Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

Candlemas Eve and Candlemas Poetry

Posted on 31 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today is Candlemas Eve, and tomorrow is the Feast of the Purification. We call it Candlemas because, with the references to light in the liturgy, we bless candles.

Here are some poems for Candlemass

First and foremost, making a reference to the removal of Christmas decorations…

Ceremony Upon Candlemas Eve
by Robert Herrick

Down with the rosemary, and so
Down with the bays and misletoe ;
Down with the holly, ivy, all,
Wherewith ye dress’d the Christmas Hall :
That so the superstitious find
No one least branch there left behind :
For look, how many leaves there be
Neglected, there (maids, trust to me)
So many goblins you shall see.

And the longer version of the same…

Down with the rosemary and bays,
Down with the mistletow;
Instead of holly now upraise
The greener box for show.

The holly hitherto did sway,
Let box now domineer,
Until the dancing Easter day,
Or Easter’s Eve appear.

Then youthful box which now hath grace
Your houses to renew,
Grown old, surrender must his place
Unto the crisped yew.

When yew is out, then birth comes in,
And many flowers beside,
Both of a fresh and fragrant kin,
To honour Whitsuntide.

Green rushes then, and sweetest bents,
With cooler oaken boughs,
Come in for comly ornaments,
To readorn the house.

Thus times do shift;
Each thing his turn doth hold;
New things succeed,
As former things grow old.

A Candlemas Dialogue

by Christina Georgina Rossetti (after 1891)

‘Love brought Me down: and cannot love make thee
Carol for joy to Me?
Hear cheerful robin carol from his tree,
Who owes not half to Me
I won for thee.’

‘Yea, Lord, I hear his carol’s wordless voice;
And well may he rejoice
Who hath not heard of death’s discordant noise.
So might I too rejoice
With such a voice.’

‘True, thou hast compassed death: but hast not thou
The tree of life’s own bough?
Am I not Life and Resurrection now?
My Cross, balm-bearing bough
For such as thou.’

‘Ah me, Thy Cross! – but that seems far away;
Thy Cradle-song to-day
I too would raise and worship Thee and pray:
Not empty, Lord, to-day
Send me away.’

‘If thou wilt not go empty, spend thy store;
And I will give thee more,
Yea, make thee ten times richer than before.
Give more and give yet more
Out of thy store.’

‘Because Thou givest me Thyself, I will
Thy blessed word fulfil,
Give with both hands, and hoard by giving still:
Thy pleasure to fulfil,
And work Thy Will.’

Mary’s Purification

Sr. M. Bernetta, O.S.F. Robert, Cyril. Our Lady’s Praise In Poetry.
Poughkeepsie, New York: Marist Press, 1944.

Out went the stupid to wash the snow,
To cleanse the lily of Christ.
Wouldn’t you think that they all should know
The pearl who couldn’t be priced?
Wiser to purify the crystal stone,
To call the tulip unclean,
Than to wash the rose that God’s hand had sown,
Young Mary, the innocent Queen.

Candlemas

Francesca Franciscan Magazine – February 1960

The Mother brings her Candle
To the Temple of Desire,
In wax of flesh and weakness
But soul-wick full of fire!
A light to pierce the darkness,
Redemption for our race,
The gift of expiation
Before our Father’s face!
A flame of contradiction
To tyrant, Gentile, Jew,
But holocaust for ages,
Each dawn will see anew!
O take your Candle, Mary,
Too soon you’ll suffer loss
In Love’s great conflagration
On the altar of the Cross!

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Poetry | Tagged Candlemas, Poetry
3 Comments

14 ‘c’atholic Senators SUPPORT ABORTION past 20 weeks

Posted on 31 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Canonist Ed Peters has picked up on something Fr. Longenecker has done. I’ll add my voice.

From Peters’ excelleny canon law blog In The Light Of The Law.

About those Bloody 14 [allow me slightly to change the format, for effect]

Cantwell (WA);

Collins (ME);

Durbin (IL);

Gilibrand (NY);

Heitkamp (ND);

Kaine (VA);

Leahy (VT);

Markey (MA);

Cortez Masto (NV);

McCaskill (MO);

Menendez (NJ);

Murkowski (AK);

Murray (WA); and

Reed (RI).

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is right that the fourteen Catholic senators named above who voted to prevent the government from protecting pre-born babies from the savagery of abortion have, by just this one vote (and not counting the long string of similar steps that most of these fourteen have taken before), committed a grievous moral offense. By any objective measure they have each placed their souls in mortal jeopardy. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

Longenecker’s call for the fourteen to be named and held accountable by earthly means (if only to lessen the accounting they will surely owe at Judgment) is an exercise of his canonical right and probably even the duty as a member of the Christian faithful to make known his views on matters that pertain to the good of the Church—and the scandal given by prominent Catholics acting as they did here surely impacts the good of the Church (CCC 2284)—and to communicate his views to others in the Church (Canon 212 § 3).

