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{]:¬)

Fr. Z heading to Rome for Summorum Pontificum, also asks for input

Posted on 4 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A few items as the Labor Day weekend winds to a close.

First, I will be in Rome for the Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage. I’m only there for a week and I will be REALLY BUSY for a lot of it. Just FYI before people get all worked up. The whole thing will be like a blognic anyway.

I will be saying Masses for my benefactors daily while I am in the Eternal City.

Second: When in Rome, I will stop at Gammarelli to check on another project, this time personal. For a while now I’ve been wanting to have “travel” vestments made to go along with my wonderful portable altar made by St. Joseph’s Apprentice (aka The ULTIMATE Gift For A Priest -received for my 25th) HERE. Since I travel a bit, I’ve gotten good use from it so far. (Note to the carpenter: the bookstand… I have feedback for you.) I have a couple trips lined up for it in the future, for which I got a hard Pelican case (thanks to a reader).

I am presently on a trip with friends and it is set up for daily Mass:

What I lack are travel vestments in the liturgical colors.

I had an idea: were some readers interesting in helping with the vestments, I would find a way to have your name embroidered on them or on their pouch so that you would be remembered in prayer as I (or a priest who inherits them) vests.

At the moment, I am contemplating an order or dupioni or shantung silk. If I do it tomorrow, I could probably get it in time to take to Rome with me. Otherwise, I might buy it in Rome to keep the cost down. A reversible travel vestment with all the parts from Gammarelli would be about €600 (c. $715). [To be clearer: €600 is for one reversible vestment, with two colors. That’s for each set. A couple of you asked about that in email.] Buying the fabric will, I think, cut the cost. I may even have little antependia made, which would be fun. The chalice veil and burse would have to be about half size, I think: I use a miniature chalice and paten from an old Mass kit. The great altar cards are from SPORCH.

So, I also have to figure out the best combination of colors. Considering that they are reversible, and that I use the Usus Antiquior when I have this altar with me, I was thinking

White – Red
Violet – Rose
Black – Green

Perhaps priests could jump in about the best combinations. I tend also to use Votive Masses that need violet. But we also have lots of saints who need white or red. So, perhaps,

White – Red
Violet – Green
Black – Rose

Which would help because I’d need mainly two vestments. But what about Requiem Masses? Another possibility would be to add a couple more colors into the mix: Gold and Blue, or Gold and (repeated color). Interesting permutations occur. Trim will probably by silver all around. It unlikely that I would be traveling with this altar for Gaudete and Laetare…. so… rose? How about throw blue into the mix, for fun.

White – Red
Violet – Green
Black – Blue
___
Rose – Gold

Dunno.

I invite input.

Meanwhile, in the U.P. of Michigan, I visited the grave of a JESUIT! Yes, I know.

This is Fr. Marquette, the great missionary. Many of us in the northlands know his name because things in our cities are named for him.

Here is Fr Marquette waving goodbye to all the modern Jesuits, even as he wonders where on Earth they think they are going.

Meanwhile, which drink is mine?

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged vestments
20 Comments

Help Carmelite nuns who make altar linens

Posted on 4 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

There are several groups of sisters whom I like to support. I just received a note from another: the Carmelites of Port Tobacco.

Frankly, I had to look that up to see if it was a real place and group. It is! HERE

They wrote that they have handmade altar linens available for sale. HERE

May I make a suggestion? Find out if your priest has an upcoming birthday, or anniversary, or some such, and get him a set of linens.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Campus Telephone Pole, Women Religious | Tagged altar linens, Carmelites, Port Tobacco
3 Comments

NoKo EMP: The calculations have changed

Posted on 4 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From Breitbart:

Gaffney: On North Korea, ‘Strategic Patience’ Has Enabled Strategic Blackmail

When Barack Obama handed off to his successor the presidency of the United States, he impressed upon Donald Trump that his greatest worry was North Korea.

