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{]:¬)

ASK FATHER: What is “properly disposed” for Holy Communion?

Posted on 11 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Judas_Kiss_sm From a reader…

One of the requirements for receiving communion, besides being in the state of grace, is being “properly disposed” to receive. This is something that never gets talked about. How exactly should we discern whether we are “properly disposed,” and what kind of things make one not properly disposed?

We are persons who have both body and soul.

Our proper disposition for reception of Holy Communion should be both spiritual and physical.

In the spiritual category, we should be reasonably sure that we are in the state of grace. We should not be aware of any mortal sins, unconfessed and unrepented and unshriven. It may be possible for a person to make a “perfect act of contrition” and then go to Communion, with the intent of making one’s confession as soon as possible. This is laid out in can. 916:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass [that’s obvious for priests] or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.

This canon allows for Communion in a truly exceptional situation. Note that there must be a “grave reason” for receiving Communion and there is no opportunity to make a confession.

Is there today perhaps so much emphasis on every person always receiving Communion at every Mass that we have lost sight of the fact that it is okay not to receive even if you could?

In any event, a “perfect act of contrition” is not to be bandied about lightly, as if it were as easy as pie.

In the physical category, we have to attend to the Church’s law about the Eucharistic fast. Unless one is ill, etc., the law says that we should fast from food and liquids (other than water) for one hour before reception of Holy Communion. Since most Masses last long enough that the moment of Communion can arrive some 30-60 minutes after the beginning of Mass, the one hour Eucharistic fast is hardly serious. If you are at some grander Mass for a feast or occasion, you could stuff your pie-hole with Krispy Kremes on the way up the stairs into church and still go to Communion. That’s obeying the letter of the law and we have to say that it is sufficient for disposition. If someone wants to fast more, that’s great! But the law says one hour.

That’s for the interior physical person. How about the exterior physical person?

The CCC also speaks to our outward appearance and demeanor.

1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. [That’s the inward.] Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest. [That’s the outward.]

So, it does matter how people dress for church. We don’t all have to dress in perfect formal wear. But we have to do our best. You can tell when people are trying and when they aren’t. There is also the matter of bearing. Slouching in the pew like partially filled sack of lentils is not the proper dis-position for preparation for Communion. Shuffling forward in a distracted way and sticking your hand out as if reaching for a movie ticket or your change at the grocery store is not proper dis-position.

Let each person make a careful examination of conscience about disposition, inward and spiritual, outward in dress and gesture.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 – RSV)

BTW… I once made a mug with the text of can. 915, which concerns the the distribution of of Communion to people who are publicly in a situation wherein scandal is given by Communion being given to them. However, can. 916 concerns the state of soul of the person when the details of sin or behavior are not necessarily known. This canon concerns the recipient’s responsibility, whereas can. 915 regards the minister’s responsibility. So, I determined that I needed to make another mug for can. 916.

For example:

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, 1983 CIC can. 915, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged can.916, Communion, disposition
12 Comments

Tosatti about Burke about Müller and Peters about Humanae vitae

Posted on 11 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”

The case of the former Prefect of the CDF, Gerhard Ludwig Card. Müller has prompted a lot of stories and speculation. What is clear is that Card. Müller was appointed to a five-year term by Pope Benedict. When Benedict abdicated, all offices (except a couple) were also vacated. Francis reconfirmed Müller for the rest of his term. Müller’s term was up on 2 July. On 1 July Francis informed Müller that he would not be reconfirmed as Prefect.

On top of those facts, it seems that Müller also declined to accept a post as Patron of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. Hence, Müller remains in Rome, as a Cardinal, with membership on other Congregations, but without a specific mandate in a dicastery. It seems he will not be going back to Germany as a diocesan bishop.

Tales have started to multiply. Some of them are based on what Müller himself said in an interview with a German newspaper. For example, that he spoke by telephone with Card. Meisner (of the Four Cardinals of the Five Dubia) on the night Meisner died.

However, other tales include spectacular accounts of more of the conversation that Card. Müller had with the Pope when the Pope, effectively, fired him.

