young to recall when it was the standard for Catholic churches.

“There is a movement among young Catholics to know, discover and preserve their Catholic heritage, and the traditional Latin Mass fits in with that,” said Joseph Kramer, a Rome-based priest and longtime advocate of the Latin Mass. “I think they are drawn to the liturgical richness of the past.”

Though figures on attendance at Latin Masses are not available, there is evidence interest is growing. The International Una Voce Federation, lay groups associated with the Latin Mass, said member organizations are growing in all parts of the world.

“I think people are drawn to the Mass’ beauty and depth and its internal coherence,” said James Bogle, president of the federation.

Churchgoers who attend the Latin Mass say the seriousness of the service is appealing.

“In my church in Miami, people come wearing short pants and checking their cellular phones during the service,” said Antonia Martinez, 33, a Catholic school administrator who attended a recent service in Rome. “This Mass has a more reverent tone that seems more appropriate for worshiping God.”

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , , ,
31 Comments

ASK FATHER: Hosts found on the floor… twice

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

The attached strongly worded letter was in our bulletin today and it has left me greatly disturbed. In the past two weeks we have found Jesus left on the floor, not once, but twice. I am also sickened by this and greatly saddened. I was hoping for communion in the hand to be eliminated at our parish.

Our bishop does not permit communion to be distributed solely on the tongue, but my understanding is that if there is a risk of profanation, it is not to be given in the hand. How much risk does there have to be? I don’t want to read about Jesus being left on the floor week after week.

First off, I would rejoice in having a pastor so clearly dedicated to preserving the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament. Pray for him. Let him know how much you appreciate his concern and that you share his concern. Offer to spend some time in the Church, both in reparation for the desecration of Our Eucharistic Lord and also to pray for the souls of those who mistreat the Blessed Sacrament.

Work with the pastor. He seems to be on the side of the angels.  Try and figure out the best way to solve this problem. Perhaps there is some poor catechesis lingering from the past.

Does the parish need new, orthodox volunteers to help teach catechism to the younger children?

Is there a need for better teachers in the RCIA or adult religious education programs?

Would organizing holy hours be something that would help?

Let him take the lead, but be ready to pitch in and help.

Meanwhile, you are right about risk of profanation.  In Redemptionis Sacramentum we read:

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

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

NRO: Pope Francis Enters His Third Year of Scolding Introverts

At NRO, Nicholas Frankovich, a deputy managing editor, has some sharp comments on Pope Francis as he begins the third year of his pontificate. You can sense the frustration in his commentary, along with his hope.

There is a lot to chew over in this piece.   Some people are going to hate this while others should avoid precipitous high fives.  THINK as you read.

Pope Francis Enters His Third Year of Scolding Introverts

He preaches mercy for everyone except them, when the Church needs them more than ever.

‘I want the Church to go out into the streets,” Pope Francis told a cheering crowd gathered for World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in July 2013, four months after he was elected pope. “¡Hágan lío!” he exhorted them, in the spirit of creative destruction: Make a mess! Take care, he added, not to become “closed in on” yourselves. [It is interesting that, by contrast, Benedict XVI all through his writings, before and after becoming Pope, explores the theme of “self-sufficiency”.  But he does it in an entirely different way.] On other occasions, he has urged priests to leave “the stale air of closed rooms” and has characterized traditional Catholics as “self-absorbed.” An extrovert, Francis attaches a positive moral value to extroversion — and, as if it followed by some logical necessity, a negative moral value to extroversion’s complement, introversion.

“Pope Francis has said that he does not want a church that is introverted,” Monsignor M. Francis Mannion, describing the pope’s “achievements,” explained bluntly last July in an article for the Catholic News Agency. Two weeks later in the Los Angeles Times, an admiring Amy Hubbard included in her list of lessons that we should take from Francis: “Do not be an introvert. That’s just putrid.”

“This is no century for introverts,” Kathleen Parker remarked on the occasion of Francis’s elevation to the papacy two years ago today. In our age, yes, “introversion — along with its cousins sensitivity, seriousness, and shyness — is now a second-class personality trait, somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology,” as Susan Cain writes in Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. To “disappointment” and “pathology” we should add, if we follow Pope Francis on this question, “character flaw” and “moral failing.”