The intervening months have made clear why – with dictator Kim Jong-un’s incessant ballistic missile tests of ever-more-formidable weapons, his sixth underground explosion on Sunday apparently of a thermonuclear weapon and his escalating threats, which now include explicitly an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on America’s vulnerable electric grid.

Equally apparent is the fact this witches’ brew of trouble is befalling the United States on President Trump’s watch because the Obama administration basically did nothing to attenuate the danger. Instead, it dressed up inactivity and passivity in the face of the metastasizing danger as “strategic patience.”

Even before the North Koreans’ latest intercontinental missile launches, nuclear test, and threat of an EMP attack, Mr. Trump and his senior subordinates have properly signaled that the era of strategic patience is at an end. Unfortunately, in the absence of urgent course corrections on several fronts, the period now dawning is likely to be one of strategic blackmail.

[…]

An EMP attack: the nightmare scenario.

Try to contemplate what would happen were you to lose all electricity, and even most things that run on batteries would simply not work. What would happen to your life? What would your world look like after a week of zero electricity? A month?

If you haven’t read much about the impact that a large EMP might have, try…

One Second After by William R. Forstchen US HERE – UK HERE
This is a standard in the genre. The author, who’s got game, has written two sequels.

Lights Out by David Crawford. US HERE – UK HERE

And not exactly an EMP scenario, but in the same line:

Patriots by James Wesley Rawles. (It’s sequel HERE) UK HERE

There are quite a few now that explore the impact of an EMP. One series, the Perseid Collapse, by Steven Konkoly, starts with a pandemic and then moves to an EMP scenario.

You get the drift.

Just for a start, in case you aren’t anxious enough already.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
25 Comments

ASK FATHER: EMHC’s at a Communion rail

Posted on 4 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Can a lay person who is commissioned as an EMHC distribute Holy Communion to communicants kneeling at a Communion rail under the Novus Ordo?

Allow me to remind the readership of the 1997 document which ought to frame every questions concerning “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”. Everyone involved in that activity should review the Congregation for the Clergy’s “ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST” [HERE]. This authoritative document says that “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful’” is “to be avoided and eliminated.”

In the rubrics (i.e., the “law”) the determination of the usefulness of EMHC’s is left to the priest to decide. That said, the local bishop could issue a law restricting or delimiting their use.

Is it wrong to use EMHC’s at a daily Mass with 10 people, or a Sunday Mass with 150? Yes.

Is it against the law? No.

To the question. EMHC’s are allowed by law. Kneeling is an acceptable way to receive, arguably the best way. Nothing in the law says that the “conga line” method is how Communion must be distributed. Nothing in the law say that the ENHC has to stand in one place. I surmise that an EMHC could move along a Communion rail. However, it is one thing for a priest to do this, who has years of experience, and an EMHC who might do this only occasionally. I would say that, if it is determined that EMHC’s will used, they would need specific instructions and close oversight.

Again, it seems to me that most of the situations in which EMHC’s are employed don’t really call for EMHC’s.

Meanwhile here is an EMHC at a “Communion rail” at a Pope Francis mega-Mass.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged EMHC, Extraordinary Ministers of Communion
33 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can a Pope name his own successor?

Posted on 3 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

If a Pope wanted to ensure that the next holder of his office would be of like mind and continue his policies, is there any moral or theological impediment to his naming his own successor before his death?

Interesting theoretical question. I am unaware of any opinions by good, specific writers on the topic, though it is possible that someone like St Robert Bellarmine has already worked through the issues. I’ll take a stab anyway, animi caussa.

So, can a Pope do this, or has a Pope done this, or should a Pope do this?

There are a couple things to be held in tension. First, the Pope has from God full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, which he can always exercise unhindered. The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls. Next, we mustn’t exaggerate or overestimate what the Pope can do. He is still bound in some ways.