Today I read at the site of Marco Tosatti, perhaps the best Italian language vaticanista working right now – surely better than that capricious weather vane Tornielli – that he obtained a brief statement from my old friend Greg Burke, who is now the papal spokesman. HERE

Tosatti presents (in Italian) a status quaestionis and then offers Burke’s response about the tales told at the site, for example, 1Peter:

C’è stato uno sviluppo. Abbiamo ricevuto dal portavoce vaticano, Greg Burke, una mail, che ovviamente riportiamo, avendo dato conto di quanto aveva scritto One Peter Five. Eccola:

Caro Marco,
Ho letto il tuo pezzo di oggi sul Card. Muller.
Ho solo una cosa da dirti:
La ricostruzione è totalmente falsa.
Ti prego di pubblicare quanto ti scrivo.
Grazie,
Greg

My translation

Dear Marco,
I read your piece today about Card. Muller.
I have only one thing to say to you:
The recreation is completely false.
I ask you to publish what I am writing to you.
Thanks,
Greg

I’ll just add that, when I read those tales, I was pretty skeptical. Also, Greg Burke doesn’t just make statements without consultation.

On another note, please read Ed Peters on the tales about conspiracies to undermine or overturn Humanae vitae.

I entirely believe that there are many enemies of Humanae vitae who labor to destroy its teaching and authority.

Does Pope Francis have a secret – or not so secret – team which he has tasked with this objective? I wrote about that here before.

Dr. Peters wrote at his place – HERE – that the teaching on contraception can’t be overturned.

About that ‘Humanae vitae’ rumor

Too many Roman rumors, it seems of late, have turned out to be true (or close enough to true) to rule out recent rumors that a “papal commission” has been set up “to reconsider” (perhaps as a step toward repudiating?) Bl. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae(1968). In any event, a few observations.

1. Humanae vitae itself, as brilliant as it was and as prophetic as it turned out to be, was not an infallible exercise of the (papal) magisterium. But rather than defend that view against the few serious-thinking Catholics who might disagree let me move directly to my second point.

2. In my opinion the central teaching in Humanae vitae—thatcontraception between married couples (both terms being correctly understood) is intrinsically evil— [NB]is a proposition infallibly taught by the (ordinary universal) magisterium of the Church. I say this in light of my third point.

3. That the substance of Humanae vitae is infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium is masterfully argued in: John Ford & Germain Grisez, “Contraception and the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium”, Theological Studies 39 (1978) 258-312. This article expands on ideas considered in John Ford & Gerald Kelly, “Can the Catholic Teaching Change?”, in theirContemporary Moral Theology (Newman Press, 1963) II: 256-278, but the 1963 article, while very good, need not be read in order to follow the 1978 discussion. If Ford and Grisez are correct (as I think they are, even in the face of some important challenges over the years) then no substantive modification of Humanae vitae can be wrought by any commission, papal, dicasterial, or otherwise.

4. What one could imagine being discussed hereabouts is whether the rejection of contraception set forth (I would say, infallibly) in regard to conjugal relations is applicable to non-conjugal relations. Some theologians, solidly committed to defending Church teaching against conjugal contraception, have flagged the fact that the anti-contraception tradition, witnessed to in Humanae vitae, has been clearly articulated, so far at least, only in regard to conjugal sex. See, e.g., Ramón García de Haro (Spanish priest, 1931-1996), Marriage in the Documents of the Magisterium: a course in the theology of marriage (Ignatius, 1993) 297-298. To be sure, others (including the esteemed William E. May, translator of García de Haro) argue that the Church’s rejection of contraception between married couples, already part of the infallible magisterium, also applies to non-conjugal sex (sex that is, of course, by definition, objectively immoral); but it is also possible that the Church’s rejection of conjugal contraception does not apply outside of that context. I grant, of course, that explaining that difference, not to mention keeping it from morphing into a license for all sorts of morally illicit acts, would not be easy in age ill-equipped to follow subtle discussions and ill-disposed toward even trying, but for those respectful of the Church’s tradition of precision in complex matters, drawing the distinction seems a possibility.

In any case, my main point is this: before any commission or study group could move against the substance of the Church’s teaching reflected in Humanae vitae, the arguments for its infallible certainty, arguments set forth and steadily defended by Ford and Grisez, would need to be addressed and soundly rejected.