Except to explicitate what Longenecker the priest takes for granted (but we laity need to be reminded of), that we should pray for each senator by name, we should pursue what steps the legal, political, and ecclesiastical system provides for such sad scenarios.

But, about that ecclesiastical redress, [NB] two qualifications to Longenecker’s call need to be offered.

First, as has been explained many times, the hideous deed committed by the Bloody 14 is not, standing alone, a crime under canon law and, even if combined with other such acts as many of the Bloody 14 have taken, is not a crime for which excommunication is the penalty (Canon 1369). Specifically, voting pro-abortion is not ‘procuring an abortion’ for purposes of Canon 1398 and so no excommunication for procuring abortion applies in response to voting for it. [for “procuring”] Catholics contacting chanceries and demanding excommunications, therefore, will be noted on the “Uninformed Critics” list and comfortably ignored—this time, with some reason.

Second, a single act, again, no matter how objectively gravely sinful it is, does not trigger the duty of Catholic ministers to withhold holy Communion under Canon 915 which canon operates in the face of obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin. Catholics contacting chanceries and demanding the withholding of holy Communion, therefore, will be noted on the “They Are on to Something but have Jumped the Gun” list and un-comfortably ignored—though again with some reason. [However, if there is a consistent pattern, that’s another matter.]

So, what to do?

Well, do exactly what Longenecker recommends in the legal and political sphere (for that matter, in the social sphere as well), lovingly shame the Bloody 14 into realizating what they have done and, please God, into personal and public repentance of it.

About excommunication, one may of course petition Rome (or local bishops) to designate political acts such as these as canonical crimes punishable by excommunication. I think there are major obstacles to such legislation but I (and other experts, I am sure) would certainly be willing to weigh in on the possibility.

About the withholding of holy Communion, this, I have said many times, urgently needs to implemented, but not in response to a single act (for that theory is canonically doomed to failure), but rather in response to a demonstrable string of such acts taken by most of the Bloody 14 (and several others, Nancy Pelosi leaping to mind). Here, unlike the excommunication idea above, the law is already in place (Canon 915), it just needs to be applied—correctly of course, but that is not a problem in many of these cases.

The Bloody 14 case might just trigger the long-overdue application of the law.

Finally, a personal observation? The repeated, though for now misguided, calls for excommunication in these cases, and the repeated, but worth-considering, calls for withholding holy Communion in these cases share this: they spring almost completely from Catholic laity and are almost completely ignored by ecclesiastical leadership. This almost total, multi-decade disconnect between people and pastors is source of serious tension in the Church. Pray that such tension is relieved before it erupts into even more serious problems.

What could lay people do – within the bounds of charity, always – to get a hearing and action from their pastors?

Posted in Canon Law, Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged abortion, can. 212, can. 915, CCC 2284
37 Comments

NYC Days 1-3: Slips and sliders

Posted on 30 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

People either like or hate my food posts. Hence, I enjoy posting them.

But first, as I watch what’s going on in the Church right now, two paintings at the MET jumped to my full attention.

First, my necessary entrance hotdog. The cart in front of the Met has great hotdogs, and the proceedes go to a wounded Marine. Tell them Fr. Z sent you.

Here is a portrait of a German merchant of the Hanseatic League by the amazing Hans Holbein.

Look at everything in the frame.

Did you see the slip of paper in the book? It sports the words which might have been a moto of the sitter. It’s a line in Latin from Terence’s Andria.

Veritas odium parit.

Truth breeds hatred.

Today, if people speak about about real problems of ambiguity and confusion being caused in the Church these days, they get terrible blowback. Certain libs pour out their venom on the those who insist that mercy cannot be extended at the expense of the truth. Truth and mercy must go hand in hand.

And another portrait by Holbein of another well-to-do merchant.

He, too, has papers. I’m interested in the one at his elbow.

This one has a line from the Aeneid: Olim meminisse iuvabit. This is just enough of a famous line that everyone would know. When Aeneas et al. are shipwrecked, he utters: “Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit… perhaps someday remembering these things will give you joy.”

That is to say: Things are really bad now, but someday in the future we will look back on these events and will be able to find the good in them and how they were, ultimately, of benefit.

Going on. Brueghel’s great summer harvest painting has people eating.