The way by which Popes, Bishops of Rome have been chosen has changed over the centuries, though for a long while now it has been pretty standardized: he is elected by the body or college of “hinge-men” or Cardinals, who are technically the special clergy of Rome. Keep in mind that Peter was, yes, the first “Pope”, but he also wasn’t. The office of “Pope” who is the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Peter is a reality that has taken on more manifest work and institution than what Peter concerned himself with. While scholars are divided, it is probable that Peter chose his successor – probably Linus – by consecrating him. It is possible that Pope may have consecrated others. However, we generally go with Linus. So, Peter seems to have designated the one he wanted to succeed him and it seems that the Church of Rome followed his wishes. I don’t know if that is the same as choosing your successor or not, since the historical circumstances were entirely different. As the Church grew in number and in freedom and became more institutionalized, the method of choosing the leader changed. We must avoid anachronism problems.

Later, however, when the Pope really had become Pope in the more modern sense, I think there is the case of Felix IV who tried to designate his successor, a Boniface II. However, the secular state, the Senate forbade discussion of a successor and Felix was thwarted as the clergy of Rome objected and another was elected. As it turned out they sort of shared the role for a bit and then Boniface was duly elected in his own right. So, yes, Felix IV named his successor, but, no, it didn’t work… until it did.

Today, Popes are the Legislators in the Church. They literally lay down the law for how Popes are elected. Also, the state is completely out of the picture since the odd events of the conclave in which St. Pius X was elected. Now, every Pope can change his predecessors laws and procedures, though in fact they have remained pretty much the same for a long time, so long that it is nearly unthinkable to do it otherwise. Hence, Popes have a kind of moral bond, at least, to follow the same.

That said, the Pope, who has full authority, could theoretically step by step abrogate the laws of election of a Pope. He could, I suppose, even reprobate those laws, that is, abolish them in a such a severe way as to make it impossible to appeal to custom. Say a Pope did that and then completely wiped out the College of Cardinals, forbidding it, etc. Then I suppose he could establish a new office of Coadjutor Bishop of Rome with right of succession. That Pope could say, “Upon my death, Coadjutor Bishop of Rome John Zuhlsdorf will immediately succeed me and you shall prostrate yourselves three times as you approach him and then kiss his right shoe.” On the death of that Pope, I would take new name “Father Z I” or else “Clemente XIV Ganganelli I”, but I would defer the foot kissing thing for a while for reasons which should be obvious: by the time I get done with my first acts, many fewer people would have to kiss the sacred slipper.

But you asked if there were moral or theological impediments. I think there is certainly a moral impediment, unless the circumstances were so dire for the Church that something had to be done as the End Times drew to a close. But then, ironically, the Church of Rome might be more like it was in the beginning than it has become. Theological impediment? I don’t see one, given how the very earliest Bishops of Rome were chosen, or at least strongly indicated. However, it could be that the length of time and the association with the papal office of elections by a College of Cardinals is, by now, so deep, that that method could even have become its own theological locus.

So, yes, I think that a Pope cannot do this. Popes don’t have the moral authority to wipe out aspects of the Church’s life which are so deeply part of her marrow. I’m sure you can think of a few of those aspects (HINT: liturgy). It hasn’t clearly been done in the past and it would go directly contrary to how Popes have been chosen for a very long time. It would be an exercise of raw power that would not go unchallenged. No Pope would be stupid enough to try and I suspect that even the Holy Spirit could be bothered to intervene against a move like that.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged conclave, papal election, pope, Successor of Peter
19 Comments

Another young person’s reaction to Pope Francis about liturgical reform

Posted on 3 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A young woman at my home parish, St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN, penned a piece for the National Catholic Register in reaction to Pope Francis’ recent curious statements about liturgical reform.

As you may recall, the Pope (or, better, his ghost writer) seemed to pour cold water (and gasoline, it turns out) on the desire of those for a so-called “reform of the reform” even as he seemed to be invoking the Magisterium in saying that forward progress cannot be reversed.

