The demise of a Brutalist church

I read at California Catholic Daily, that a church (non-Catholic) built in the Brutalist style is being torn down.  There is even a photo.

This gives hope to us all.  Brutalist and church should never be in the same brain, much less the same building.

That said, another, even greater, sign of hope is the ongoing project in Madison, WI, to replace the Catholic student center parish church, St. Paul’s, with a real church.  The present structure is, as you may have already guess, Brutalist.  It is brutally Brutalist.  In the illustrated dictionary of Brutalism this church’s picture would be by the entry for “Brutalist”.

This church is realllllly ugly.

Before…

There are surprisingly – happily – very few photos of this place.

The project to replace it is HERE.

On the other hand…

A worthy project.  I might have built otherwise, but they are seriously constrained by space.  I do, however, like Romanesque.  Were I to be asked to build a church, it would probably be Romanesque.

I understand that a good deal of the money has been raised to begin the work on the new St. Paul’s.  Prayers (and donations) would be welcome, no matter where you are.

If there were any school on this your planet that needs a good facility for a Catholic center, it must be the ultra-weird University of Wisconsin – Madison.

 

 

Posted in Brick by Brick | Tagged , , ,
45 Comments

ASK FATHER: Gelatin during Lent

Click to buy!

Now that we are coming up on Lent, people are starting to think about what may be eaten on Ash Wednesday and on Fridays.  May I eat insects?  May I eat crocodile?  May I drink Mystic Monk Coffee?

Yes, and you must drink Mystic Monk Coffee.  Rather, you must at least order Mystic Monk Coffee: it is licit to give it away.

From a reader:

Is gelatin (made from skin, bones, and connective tissues of animals) considered meat?

I now put on my Unreconstructed Ossified Manualist cap to answer as I reach for my old moral theology manual, never far from my desk.

Gelatin.  From Compendii Theologiae Moralis (Sabetti-Barrett) n. 331, :

QUAER. 1°. Quid veniat nomine carnis, ovorum et lacticiniorum?

Resp. Nomine carnis veniunt omnia animalia in terra viventia ac respirantia, ut communiter admittunt theologi ex regula tradita a S. Thoma vel, ut S. Alphonsus innuit, n. 1011, animalia quae sanguinem habent calidum; vel illud quod consuetudo regionis ut carnem habet; vel, si nec consuetudo praesto sit, dubium solvi potest considerando mentem Ecclesiae in sanciendo delectu ciborum, ut comprimendae ac minuendae carnis concupiscentiae per salutarem abstinetiam consuleret; examinetur, an huiusmodi animal simile sit aut dissimile iis quorum esus interdictus est et an illius carnes humano corpori validius nutriendo et roborando idoneae dignoscantur; et si ita appareat, ista caro inter vetitas est ponenda. Benedict XIV., De syn. dioec., lib.11, c. 5, n. 12. Haec quatuor multum deservient omni dubitationi solvendae.

Nomine autem ovorum et lacticiniorum intelliguntur omnia ea quae originem ex carne ducunt et habent rationem cibi.

Ova et lacticinia et condimenta etaim ex adipe animalium quorumlibet permittuntur; non amplius restringitur usus ad adipem carnis suinae.  Porro butyrum permittitur, et margarina.

Pepsina non est prohibita diebus abstinentiae, nec, ut nobis videtur, gelatina.  E contrario, bovina caro peptone praeparata (peptonized beef), extracta carnea, uti vocantur, prohibentur…. Pari ratione, stock, i.e., essentia carnis coctae cum ossibus, etc. prohibetur.

So there you have it.  Gelatin is from meat, but it is not meat.  Gelatin is permitted, according to this author, on days of abstinence.

But be sure to avoid peptonized beef!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , , , , , ,
29 Comments

What does the TLM mean to you?

From a reader:

Reason #19878 for Summorum Pontificum.

Posted in Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , ,
33 Comments

There’s marriage and then there’s marriage*

I had a comment in my messages from an Observant Person who had the misfortune to read an article about Card. Kasper’s remarks on marriage in advance of the Synod.

The Observant Person pulled a strange quote from Kasper via CNS:

“he allowed for the possibility that in very specific cases the church could tolerate, though not accept, a second union.”?

Huh?  “Tolerate though not accept”?

There’s marriage and then there’s marriage*

How can the Church tolerate what the Church cannot accept? There is a logical disconnect.

What is this supposed to look like in concrete terms?

Let’s take this into the parish. There are second marriages and they are tolerated but not accepted. How is that going to work? Does anyone think that people will be content for very long knowing that they have a second class marriage? They are tolerated, but not accepted? No, what will happen is that people will come to see the second marriage as the real marriage. The first marriage was the one with training-wheels. No, everyone will come to accept the second marriage as the real marriage.

How is this supposed to work? Are they supposed to do a little penance service before their second marriage is “blessed”? Will Father smile at them with only half of his mouth? In sermons about marriage, will the Bishop talk – with a little sneer – about those people out there with marriages that we Just Tolerate™?

Only tolerated, not accepted. What a window of opportunity that gives us!

Think of the shame factor possibilities.

Hey! I know! This is like “We tolerate homosexuals, but we don’t accept them!” How would that work? Pretty well?

Is this really what we want to be saying?