Something I don’t see happening. At all.

Be careful out there in the interwebs. Be very careful.

Posted in Francis, One Man & One Woman, The Drill | Tagged Ed Peters, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Greg Burke, Marco Tosatti
20 Comments

Pope establishes a new “path” to beatification with new criteria: Offering of Life

Posted on 11 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE 12 July 2017:

I will not allow this post to be an occasion to bash Pope Francis or to call into question in the combox the processes of the Congregation.

___ Originally Published on: Jul 11, 2017 @ 09:33

The Pope issued a Motu Proprio Apostolic Letter today by which he established a new path (iter) by which a person might eventually be beatified.

Hitherto, we have had the main paths “super heroicitatem virtutum …. living the life of heroic virtues” and “super martyrio … martyrdom”. Now there is to be a path also of vitae oblatio… the offer of own one’s own life having lived a life of virtue at least in the ordinary way.

There is an oddity about the document. But what isn’t odd today about documents of the Holy See? The oddity is this, at least in the way that it is found in the Bolletino (only the Italian Bolletino and not the English… ’cause … well…). The Bolletino gives the TEXT in Italian and, beneath that, the Latin TRANSLATION. And yet the document has a Latin TITLE, which is screwed up in the title of the item in the Bolletino, but which nevertheless ought to be Maiorem hac dilectionem.

Here is a fast but still coffee-deprived translation of the first, important bits of the document HERE:

“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)”

There are worthy of special consideration and honor those Christians who, following very closely the footsteps and the teachings of the Lord Jesus, freely and willingly offered their lives for others and persevered on till death in this intention.

It is certain that the heroic offering of life, prompted and sustained by charity, expresses are true, full, and exemplary imitation of Christ and, therefore, is worthy of that admiration which the community of the faithful is accustomed to reserve to those who voluntarily accepted martyrdom of blood or have exercised in a heroic level. The Christian virtues.

With the comfort of the favorable opinion expressed by the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, which in the Plenary Session of 27 September 2016, studied closely whether these Christians merit beatification, I establish that the following norms be observed:

Art. 1

The offering of life is our new particular case of the “iter” of beatification and canonization, distinct from the case of martyrdom or of heroic virtues.

Art. 2

The offering of life, in order that it be valid and efficacious for the beatification of a servant of God, must correspond to the following criterion:
a) the free and willing offering of life and heroic acceptance propter caritatem of a certain death and in a brief time limit;
b) the exercise, at least in an ordinary degree, of the Christian virtues before the offering of life and, thereafter, until death;
c) the existence of reputation of holiness (fama sanctitatis) and signs, at least after death;
d) the necessity of a miracle for beatification, taking place after the death of the servant of God and through his intercession.

Art. 3 […]

Art. 4

The Positio on the offering of life must correspond to the dubium: An constet de heroica oblatione vitae usque ad mortem propter caritatem necnon de virtutibus christianis, saltem in gradu ordinario, in casu et ad effectum de quo agitur.

[…]

The bulk of the document deals with the details of the procedure, etc.

In the Church we have had the ancient teaching and tradition of “red” or bloody martyrdom for the sake of charity whereby the martyr dies giving witness in the face of hatred for Christ, the Church, the Faith or some aspect of the Christian life that is inseparable from our Christian identity. There is also a long tradition of identifying “white” martyrdom, coined by St. Jerome, whereby a person gives witness through an ascetic life, withdrawal from the world, pilgrimages involving great sacrifice, or who suffer greatly for the Faith but who do not die in bearing witness. Coming from another tradition there is a kind of “blue” (or “green”) martyrdom, involving great penance and mortifications without necessarily the sort of withdrawal from life that a hermit or a cenobite might live. Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, writes of different kinds of martyrdom, bloody, public martyrdom in time of persecution and secret martyrdom, not in time of persecution. He wrote that secret martyrs are no less worthy of honor, because they also endured sufferings and the attacks of hidden enemies, but they persevered in charity.