More grandly than any other figure on the world stage today, Francis, entering the third year of his pontificate, exemplifies what Cain calls “the Extrovert Ideal”:

We like to believe that we value individuality, but all too often we admire one type of individual — the kind who’s comfortable “putting himself out there.” . . . Talkative people, for example, are rated as smarter, better-looking, more interesting, and more desirable as friends. Velocity of speech counts as well as volume: we rank fast talkers as more competent and likable than slow ones. The same dynamics apply in groups, where research shows that the voluble are considered smarter than the reticent — even though there’s zero correlation between the gift of gab and good ideas.

In fairness to Pope Francis, we should remember that, though he is quick to chastise introverts, they have been quick to reciprocate. The primary reason that he disappoints many Catholics who delight in cultivating their interior life is not that he leans left in his politics and theology but that he’s shallow or at least presents himself as such. He has little apparent interest in the life of the mind. He lacks the patience to think slowly. Cain quotes a venture capitalist telling her, “I worry that there are people who are put in positions of authority because they’re good talkers, but they don’t have good ideas.” Bingo.

Francis tends to speak in platitudes, sometimes strung together rhetorically when they don’t cohere logically. Consider more closely his “Make a mess” speech at World Youth Day in 2013:

I want the Church to go out into the streets. I want us to defend ourselves against all worldliness, opposition to progress, from what is comfortable, from what is clericalism, from all that means being closed in on ourselves. Parishes, schools, institutions are made in order to go out. . . . If they do not do this, they become a non-governmental organization, and the Church must not be an NGO.

What a brain-bruising knot of contradictions: Go out into the streets — that is, the world — to defend yourself against worldliness. Church institutions must go out into the world! Many already do, such as Catholic Relief Services, arguably the Church’s premier NGO. If other Church institutions don’t do likewise, they’ll become NGOs. They must not become NGOs!

In the original Spanish, [NB] the key word in Francis’s phrase “what is comfortable” is “instalación,” derived from medieval Latin. A “stall” was a fixed place, and “installation” was, and remains, an ecclesiastical term for the assignment of a prelate to his place — of a bishop, for example, to his “cathedra,” or “chair.” A bishop should be stable, like a tree, rooted in the soil of his diocese. Episcopal “absenteeism” (a bishop’s failure to reside in the diocese where he has his chair) was once common, but the Church has condemned it since the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Francis himself has disparaged “airport bishops,” although in doing so he seems to contradict his message that the Church’s missionary (Latin: “sent out”) or apostolic (Greek: “sent out”) character is preeminent. [I wonder if a distinction must be made between the mission call of clerics and of lay people.]

The word “missionary,” of course, is now associated with colonialism and has fallen out of fashion. And “apostolic” sounds churchy and formal. In contemporary Catholicism, the new word for the Extrovert Ideal is “evangelical,” as in “the New Evangelization.” You know the drill: Leave the fortress and sally forth into town. Drop that sourpuss, Counter-Reformation stance contra mundum. Engage the world with a smile. Let’s dialogue.

That’s the music, from circa 1965, to which the lyrics of the New Evangelization have been set. The term originated during the pontificate of John Paul II, and Benedict XVI formally recognized the concept in 2010, when he created the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization. Benedict charged it with “the specific task of promoting a renewed evangelization in countries where the first proclamation of the faith already resounded, and where Churches are present of ancient foundation, but which are going through a progressive secularization of society and a sort of ‘eclipse of the sense of God.’” It was a serious objective nobly articulated.

In the Francis era, sadly, the New Evangelization is sometimes made to sound like a program for shaming introverted Catholics into leaving their conversation with the Lord so they can go help in the kitchen. [And here is a serious concern – one of my most serious concerns, even fears…] Concern with liturgy, for example, the public prayer of the Church, is dismissed as “the Church . . . being obsessed with itself.”  [For the thousandth time, unless we have a revitalization of our sacred liturgical worship, no initiative we undertake in the Church will bear lasting fruits.  A revitalization of our worship is a good in itself and needs no further justification.  However, if we want any sort of New Evangelization to work, we had better find our knees again, and silence, and the transforming, unsettling encounter with mystery which is found only in sacred liturgy.]

Martha, Martha.

Remember, Mary chose “the better part” and “the one thing necessary.” Jesus’ teaching in Bethany stands in obvious creative tension, however, with his instruction to his disciples to go forth, teach all nations, and baptize them. All Christians are called to contribute to the Great Commission, but the nature of the contribution will vary from individual to individual, as the body of Christ has many members, each with a different function. “Are all apostles?” Saint Paul asks rhetorically (1 Cor. 12:29).