Carpeaux’s magnificent marble of imprisoned and starving Ugolino, as he is faced with the horror of eating his own children.

Corned beef and Pastrami from the 2nd Avenue Deli. It was good…. but… I must admit that I’ve had better.

That was a fun experience, by the way. I went to the Deli with a cop on the NYPD who is fairly high in the ranks. He remarked that it was like a joke: “So, … ‘dis cop an’ a priest walk into a Jewish Deli….” Indeed we were the focus of the attention of many tables. A couple of very Jewish families with little kids came over to say hello when they were finished and departing. Delightful. A good moment of public relations, too.

Last night a priest friend and a couple went to supper and started with sea critters. The oysters were great.

So, I’ve been ticking off my errands and visiting some new and old dining places and seeing friends.

And today I made an interesting BREAKTHROUGH on the VESTMENT front! Stay tuned.

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to |
15 Comments

ASK FATHER: Who is in charge of the Moon?

Posted on 30 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

It occurs to me that two of the three people on Apollo 11 were in the military at the time of their trip the moon. The command module pilot, Michael Collins, and the lunar module pilot, Buzz Aldrin, were both active duty military at the time of their trip. Is there an argument to be made that this is sufficient to make the moon part of the Archdiocese of the Military?

Thanks for your good work, and for keeping it light at times too.

There are a few bishops and priests, etc., whom I would happily send to your planet’s Moon, so that they could straighten the situation out for good.

However, as it stands now, it seems that the Moon is under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Orlando.

“ORLANDO?!?’, you may be saying. “Disneyworld? EPCOT? THAT Orlando?”

The idea is that, back in 1969 when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon, the Diocese of Orlando included Cape Canaveral. Because the journey to the Moon began from the Diocese of Orlando, Orlando had jurisdiction.

There is an anecdote about this. The late Archbishop Borders, at the time Bishop of Orlando, during an ad limina visit in Rome told Paul VI that he was the bishop of the Moon.

I would have given anything to have been there with a camera to record for history Paul VI’s expression as he considered this statement.

That said, we also must consider that the 1917 Code was in force at the time of the Moon landing. In the 1917CIC, can. 252 said that the competence of the Congregation for the Propogation of the Faith extends to “those regions which, since the sacred hierarchy has not been constituted, retain the status of a mission.” (Eius iurisdictio iis est circumscripta regionibus, ubi, sacra hierarchia nondum constituta, status missionis perseverat.)

This is a strong argument in favor of Propaganda having jurisdiction (hence, “Rome”). However, if Orlando, having a competing view, wanted to press its claim, the diocese could bring a case before the Apostolic Signatura to assert its claim to jurisdiction.

I suspect that the Archdiocese for the Military Services is, right now, stretched a bit thin and won’t immediately want to make any claims. I could be wrong. I’ll ask around.

And since we are in pre-Lent, and starting to think about fasting and abstinence, etc., regarding whether astronauts are obliged to fast, can. 13 of the 1983 Code (in force now) says that travelers are not bound to the particular laws of their own territory while they are absent from it, or by the laws of the territory in which they are present (with the except of laws which establish good order).

Hence, if there is going to be any colonization of the Moon, someone is going to have to work this jurisdiction thing out.

Maybe the Moon would be a good place for future retired Popes? Popes Emeriti? I deeply esteem Pope Benedict, but the thought of having a bunch of these ecclesiastical outliers around strikes me a lunacy. And, if that’s lunacy, what better place to plant them than on the Moon? With their great experience, they would do well in governance there, quiet as it might be.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged can. 13, moon
10 Comments

ASK FATHER: Visiting retired, elderly priests

Posted on 30 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader..

QUAERITUR:

I have a particular devotion to the Priesthood and priests and would like to start visiting retired priests who are no longer able to live in residence in a rectory and have had to move on into the nursing home for priests this Lent. There’s a bit of a problem, though. I’ve never visited elderly people, let alone elderly retired priests who likely don’t have much longer in this world. I’m also an introvert and not particularly great at making small talk with strangers, and notoriously great at saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, or saying something that sounds great in my head, but comes out completely wrong or gets misinterpreted and somehow offends someone. As a result, I’ve always shied away from this kind of work and stuck to cleaning priests’ bathrooms.

Do you (or your readership who may have done this before) have any practical advice or tips for going about doing this?

This is a good thing. Thanks for thinking about this. Many priests are pretty much alone in their lives, even though they are surrounded by people. That gets worse as they get older. I suspect that that is what awaits me, as a matter of fact, given my circumstances.