In principle I think that this is a good move… if we are going to stay on the course of so many causes for beatification, that is. Once upon a time, it was an extremely difficult process to investigate a life, gather proofs and organize all the documentation properly, and then study it thoroughly, etc. Now, with the modern means of travel and communication, that process is easier. Many more causes have resulted and, because they in fact corresponded to the criteria established, more causes have been successful. Also, it was the clear desire of John Paul II that there be more examples of Christians “raised to the altar” for our edification and imitation, so as to say, “Yes, it IS possible to be a saint!” I think that results have varied in that project. In a way, it is good to encourage people to aspire to sainthood. However, once the number of beatifications and canonizations multiplied, they seems less “special”. Also, if this can be imagined, the “truly amazing” saints perhaps get lost in the sea of “merely amazing” saints, if you get my drift. Again, the Pope made that call. Popes get to make the call about which beatifications and canonizations are good for the Church here and now. They can speed or slow the timing of the causes.

This new category of “offering of life” fills a gap. For example, the undoubtedly great St. Maximilian Kolbe beatified as a Confessor by Paul VI in 1971, but canonized as a saint by John Paul II in 1982 as a martyr, not a confessor. His is a case of bridging categories. The dedicated Nazi death camp murderers probably hated the Church, the Faith and priests and had no problem killing them. However, St. Maximilian offered his own life in place of another prisoner. It could be argued that he wasn’t killed because of the Faith, but because of his offer. His interesting, and heroic, case could be addressed by this new category of iter, the vitae oblatio.

I can imagine also cases of a pregnant woman refusing to have an abortion even though bringing a child to term kills her. The great St. Gianna Beretta Molla Molla refused to have an abortion and hysterectomy while pregnant with her fourth child knowing full well that she could die… which she did. During her life she was deeply involved with works of charity for the poor. She would probably be a candidate for beatification by this iter.

I can imagine any number of circumstances whereby people make a sacrifice for others and die as a result, though the death they died was not necessarily that of bloody martyrdom from hatred for the Faith. For example, Fr. Vincent Capodanno was a NAvy Chaplain serving Marines in the Vietnam War. He was killed trying to give last rites to the wounded after refusing medical aid for his own severe wounds. His cause is now already open, so I suppose that it would have to be retooled in order to take this new iter.

I can imagine a case of a person perhaps – setting aside issues of the acceptability of organ transplants, which are becoming more “ordinary” now – donating an organ to save someone’s life and, in so doing, weakening herself to the point of eventual death in a fairly short time. If it could be demonstrated in the Positio that she had lived a virtuous and holy life, even not necessarily, the life of heroic virtue, this new iter could be followed in her cause.

I can imagine a person who, diagnosed with a horrible disease, sure to bring death if not treated, might possible refuse treatment and then undertake to offer all his sufferings for the sake of a specific person’s needs. That might be on the edge of this iter. I am trying to think of examples.

In any event, I suspect that this new iter will result in many more causes being opened. Results will vary and the quality of some of the processes… well… we’ll see. Also, I suspect that some cases that may have lingered for a while might get an injection of new energy.

Is this is “lowering of the bar”? On the one hand, there are cases of “heroic virtue” (which must be properly understood. I’ve written about what that means elsewhere. (I did the official Studium with the Congregation for Causes of Saints.) On the other hand, this new iter does not require “heroic” virtues, but “ordinary”, although at the end of the act of offering of life there is end of life – and it will have to be proven with proofs in the Positio that there was an act of offering of life and that that act lead to death.

Posted in Modern Martyrs, Saints: Stories & Symbols, The Drill | Tagged beatification, canonization, iter, Maiorem hac dilectionem, oblatio vitae, offering of life
24 Comments

DANGER! COYOTE ACTIVITY! Winters v. Summorum Pontificum

Posted on 11 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Recently, Fishwrap‘s Michael Sean Winters, the Wile E. Coyote of the catholic Left, wrote an angry piece about the 10th anniversary of Benedict XVI’s great Motu Proprio, which was a kind of Emancipation Proclamation for all the priests of the Latin Church and the faithful who want to fulfill their “legitimate” aspirations as St. John Paul II called them.

Wile. E. is all about how divisive and angry those who want traditional Catholicism are. If only they were inspired by the spirit of Vatican II! How placid and cordial they would be! Like MSW! Review HERE for just how kind and uniting MSW is.