[… CUTTING A BIG CHUNK…]

In our drive to conform to the Extrovert Ideal, the spiritual fruits of their labor have become invisible to us, inaudible, unintelligible. Godspeed to Pope Francis in his mission to draw people to the Church — but not in his attempt to discourage those who are only laboring to keep the oil burning in the sanctuary lamp. [Good image, and situated well.  The sanctuary is the place we need to revitalize before we can hit the streets.] The flame is guttering.

I am going to turn on the moderation queue and let some of your comments pile up before releasing them.  That way you are engaging the material first, rather than reacting to each other first.

Also, you will want to read the whole piece before jumping in.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Francis, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
52 Comments

Ross Douthat: three groups of Pope Francis’ critics on the ‘right’

The insightful Ross Douthat of, remarkably, Hell’s Bible (aka New York Times) has some comments about Pope Francis’ critics on the right.  This is worth your time.  It is long, so we’ll have just a taste here.  Keep in mind that he doesn’t go into Francis’ critics on the other end of the spectrum, and they are growing in number as their dissatisfaction with him grows.

My usual black and red treatment:

Who Are Pope Francis’s Critics?

The latest cover of the new New Republic features Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig taking on conservative anxieties about Pope Francis’s possible “radicalism.” The essay isn’t just about the pope; it offers a larger critique of the way that conservatives, Catholic and otherwise, relate to and interpret the human/Western/Christian past. I have a few disagreements with this depiction, and a few critical generalizations I’d make about the liberal tendency in Catholic thinking and debate right now. But I’ll save those for another post; for now I think it would be helpful for the discussion of Catholicism in the Francis era to spend some time distinguishing between the different groups who have doubts, or flirt with having doubts, about this pontificate, because in Bruenig’s account they run together a bit and I think the distinctions are actually enormously important.

A preliminary point to make is that Francis’s genuinely strident critics — as opposed to skeptics or fretters or unsettled observers — are quite few in number. “The differences in opinion between Francis and the movement collectively known as the ‘American right’ appear especially numerous,” Bruenig writes, “and unusually bitter.” She has examples — I’m one of them — and they do add up to a current (or currents) of criticism, but not all of them/us are obviously “bitter,” the American right is a lot bigger than a few pundits and bloggers, and it’s worth noting that the divide she sees opening up is largely invisible in public polling. In the latest Pew survey, for instance, the pope is just as popular (and he is very popular) among Catholics who vote Republican as among Catholics who vote Democratic, and he has slightly higher net favorables among self-described “conservative” Catholics than among self-described “moderates” and “liberals.” To the extent that the anxieties Bruenig identifies are visible in polling at all, they may show up in the somewhat elevated number of conservative Catholics who say their views of Francis are “mostly favorable” rather than “very favorable,” or the pope’s slightly higher net-unfavorables among Catholic Republicans — but that “higher” means a net of 10 percent, compared to 7 percent for Catholic Democrats, which is hardly the stuff of deep, bitter divides. (Pew’s old polling on Benedict XVI didn’t break things down by party or ideology, but I’d lay odds that his unfavorable numbers among Catholics who self-identify as liberal were much higher than than Francis’s currently are among any definition of the American Catholic right.)

So what we’re talking about here, what Bruenig is analyzing, is for now more a tendency within the intelligentsia (and the world of comment threads, but perhaps I repeat myself) than a large-scale phenomenon. And its various elements don’t all fit easily under a single label or description. Instead, I would divide them into three groups:

1. Traditionalists. These are Catholics defined by their preference/zeal for the Tridentine Rite Mass and their rejection of (or at least doubts about) various reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Some attend mainstream parishes that offer the mass in Latin, others are affiliated with orders specifically organized around the old rite, others are connected to parishes run by the (arguably; it’s a long argument) schismatic [sic] Society of Saint Pius X. [There is loose terminology here.  For example, SSPX can’t have parishes, since parishes must erected by proper authority (which the SSPX lacks).] There’s lots of variation within traditionalist ranks (my friend Michael Brendan Dougherty, cited by Bruenig, is a “trad” of a different sort than, say, this fellow), [Michael Voris] but the important things to emphasize are first, that their numbers (in the American context and otherwise) are quite small; second, that their concerns are not usually the same as those of the typical John Paul II-admiring conservative Catholic (traditionalists were often not admirers of the Polish pope); and third, that their skepticism of Pope Francis was probably inevitable and pretty clearly mutual. [Douthat seems to be painting this group as the fringe of the intelligensia.]