Every individual situation is going to present different issues. Sometimes just being there is good enough. Sometimes conversation is what is needed. Some people are talkers and some listeners. You’ll have to figure it out as you go.

It may be that some priests will tell stories about decades past, which could be pretty interesting. They have lore about the diocese that will be lost with their passing. Seminarians, too, should listen to the stories old priests tell. Sometimes I think that, with their consent of course, their stories should be recorded.

It may be that Father has a hard time talking, but he can listen. Perhaps he has a hard time reading. You could read aloud to him.

Visit and assess. Talk to the people taking care of him or who know him well. Figure it out.

You have your own inclinations, you write above. However, remember that true charity involves sacrificing one’s own inclinations for what is truly good for the other.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged corporal works of mercy
12 Comments

14 Feb 2018 – St. Valentine’s Day and Ash Wednesday

Posted on 30 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Each year that St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Friday, in Lent, we witness the lunacy of dispensations so that people don’t have to do their regular Friday, lenten penance.

This year, the Feast of St. Valentine – transmogrified, commercialized and warped by big business into something nearly perverse – coincides with Ash Wednesday, one of only two days remaining in the Church year when most Catholics are bound to both fasting and abstinence.

The UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald, has a piece about how this year Catholics are bound to fast and abstain on Ash Wednesday – St. Valentine’s Day insanity notwithstanding.

Catholic in good health aged 18 to 59 must fast and abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday. They may eat one full meal, supplemented by two smaller meals that together do not equal the full meal.

If you have been successfully programed and pressured through incessant advertising into a secular observance of St. Valentine’s Day, perhaps you can shift your observance to the day before Ash Wednesday, Shrove Tuesday.

Yes, I think that would work well. After all, “shrive” (whence, “shrove”) means both to present oneself for sacramental confession and, for the priest, to absolve a penitent.

So, by all means, this year, anticipate your celebration of St. Valentine’s Day on the day before Ash Wednesday and…

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, GO TO CONFESSION, Saints: Stories & Symbols | Tagged Ash Wednesday, St. Valentine
17 Comments

ASK FATHER: Re-bless a ring that has been re-plated?

Posted on 29 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have a sterling silver ring from a private vow I made a number of years ago. My spiritual director who witnessed my vow blessed my ring using the Blessing for any object from the Roman Ritual. Over the years it has become scratched and lost its shininess, so I was going to take it in to the jeweller to get polished and possibly plated with rhodium. Would doing this cause my ring to lose its blessing and require re-blessing? (Supposedly getting a chalice re-plated inside requires it to be consecrated again, which is where my thoughts on this are coming from).

You mention the case of the chalice. While some authors are divided, the strong consensus is that, if you gild the cup again, then – yes – the chalice must be reconsecrated before use. I know about “simply use the chalice and it will be consecrated again” blah blah. We are not minimalists. Our objects for worship are important. We are our rites. Let’s be more of who we are rather than less.

In the case of your ring, sure… have it plated. In that case, you could have it blessed again. But the blessing of that ring isn’t quite the same as the consecration of a chalice. It not hurt anything to bless the ring again. Necessary? Probably not.

On the other hand, that ring has been through lots of experiences with you and it shows wear just like you do. Spouses show wear to each other (and cause the wear) and they stick it out… sometimes without facelifts, if you get my drift.

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

ASK FATHER: Can a diocesan priest say Mass in an SSPX chapel?

Posted on 29 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Is it OK for a diocesan priest to offer Mass in an SSPX chapel on a regular basis?

Interesting.

Let’s consider a couple points.

Can. 932 §1 states:

“The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in a sacred place unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise; in such a case the celebration must be done in a decent place.”

The law says that Mass can be celebrated in a decent place. There is no question that a SSPX chapel is a “decent place”. One might debate about what “necessity” means. That’s a pretty flexible term. It seems to me that it could include the fact that Father wants to say Mass and he needs a decent place to do it and have proper furnishings, etc.

I don’t think there is a problem with this in a “one off” situation, or even a few times. Say a priest is traveling and the local SSPX priest says that the priest can use their chapel for private Mass.

If there is question of public Masses, it seems to me that the priest should have the good will of the local bishop where the SSPX chapel is located even for ONE public Mass.

While Francis has greatly altered the situation of the SSPX through his concessions regarding faculties for confession and for marriages in their chapels, there is still a ways to go. I think this situation requires the knowledge and consent of the diocesan bishop. Of course the SSPX superior should know about it, too.

That said, if the bishop is okay, and the SSPX superior is okay, then… why not?

After all, if a church has to close for some reason, sometimes a neighboring Protestant church will generosity lend their space for Masses. If in Protestant churches, why not in a clearly Catholic SSPX chapel?