Some bits from his recent Summorum screed:

Noooo… I don’t think so.

Here’s another way to put it. As you watch the following, you have the sense of the ACME fueled arguments and the intent of Wile E.’s piece at Fishwrap.

[For those of you who are young, the coyote wants to kill the cheerful little roadrunner, and he devises cunning schemes to accomplish his goal usually with the help of products from ACME.]

The coyote got a great new batman suit back in 1956.

Here’s an updated version.

Meanwhile, I spotted this pic the other day. With a few changes it could be posted as a pop up window at Fishwrap.

The moderation queue is ON. We are NOT going to have here a combox as vicious as uncharitable – and hypocritical – as what MSW allows on his posts.

Posted in Liberals, Lighter fare, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged Michael Sean Winters, MSW, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Wile E. Coyote
11 Comments

10th anniv. of Summorum Pontificum : Solemn Mass in Notre-Dame de Paris

Posted on 10 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I was sent a link to some beautiful photos of a Solemn Mass celebrated in the great Cathedral of Paris, Notre-Dame. HERE A couple of examples:

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged Archd. Paris, Notre Dame, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
6 Comments

REVIEW: Fr. Gerald Murray v. Jesuit homosexualist activist Fr. James Martin

Posted on 10 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have some homework for you.

First, read at the National Catholic Register the outstanding, comprehensive analysis of what homsexualist activist Jesuit Fr James Martin is attempting. It is written by Judy Roberts. HERE

Then read my friend Fr. Gerry Murray’s obliteration of Jesuit James Martin’s recent book, which is a manifesto of homosexualist activism and worse. This is also at the National Catholic Register. HERE

Father James Martin Proposes an Alternate Catechism
BOOK REVIEW: The popular Jesuit priest puts forth the notion that the Church has misunderstood God’s plan for human sexuality for her entire history.
Father Gerald E. Murray

In his new book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity (HarperCollins), Jesuit Father James Martin has written a critique of the Catholic Church’s dealings with what he calls the “the LGBT community.”

What is the “LGBT community”? This acronym describes three groups of people: those who engage in, or feel drawn to engage in, homosexual activity (lesbians and gays); those who engage in, or feel drawn to engage in, both heterosexual and homosexual activity (bisexuals); and those persons who reject their sexual identity and think that they are in fact a member of the opposite sex (transsexuals/transgendered persons).

Is this, in fact, a community? Not really.

This is a lumping together of those who reject the natural order of human sexuality in different ways, and who thus share a common interest in seeing that laws and societal norms and customs that support that natural order be proscribed. [There is a movement in the Church to detach human sexuality from the purpose for which God intended it. Once it is detached from procreation and marriage, anything goes. That’s the brass ring.]

Father Martin’s book has practically nothing to say about bisexuals and transsexuals/transgendered persons. His book is about homosexual persons, and more specifically about Catholic homosexuals. Yet even this category of persons is not fully treated. Father Martin writes about Catholic homosexuals who embrace the “gay identity.” He ignores completely those Catholics who experience same-sex attraction and do not positively embrace this as their identity. [What a surprise.]

He never once mentions Courage, a Catholic apostolate founded in 1980 by Cardinal Terence Cooke and entrusted to the direction of the late Father John Harvey.

In a book that alleges to analyze and critique the Catholic Church’s outreach to homosexual Catholics, this omission cannot be accidental.

The point of this book is not to suggest ways in which the Church, in fidelity to the teaching of Christ, can improve her outreach to those persons who feel attracted to commit the sin of sodomy in the hope that they will reject this wrongful tendency and embrace chastity. If that were the case, then the very successful experience of Courage, which has spread throughout the United States and internationally, would have been at least mentioned, if not highlighted.

[NB] The real purpose of this book is to advocate for a relaxation of the Church’s teaching that sodomy is gravely immoral and that any attraction to commit acts of sodomy is an objective disorder in one’s personality.

Father Martin rejects the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the “inclination” to “homosexual tendencies” is “objectively disordered” (2358). He writes:

“The phrase relates to the orientation, not the person, but it is still needlessly hurtful. Saying that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is ‘disordered’ in itself is needlessly cruel” (pp. 46-47).