What makes one scratch one’s head is that what drives movements in the Church (such as that which drove the Liturgical Movement and which will, inexorably drive further developments in in our sacred liturgical worship) don’t seem to be the object of magisterial declarations.

To make an analogy, King Cnute the Great famously instructed his sycophant vassals, who greasily said that even the tide would obey him, that there were limits to what he could command. In their presence, Cnute ordered the tide not to come in. Of course the tide did come in. He told his fawning nobles, “How empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name other than He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.” After that, the King hung his crown upon a crucifix and never wore it again.

Similarly, people can claim that all day that there is “no going back” when it comes to liturgical reform, but they simply can’t know that. We can strongly suspect that the impact of Vatican II (and many of the things wrought in the name of the Council) will never be reversed, but we can’t know that.

Popes don’t command the tide. Their enthusiastic and imprudent and papalatrous supporters, like the toadies who told Cnute that even the tide would obey him, have to learn this soon before they do harm to souls.

Pope Benedict, in issuing his monumentally important Summorum Pontificum, ensured that there would be a dialogue of the two forms, traditional and post-Conciliar. There is now a channel for the forward flow. However, Benedict hoped for mutual enrichment of the forms. He issued his norms and then, at the end of the instructive letter to the world’s bishops that accompanied the Motu Proprio, entrusted those norms to the Blessed Virgin. Did you know that? Benedict entrusted his project to Mary.

Neither Benedict nor Francis command the tide any more than King Cnute. We can only channel it. That’s what Summorum Pontificum is: it’s like a channel. Channels guide the flow.

Of course it is possible to hack away at the banks channels to create chaos and destruction.

To use another simile, the Motu Proprio is like a gravitational force introduced to act on a body that is moving in its trajectory. Remember your physics? Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion unless another force works on them to change their course. So too, side by side celebrations of the traditional form with the Novus Ordo will exert a strong influence particularly on the Novus Ordo, since the traditional form has far more “gravitas“.

Will tradtional gravitas entirely turn around and reverse the course of the Novus Ordo? I doubt it. I can’t know one way or another. I am sure that the gravitas by which the traditional faithful conduct themselves will be a factor. But I digress.

As I have been saying on this blog for many years, the Novus Ordo is not going to go away any time soon. Moreover, we now see many fruits of Benedict’s bold and overdue move. That has spooked some people who are now flailing about trying to stop the tide, trying to spur Francis to command the tide that he cannot command.

Back to the piece that NCRegister. Here’s a short taste of the writer said (my emphases and comments):

[…]

[M]ost of the Catholic Church has been reeling ever since the introduction of the New Mass, and it seems to me that the waves from the rocks thrown into the water are settling down, and the things worth having are floating back to the surface. A lot of younger Catholics, raised since the 80s are fishing out of the water the beautiful things left to sink to the bottom. So, I say, let us not reverse what has been done, let us move forward. [I respond: “Forward” is the only gear that the tank has.]

The pope gave three keys in his speech to having a “living” liturgy. These were to have a focus on the lively presence of Him who ‘dying has destroyed our death, and by rising, restored our life,” to be not clerically focused but “an action for the people, but also by the people,” and to transform one’s life—it should bring us into relationship to God. The pope said that, “There’s a big difference between hearing that God exists, and feeling that he loves us, just as we are, here and now.” (quotations from Crux). [ALL of those things are possible and even carried out in a superior way in the older, traditional form of Mass, especially when celebrated ad orientem. Think about this: Would Catholics have gone to Mass or have tolerated he dearth of these elements for centuries? Of course not.]