For instance, Bruenig notes that Rorate Caeli, a traditionalist site, greeted Jorge Bergoglio’s election by describing him as “a sworn enemy of the traditional Mass.” But what she doesn’t mention is that as Francis, he has often vindicated those fears: He has demoted the traditional mass’s most prominent champion within the Vatican, cracked down on a prominent traditionalist order, and frequently singled out traditionalist tendencies and practices for criticism in his remarks. Traditionalism has, it’s fair to say, a paranoid streak and then some, but even paranoids have enemies, and since the Tridentine mass was essentially suppressed in much of the church for a generation and more, Francis’s moves have not exactly been calculated to reassure Catholics of this persuasion about their place within the church.

This doesn’t mean traditionalists are “right” and the pope is “wrong.” (If you want to understand where Francis might be coming from, consider that the SSPX seminary in Argentina during his years as archbishop of Buenos Aires was run by this charmer.) [He is referring to former SSPX bishop Williamson.  This has been my thesis.] But it means that the conflict here has very specific contours, and the stakes involved are distinctive and not particularly influenced by, say, Francis’s social and economic vision (which some traditionalists find entirely congenial; see this Rorate Caeli post for an example). Which makes it very different from my second case study … [While this gives Rorate far too much ink, it does situate that site well in this set of three groups.]

2. Catholics who are economic conservatives or libertarians. […]

[Remember that the catholic Left such as the Fishwrap has been trying to paint anyone who doesn’t want redistribution of wealth or who doesn’t embrace the zero-sum game view, or who sees free markets as a way to raise more people out of poverty more effectively and more quickly as a “liberatarian”, which for them is a cuss word.  They’ve created a straw-man, chimeric “libertarian”.  Again, a true laissez-faire libertarian is a pretty rare bird.]

3. Doctrinal conservatives. These are conservative American Catholics whose Francis-era anxieties center around the issues raised during last fall’s synod on the family, and particularly around Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to admit Catholics in second marriages (which the church does not recognize as marriages at all) to communion — an issue I may have written aboutfrom time to time.

[…]

That picture — coming around to the point of this rambling taxonomy — is simply this. A future in which Francis’s “radicalism” (a term that would require yet another post to unpack, so I won’t) is defined by his approach to the social gospel, globalization and the poor is one in which the tension with traditionalists will remain intense but not high-profile, in which the tension with free-marketeers and libertarians will percolate in interesting ways, and in which conservative doubts about this pontificate will remain a particularly American phenomenon and a mostly elite-level tendency overall. [Again, with the small in number theme.  However, I think this group is growing in size and awareness, as are the other two, above.] And it’s a future, at this point, that I would welcome, since I’d be very happy to spend more time arguing with Bruenig about the church’s historical relationship to the welfare state and less time arguing about German cardinals and divorce.

But a future in which this pope’s “radicalism” extends to moves that look like an implicit change of doctrine around communion and/or marriage … in which it’s not just Hannity but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that’s in conflict with the throne of Peter … well, in that future the economic issues would become a sideshow, and the pope’s existing conflict with traditionalists would become the template for a doctrinal conflict that’s wider, global, and essentially unknowable in its results. And it’s that future, for reasons that I believe are more Christian than “conservative”, that I’d very much prefer the Catholic faith be spared.

Me too.

Posted in Francis, The Drill | Tagged ,
10 Comments

ASK FATHER: Priest sings final blessing like a Disney song

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

A priest sings the Final Blessing at Mass in a Disney-like “chant” as follows: “May the blessing of God be upon you, the blessing of The Father and The Son, and may the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Love be with you all your days.” He has the congregation trained to then respond with the exact same words. Then the Deacon says his part, “The Mass is ended…” Is there any point to complaining to the Pastor, then the Bishop, then Rome?

It depends on what you seek to accomplish.

Silly priests will continue to be silly priests.

If he’s doing this, and he is under the age of 40, there’s a chance that reason, logic, and passion might possibly (only possibly) cause him to change his ways.

If he’s over 40 (and I’d guess he’s more in the 55+ range if he’s doing silly stuff like this), there’s little chance of bringing about change.

Fr. Ridiculous might be cowed into complying by a strong bishop, at least when the bishop is around or when he thinks the bishop is looking. That presumes that the bishop is a strong bishop interested in implementing the proper liturgy of the Church. That’s not always a safe assumption to make, sad to say.