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SSPX | Tagged can. 932, SSPX
7 Comments

2 Feb – Rosary To The Interior: For the Purification of the Church

Posted on 28 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I received an email about an interesting project.

On February 2, 2018, which is the day celebrating the double Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, there will occur throughout the United States the gathering of faithful in their parish churches to pray the Rosary for the intention of the Purification of the Church, and the Triumph of the Light of Christ over all sin and error.

While being inspired by the Rosary on the Borders in Poland, this Rosary event – titled Rosary To The Interior: For the Purification of the Church – does indeed have a different and very specific intention. Recognizing that the Catholic Church alone in this world was blessed and commissioned with the Light of Christ necessary for triumph over the Darkness of sin and error, and that this Light has now been severely obscured by the sin and errors of its own members, this Rosary asks us to turn our eyes inward in order to effect that interior purification which alone can once again make Christ’s Light manifest in its fullness to the world.

A website has been established, which offers a more complete explanation of both the nature and structure of this event. It is found here:

www.rosarytotheinterior.com

Posted in ACTION ITEM!, Our Solitary Boast | Tagged Holy Rosary
4 Comments

Fr. Murray looks again at the Profession about marriage issued by the Bishops of Kazakhstan

Posted on 28 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Not long ago, the Bishops of Kazakhstan issued a document, a Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage. I wrote about it and provided an audio reading of it HERE.

At The Catholic Thing my friend Fr. Gerry Murray has written a piece about it. Let’s have a taste, with my emphases and comments:

A Second Look at the Kazakh Bishops’ “Profession”

As has been widely reported, three bishops in Kazakhstan – Tomash Peta, Jan Pawel Lenga, and Athanasius Schneider – issued a Profession of the Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage on December 31, 2017. This precisely reasoned defense of Catholic teaching on marriage gets to the heart of the problems occasioned by the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia.

Now that the initial flurry of commentary has died down, I’d like to examine calmly here three paragraphs that summarize why permission to receive Holy Communion given to people who are in “second marriages” and have the intention to continue to commit acts of adultery is a grave offense against Catholic teaching on the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage. This permission abolishes the perennial sacramental discipline that protects and upholds this teaching. [The Church’s laws are not pulled out of a pointy hat. They are founded on divine law, revelation, and the experience of centuries. Cult (worship), Code and Creed are interwoven. Undermine one and you undermine the others. This is especially the case when changes touch on our most fundamental teachings and life events.]

The Kazakh bishops write: “Sexual relationships between people who are not in the bond to one another of a valid marriage – which occurs in the case of the so-called ‘divorced and remarried’ – are always contrary to God’s will and constitute a grave offense against God.” This is plainly true. Adultery is never pleasing to God, is never authorized or tolerated by God, is always evil.

They continue: “No circumstance or finality, not even a possible imputability or diminished guilt, can make such sexual relations a positive moral reality and pleasing to God. The same applies to the other negative precepts of the Ten Commandments of God. Since ‘there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.’ (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17)”

This is a key point sometimes overlooked in the debate. Adultery can never be never “a positive moral reality and pleasing to God.” Therefore, the Church must never encourage people to engage in acts that are always per se offensive to God. It is pastorally deficient [that’s a diplomatic way to put it] to advise that a person committing such evil acts may responsibly judge himself not to be guilty of giving serious offense to God due to alleged circumstances that diminish his culpability for his sins.

How can he be so sure of his innocence of his persistent mortal sin that he thinks God will not hold him to account, but rather wants him to receive the Holy Eucharist without repenting of his sin? And why would a priest advise someone that he may continue to commit the sin of adultery as long as that person thinks he will not be held guilty by God for that sin?

The priest’s job is to tell people not to sin, not to tell them to discover reasons why their sin is not sinful for them. It is an act of spiritual arrogance in God’s sight for the priest advisor or the civilly “remarried” person to claim that, because of some alleged exculpatory reason, he does not have to obey the Sixth Commandment now and in the future, and that he can worthily receive Holy Communion. We are called by Christ to conform our lives to God’s law, which includes the recognition by our intellect of the justice and holiness of that law.

[…]

Read the rest there.

Looked at from one point of view, the main job of the priest is to say, “No.” I suspect that most parents find that to be true.

Just as good parents do not make rules simply to ruin what might have been a great time for their children, so too neither God’s laws nor the Church’s are intended simply to screw with our heads and repress our fun.

They are given to us in love to help us not to hurt ourselves and others and to see more easily amidst the rocks and thorns what path to tread towards heaven.