These points Pope Francis made are important and can be fully practiced in the OF and the EF. It is not weak human beings that can make a “living” liturgy, but the action of the Holy Spirit—and by simply gathering in Christ’s name, he has promised to be there (Mt 18:20). Christ makes himself lively and present, we can call upon him to help us at whatever form of liturgy is celebrated. Even at the barest bones liturgy when the priest’s heart is not in it—if he says the right words of consecration, Christ is there. In my experience, each individual at Mass has to choose to focus on the lively presence of God—it cannot be forced. And more often than not a quiet, simple liturgy is much more conducive to prayer and worship than one interrupted by much chatter. Yet, no matter what the liturgy is like, it is up to each individual member of the faithful to enter fully into the Mass.

The pope said that the liturgy should be an action “for the people” and “by the people.” The practice of the priest leading us in prayer with us all facing the same way towards a crucifix (ad orientem), facing reverently Jesus’ Real Presence in the tabernacle, is much more suited to a mass “for the people” than one in which the priest speaks facing the laity (versus populum). [Exactly.] When done this way, the priest is no longer the center of attention. He does not have to “perform”, but can simply enter into the person of Christ that he is for the Church at that moment. He is able to allow the liturgy to no be about himself front and center at Mass, but face his Lord and act as Christ at the Last Supper for the people. The people at this time must actively participate by bringing our own internal offerings to the sacrifice—uniting our sufferings and joys and bringing sorrow for our sins which are the very cause of Christ’s death and resurrection. The liturgy should facilitate this internal participation to match the actions on the altar as we all worship Our Lord as a united body.

[…]

I see that, after all these years, the ars celebrandi so carefully fostered at St. Agnes is still bearing fruit.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged Cnute, gravitas, liturgical reform, Pope Francis, St. Agnes, tide
5 Comments

YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS

Posted on 2 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

Registered or not, will you in your charity please take a moment look at the requests and to pray for the people about whom you read?

Continued from THESE.

I get many requests by email asking for prayers. Many requests are heart-achingly grave and urgent.

As long as my blog reaches so many readers in so many places, let’s give each other a hand. We should support each other in works of mercy.

If you have some prayer requests, feel free to post them below.

You have to be registered here to be able to post.

I still have two pressings personal petitions. No, I actually have THREE now. I can’t get a break, it seems. Ut Deus….

ALSO…

During this 100th year commemoration of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, remember the central message Our Lady gave to the Church and to the world: penance and reparation for sins and for the conversion of sinners.

Off your sufferings in reparation for sins and for the conversion of sinners.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
42 Comments

Pres. Trump proclaims Sunday, 3 Sept a National Day of Prayer

Posted on 2 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Pres. Trump issued a proclamation that Sunday 3 September should be a National Day of Prayer Texas and for the victims of Hurricane Harvey and the subsequent Rescue, Relief and Recovery effort.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION:

Hurricane Harvey first made landfall as a Category 4 storm near Rockport, Texas, on the evening of August 25, 2017. The storm has since devastated communities in both Texas and Louisiana, claiming many lives, inflicting countless injuries, destroying or damaging tens of thousands of homes, and causing billions of dollars in damage. The entire Nation grieves with Texas and Louisiana. We are deeply grateful for those performing acts of service, and we pray for healing and comfort for those in need.

Americans have always come to the aid of their fellow countrymen — friend helping friend, neighbor helping neighbor, and stranger helping stranger — and we vow to do so in response to Hurricane Harvey. From the beginning of our Nation, Americans have joined together in prayer during times of great need, to ask for God’s blessings and guidance.

This tradition dates to June 12, 1775, when the Continental Congress proclaimed a day of prayer following the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and April 30, 1789, when President George Washington, during the Nation’s first Presidential inauguration, asked Americans to pray for God’s protection and favor.

When we look across Texas and Louisiana, we see the American spirit of service embodied by countless men and women. Brave first responders have rescued those stranded in drowning cars and rising water. Families have given food and shelter to those in need. Houses of worship have organized efforts to clean up communities and repair damaged homes. Individuals of every background are striving for the same goal — to aid and comfort people facing devastating losses. As Americans, we know that no challenge is too great for us to overcome.