In a recent interview, he called for the use of the replacement phrase “differently ordered.” That would be a change in the Church’s teaching. [NB] It would mean that God created two different orders of sexual behavior that are both good and right according to his will: Some people are homosexual by God’s express design and some are heterosexual by God’s express design. [Which we reject.]

If that were the case, then homosexual acts themselves could no longer be described, as they are in the Catechism in Paragraph 2357, as “intrinsically disordered.” If the inclination is simply different, and not disordered, then acting upon that inclination is simply different, and not disordered. Homosexual activity would simply be natural behavior for “differently ordered” people. [This is the goal for these activists. Fr. Murray identified it clearly.] […]

[… The vivisection continues as Fr. Murray provides quotes from the Jesuit’s book …]
Here we have the danger posed by this book: Father Martin puts forth the notion that the Church has misunderstood God’s plan for human sexuality for her entire history and that she must now switch to a new teaching, namely that the union of man and woman in marital love is not the only path for the true and good expression of human sexuality.

The thesis of this book is that lesbians, gays, bisexual persons and transsexual/transgendered persons have been made to be such by God, [wrong] and thus they should gladly live and express their God-given, differently ordered sexuality in a differently ordered way.

The truth is very different.

God in his goodness helps all of us to deal with our problems and temptations, no matter what they might be. One of his first mercies is to reveal to us the truth about our common human nature, including the truth about human sexuality, which is differentiated between male and female and is only rightly expressed by a husband and wife in the martial embrace that is in itself procreative and unitive.

Inclinations or tendencies toward sexual acts that are neither procreative or unitive, and thus inherently immoral, do not represent who we are or how we were made by God. They are deficits, ultimately traceable to original sin, which need to be dealt with by God’s grace and our willingness to believe firmly that God’s law is good and will produce the greatest happiness in our lives.

Fr. Murray did an excellent job of exposing this Jesuit’s false positions. Be sure to read the whole thing over there.

Posted in Sin That Cries To Heaven | Tagged Fr. Gerald Murray, Fr. James Martin SJ, homosexualists, homosexuality
13 Comments

Your Good News

Posted on 10 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Do you have some good news to report? We could use some.

Here is some good news… well… it’s also bad news. I guess it depends on your perspective.

One Quarter of Ordinations in France Belong to the Tridentine Rite

In 2017 all French dioceses ordained only 84 priests. [That’s bad news… but it’s good news, if we consider the liberals that could have been ordained.] Nearly half of the active diocesan priests in France are over 75 years old. [Ditto.] In 2015 there were 5410 active priests over and 6217 priests under 75 years old.

A quarter of all French priests ordained in 2017 belong to communities of the Old Rite. [That’s a big deal.] Le Figaro comments that the “traditionalist movement is no longer marginal”. [That’s a fact.]

The net is good news. Right? The Traditional Rite is on the rise, the priestly demographics are shifting. As the demographic changes the influence of more traditionally inclined priests will increase, drawing forth more faithful men who will have good models.

Posted in Priests and Priesthood, Seminarians and Seminaries | Tagged France, ordinations, priesthood
16 Comments

Wherein another priest rants: Liberal hypocrite priests and bishops

Posted on 10 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

For the record, I endorse the following in its entirety.

From Fr. Dwight Longenecker (alas, still at Patheos) from some time ago, 2015, but recently spotted on Facebook – with my usual treatment:

Blowing the Whistle on Liberal Hypocrites

On various websites and papers “Catholic” writers discuss “spirituality” in reverent tones and say how much they love the church while they support abortion, same sex marriage, women’s ordination and the whole progressive agenda. They’re hypocrites. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] As Pope Francis has pointed out, a Cafeteria Catholic is not a Catholic. They say they believe one thing–the Catholic faith–but they publicly and formally renounce the Catholic Church’s teachings and they think they’re just fine in doing so. [Remember the last part of the classic Act of Faith? “I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.” God cannot be deceived. These people are in serious peril.]
It gets worse. The real snakes in the grass are the liberal hypocritical priests and bishops. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] You know there’s a sort of media darling priest who smiles and writes clever books and goes on TV to give seemingly sage spiritual advice who then turns around and supports the LGBT agenda. [I have one or two in mind, yes.]
Only these priests are cagey. [That’s one word.] They know how the church works. They pose their points as “compassionate questions” and “observations” They are very smart and know how to walk the tightrope–never going too far, but all the time undermining true Catholic teaching with their talk about “listening” and “dialogue” and “acceptance” and “accompanying”.
They’re hypocrites, and the worst kind of hypocrites because they assume the outward form of being good, faithful and true Catholics better than anybody else.
They’re not true and they’re not faithful. They’re wolves in shepherd’s clothing and Our Lord spoke clearly about the rustler who comes in to the sheepfold to rob and kill.
It’s time to blow the whistle on these hypocrites and call them what they are.
But do you know what will happen if you do? [Ohhhh yes. I surely do. I’ve been stabbed in the back by these types more than once.]
They’ll play the passive aggressive game. [Which is not how real men deal with conflict.] If you blow the whistle and declare that the emperor is naked they’ll come over all offended and hurt.
They’ll put out their bottom lip and assume the spanked puppy dog look and say, “How could you be sooo judgmental and harsh? How could you be so unaccepting?”
They’ll sneak back in with their serpentine smiles and say, “Come, let’s be friends! Let’s forgive one another! Let’s talk. We need to listen to one another more!” Which means “You listen to me. I’m going to filibuster this debate until you give in. I’m going to talk and talk and use false logic and human reasoning and emotional blackmail and spiritual bullying until I wear you down and you change your mind.”
Don’t be taken in by them. They’re hypocrites and usually they are not only hypocrites but heretics. They divide and destroy Christ’s church and imperil souls.
Here endeth the rant.

I’m Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, and I endorse this message.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Mail from priests, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged Fr. Longenecker, hypocrites
18 Comments

Remembrance of things past

Posted on 10 July 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today is the 146 birthday of the Marcel Proust. Big deal, right? It’s just that the OED’s WOTD today is “madeleine”. “Madeleine” makes me think immediately – and in an appropriately nostalgic way – of a certain feast, of a certain priest, and of a certain cookie.

The feast of St. Mary Magdalene is coming up soon, on 22 July. As of last year she has a feast, again, in the Ordinary Form calendar, and she was given her own preface (which has a Latin error in it, btw… HERE).

The priest I have in mind I met in Rome. He was very kind to me. He was once rector of St. Cecilia in Trastevere and also ran a residence for college age men who lived in community, ate and prayed together. Some went on to pursue vocations to the priesthood. I stayed there for a summer when I was studying Latin with Fr. Reginald Foster in one of his early (famous) summer boot camps. Foster, as a matter of fact, introduced me to this group. After I left the hell-hole that was my US seminary, I stayed there again for a summer before enlisting in a new seminary in Rome and diocese. I phoned him the day I was “deselected” (yes, that was really the word the rector used, the coward), and he told me to kick the dust off and come to Rome, there would be a place for me and he’d help me find a new path. Thus began my long Roman era, serving Masses in the cloister of St. Cecila, doing office work at the Sant’Uffizio, and sorting Italian from the less … acceptable Romanaccio I was quickly picking up in the streets of Trastevere. I recall sitting under orange and lemon trees in the courtyard with this priest on a still blazing warm evening, and listening to him reminisce about his mother, Maddalena, who had also died on her name day, the feast of St. Mary Magdalene. It was 22 July 1989. I had never seen a priest roll up the sleeves of his cassock before and that image and the moment has stuck in my head ever since. Anyway, say a prayer for don Antonio, who died a few years ago, and for his mother. Try to remember also the mothers of priests.

The cookies I have in mind are called “madeleines”. These are beautiful little scallop-shaped affairs, instantly recognizable. They aren’t really named after Mary Magdalene, but, who cares? You might try making some. If you don’t have a mold – US HERE – UK HERE.

Rightly or wrongly, Mary Magdalene has long been associated in art and literature with ongoing penitence for past sins. Hallow her upcoming feast with a thorough examination of conscience, which can be bitter. Then, after GOING TO CONFESSION, have some madeleines… perhaps with Mystic Monk Coffee. They will sweeten your remembrance of things past.