Perhaps the best way to go about it is with a smile and a song of your own.

On the way out of church, you might sing this to the priest, using that famous melody of from the best own song from Pinocchio:

When you wish to get my cash
Don’t be hasty, don’t be rash
Do the red words, say the black
It’s all we seek

Silly songs that twist my gut
Only keep my wallet shut
You sound like an aging hack
We’ll see next weeeeek

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Priests and Priesthood |
12 Comments

ASK FATHER: According to Paul VI do female readers have to remain outside the sanctuary?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Greeting Father! Corpus Christi Watershed has an interesting post regarding female altar servers:

In this article they mention Pope Paul VI allowing the use of female readers. It shows clearly they are allowed only when a male is not available and they must be outside the sanctuary.

Has this “directive” been changed or modified or amended or does it remain in force as originally written? I have not seen anything on this anywhere else. Thank you!

This matter has been wholly reordered by the 3rd editio typica of the Roman Missal and it’s accompanying General Institution.

Under the provisions of can. 20 in the 1983 CIC, a later law (such as the GIRM and the rubrics in the Missal) abrogates the earlier law.

The 1969 permission of Paul VI regarding women as readers performing their functions outside of the sanctuary is no longer in force.

For good or for ill, the current GIRM 101 states:

In the absence of an instituted lector, other lay people may be deputed to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture, people who are truly suited to carrying out this function and carefully prepared, so that by their hearing the readings from the sacred texts the faithful may conceive in their hearts a sweet and living affection for Sacred Scripture.

Further in GIRM 309:

The dignity of the Word of God requires that in the church there be a suitable place from which it may be proclaimed and toward which the attention of the faithful naturally turns during the Liturgy of the Word. It is appropriate that generally this place be a stationary ambo and not simply a movable lectern. The ambo must be located in keeping with the design of each church in such a way that the ordained ministers and readers may be clearly seen and heard by the faithful. From the ambo only the readings, the Responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; likewise it may be used for giving the Homily and for announcing the intentions of the Universal Prayer. The dignity of the ambo requires that only a minister of the word should stand at it.

The use of a suitable ambo for the proclamation of Holy Scripture has much more to do with the inherent dignity and sacrality of the Word of God than of the one who proclaims the readings.

These are not issues when the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is used.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
15 Comments

JUBILEE YEAR ANNOUNCED – OF MERCY!

On the 2nd anniversary of his election to the See of Peter, Pope Francis announced a Jubilee Year “of Mercy”.

The Jubilee will begin with the opening of the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica on the 8 December 2015, Feast of the Immaculate Conception and 50th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council. The Jubilee will conclude on 20 November 2016, Christ the King (in the Novus Ordo calendar).

He will promulgate the Bull proclaiming the Jubilee on the Sunday after Easter, “Divine Mercy”.

The last major Jubilee was announced by St. John Paul II for the Year 2000. Generally Jubilees come every 25 years or so, but there have been special Jubilees, such as that of 1983.

Francis made the announcement in the context of a penance service with individual confessions.

Pope Francis has spoken often and with great warmth about the need for the Sacrament of Penance. He gave a magnificent testimony to how important making a good confession is when, last year, again in the context of a penance service, he made his own confession at one of the confessionals in St. Peter’s Basilica.

The theme of “mercy” has been strong in this pontificate.

However, we must always remember that mercy cannot be separated from the truth. We cannot set aside the truth of Catholic doctrine in the name of mercy, because that would falsify mercy. Similarly, we cannot approach God seeking mercy without first discerning the truth about ourselves, our state of soul, our sins, the harm we have done to ourselves, to neighbors and to God’s love. Furthermore, mercy is not the enemy of justice. God’s justice we will receive whether we want it or not. God cannot be other than just. However, mercy is always there for the asking, provided that we do so with honesty and humility.

A Year of Mercy is an inspired idea. It reminds me strongly of something that Benedict XVI might have implemented. That said, there is no question that the theme of mercy has resonated constantly during the Pope Francis’ pontificate, even in his choice of motto, Miserando atque eligendo.

francis confession

 

UPDATE:

Yes, the Holy Father made his own confession also this evening.  This time, however, he was not in his own surplice and stole, just his house cassock.

Then he heard confessions:

15_03_13_Francis_confessions_01

Posted in Francis, GO TO CONFESSION, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
22 Comments