As response and recovery efforts continue, and as Americans provide much needed relief to the people of Texas and Louisiana, we are reminded of Scripture’s promise that “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” Melania and I are grateful to everyone devoting time, effort, and resources to the ongoing response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts. We invite all Americans to join us as we continue to pray for those who have lost family members or friends, and for those who are suffering in this time of crisis.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 3, 2017, as a National Day of Prayer for the Victims of Hurricane Harvey and for our National Response and Recovery Efforts. We give thanks for the generosity and goodness of all those who have responded to the needs of their fellow Americans.

I urge Americans of all faiths and religious traditions and backgrounds to offer prayers today for all those harmed by Hurricane Harvey, including people who have lost family members or been injured, those who have lost homes or other property, and our first responders, law enforcement officers, military personnel, and medical professionals leading the response and recovery efforts.

Each of us, in our own way, may call upon our God for strength and comfort during this difficult time. I call on all Americans and houses of worship throughout the Nation to join in one voice of prayer, as we seek to uplift one another and assist those suffering from the consequences of this terrible storm.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second.

~ DONALD J. TRUMP

Posted in PRAYER REQUEST | Tagged Donald Trump, prayer
12 Comments

England and Wales to celebrate Ascension THURSDAY and Twelfth Night!

Posted on 1 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I saw at the site of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, that Epiphany and Ascension Thursday, are to be celebrated on their proper days!

Huzzah!

Although, they waffled a little with Epiphany.

No more Ascension Thursday Sunday in England.

As I wrote in my column the UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald:

In some places the celebration of the Ascension of the Lord (it was a Thursday), has been transferred to Sunday, which makes it “Ascension Thursday Sunday”. The dislocation of such an important and ancient feast falls into the category of “Really Bad Idea”. The celebration of Ascension on Thursday is rooted in Scripture. It reflects the ancient practice of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Nine days, not six, intervened between the Lord’s physical ascent and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

And also:

Speaking of blessings, we have lovely seasonal blessings in our Latin Church to confer at Epiphany. Keep in mind that real Epiphany remains on 6 January. Various bishops conferences have determined that you apparently have enough to do in your lives during the week and, hence, you shouldn’t have to rearrange anything quotidian to allow time to participate at Holy Mass. Ergo, they transfer your Epiphany obligation to Sunday, which is already a day of obligation. But I digress.

Fr. Z kudos to the Bishops and to the CDW.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged Ascension Thursday, Bishops of England and Wales, Epiphany
13 Comments

Card. Sarah schools Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin

Posted on 1 September 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Robert Card. Sarah has corrected homosexualist activist Jesuit James Martin, SJ., in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

How Catholics Can Welcome LGBT Believers
It’s possible to stay faithful to the church’s teachings without turning away millions.
By Cardinal Robert Sarah

The Catholic Church has been criticized by many, including some of its own followers, [including Jesuit James Martin, SJ] for its pastoral response to the LGBT community. This criticism deserves a reply—not to defend the Church’s practices reflexively, but to determine whether we, as the Lord’s disciples, are reaching out effectively to a group in need. Christians must always strive to follow the new commandment Jesus gave at the Last Supper: “Love one another, even as I have loved you.”

To love someone as Christ loves us means to love that person in the truth. “For this I was born,” Jesus told Pontius Pilate, “to bear witness to the truth.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this insistence on honesty, stating that the church’s message to the world must “reveal in all clarity the joy and demands of the way of Christ.”

Those who speak on behalf of the church must be faithful to the unchanging teachings of Christ, because only through living in harmony with God’s creative design do people find deep and lasting fulfillment. Jesus described his own message in these terms, saying in the Gospel of John: “These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” Catholics believe that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church draws its teachings upon the truths of Christ’s message.

Among Catholic priests, one of the most outspoken critics of the church’s message with regard to sexuality is Father James Martin, an American Jesuit. In his book “Building a Bridge,” published earlier this year, he repeats the common criticism that Catholics have been harshly critical of homosexuality while neglecting the importance of sexual integrity among all of its followers.

Father Martin is correct to argue that there should not be any double standard with regard to the virtue of chastity, which, challenging as it may be, is part of the good news of Jesus Christ for all Christians. For the unmarried—no matter their attractions—faithful chastity requires abstention from sex.

This might seem a high standard, especially today. Yet it would be contrary to the wisdom and goodness of Christ to require something that cannot be achieved. Jesus calls us to this virtue because he has made our hearts for purity, just as he has made our minds for truth. With God’s grace and our perseverance, chastity is not only possible, but it will also become the source for true freedom.

We do not need to look far to see the sad consequences of the rejection of God’s plan for human intimacy and love. The sexual liberation the world promotes does not deliver its promise. Rather, promiscuity is the cause of so much needless suffering, of broken hearts, of loneliness, and of treatment of others as means for sexual gratification. As a mother, the church seeks to protect her children from the harm of sin, as an expression of her pastoral charity.

In her teaching about homosexuality, the church guides her followers by distinguishing their identities from their attractions and actions. First there are the people themselves, who are always good because they are children of God. Then there are same-sex attractions, which are not sinful if not willed or acted upon but are nevertheless at odds with human nature. And finally there are same-sex relations, which are gravely sinful and harmful to the well-being of those who partake in them. People who identify as members of the LGBT community are owed this truth in charity, especially from clergy who speak on behalf of the church about this complex and difficult topic. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

It is my prayer that the world will finally heed the voices of Christians who experience same-sex attractions and who have discovered peace and joy by living the truth of the Gospel. I have been blessed by my encounters with them, and their witness moves me deeply. I wrote the foreword to one such testimony, Daniel Mattson’s book, “Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace,” [US HERE – UK HERE] with the hope of making his and similar voices better heard.

These men and women testify to the power of grace, the nobility and resilience of the human heart, and the truth of the church’s teaching on homosexuality. In many cases, they have lived apart from the Gospel for a period but have been reconciled to Christ and his church. Their lives are not easy or without sacrifice. Their same-sex inclinations have not been vanquished. But they have discovered the beauty of chastity and of chaste friendships. Their example deserves respect and attention, because they have much to teach all of us about how to better welcome and accompany our brothers and sisters in authentic pastoral charity.

Cardinal Sarah is prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Appeared in the September 1, 2017, print edition.

As a counterpoint, Jesuit-run organ of Jesuitical apologetics, Amerika Magazine, has Fr James Martin’s response to Card. Sarah’s WSJ piece. Here is some.

First, Martin declared victory because someone listened to him. Well, whoopdeedo.

Then…

“Cardinal Sarah’s op-ed inaccurately states that my book is critical of church teaching, which it is not. Nor am I,” Father Martin said.

Is that so?

Martin thinks that the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ought to be changed, that’s all. Of course, change the language, and you change the meaning of the paragraph.

What Martin proposes is that the Church stop calling homosexual acts disordered and rather call them “different”. The are “differently ordered”.

UPDATE:

At Catholic World Report an Evangelical writer responded to Martin in regard to the “Nashville Statement”.

[…]

Martin’s tweets confirm the by-now widely held perception, reinforced repeatedly by Martin himself, that his raison d’etre involves undermining the Catholic Church’s upholding of Jesus’ teaching on a male-female foundation for sexual ethics, upon which Jesus’ teaching about the binary character of marriage (twoness) is based.

A consideration of Martin’s “seven ways” of responding to the Nashville Statement (an evangelical declaration that affirms “that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness” (Article 10)) underscore the truncated gospel (or even anti-gospel) with which Martin operates.

[…]

The bottom line is this: Fr. Martin is using—or even abusing—his office to undermine what for Jesus was a foundational standard for sexual ethics.