I can see this now. Father is in the pulpit, and he says: “Please understand this everyone. We only tolerate, but we don’t accept your second marriage!”

What the people in Columbia Heights hear is: “Father said that our second marriage okay!”

And then there are the third marriages. Hey! If second marriage is real-er, then third marriage is really real-er. Good, better, best! Keep on marrying until you get it right.

Like a lot of Kasper’s work, it seems subtle until you start to read it.

I then brought in a couple of my other friendly correspondents to discuss.

One Smart Correspondent wrote back:

[Kasper] wants us to follow the Orthodox into plain error.

Clearly.

Another Smart Correspondent wrote back:

I’m sure what he’s (sloppily – on purpose, I fear) referring to is the possibility of an “internal forum” solution. I maintain that an internal forum solution is only acceptable with the application of the “brother-sister” solution:

“Okay, you’ve made a mistake in divorcing your first wife – your faith was not fully alive at that point, and you did not understand the gravity of what happened, nor is there any objective proof to back up your conviction that that first marriage was invalid. Then, still in darkness, you entered into a subsequent union, have settled down, raised a family with this second woman and now have revived your baptismal faith. You would like to practice that faith and receive the sacraments. Fine – the Church won’t ask you to separate bed and board from the mother of your children. Yet, we cannot “bless” this second union while your wife is alive, nor can you engage in marital intimacy with this woman (no one has an absolute right to sexual activity – something our society seems to forget). As long as your former marriage is not well-known to the parish, and your status does not cause wonderment here, you can go to confession and receive Holy Communion, living a life of continence and chastity with the mother of your children as long as your current status perdures.”

That is, of course, the way this has to be done.

People make mistakes in life and some mistakes just can’t be fixed.  Therefore, we move forward with the difficult path, but the only path that preserves charity and integrity.  Will people “fall” or “fail” in these situations?  Sure, they will.  Then they regroup, resolve, confess, and move forward, until they die.

This is how life works: not every mistake can be “fixed”.

UPDATE:

More on the wisdom of Card. Kasper from the Canonical Defender!

Check out Ed Peters’ post at his fine blog In The Light Of The Law.

UPDATE:

Another of my Smart Correspondents writes:

In itself, [Kasper’s] statement is unintelligible: toleration and acceptance mean the same thing. These terms cannot logically be contrasted as they are here.

His is pseudo-casuistry. Possibility really means in actual practice, very specific cases means upon demand, tolerate means accept and declare an adulterous union not sinful.

This speech was highly praised by Pope Francis, as being theology done on the knees. Wow. This in fact is a worldly accomodationist rejection of Catholic doctrine by a Cardinal of the Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. Error is bold and undocile.

UPDATE:

The Italian daily Il Foglio has published the entire text of Card. Kasper’s controversial and very long talk.   HERE

Posted in Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , ,
83 Comments

More perversion of something that was good.

I am not making this up.

From Breitbart:

GIRL SCOUTS HIRE LESBIAN AS CHIEF ‘GIRL EXPERIENCE OFFICER’

As millions of moms consider digging into pocketbooks for Girl Scout cookies this year, they may be interested to know about the hiring of Krista Kokjohn-Poehler in the Girl Scouts executive office in New York City.
Kokjohn-Poehler is an out lesbian married to a woman named Ashley Kokjohn. And, given her sexual preference, it may strike some as odd that her job title is “Girl Experience Officer.”

[…]

“Girl Experience Officer”…

What could go wrong?

If their cozying up to Planned Parenthood wasn’t enough to convince you skeptics not to have anything to do with this group, will this be enough?

Posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Pò sì jiù, You must be joking! | Tagged ,
12 Comments

QUAERITUR: What to do about people being late for Mass?

From a reader:

QUAERUNTUR:

I recently moved and in my new parish I notice that on a consistent basis approximately 5- 10% of the congregation shows up late to mass. The majority of those that are late generally arrive within the time frame of the First Reading to the Psalm. Of course, this is terribly distracting to those of us that arrived on time, as ushers scatter up and down the aisles directing traffic like a NYC cop at rush hour.  Naturally,  lateness to Mass is not a new occurence. Perhaps the percentage of those arriving late is not even much different than at my previous parish and I had just grown so accustomed to so as to barely notice.  I have three questions based on my observation: [I like one question, but I’ll be lenient.]

1) Was this such a common problem pre Vatican II? (My guess is that it was not)

2) Is this a common problem currently in Extraordinary Form parishes? (My guess is that it is not)

3) What practical measures might be taken by conscientious parishioners and or the clergy to reduce the amount of parishioners arriving late?

Thanks for all of your holy, courageous work and I encourage all of your coffee drinking readers to buy some Mystic Monk coffee – it’s the real deal! [And that is why I was lenient.]

Considering the number of authors who have dealt with the question of just how late one could be and still consider that one had fulfilled one’s obligation, it’s safe to say that late arrival for Mass is not exclusively a post-Vatican II problem.  I’ll bet it goes back to the earliest days of the Church.  That said, however, everyone was on time for the First Mass, but only Judas left early.

I suspect few lukewarm Catholics regularly go to Mass in the Extraordinary Form.  An unintended blessing of the Extraordinary Form being, well, extra-ordinary, is that those who attend really want to attend.  They often have to make sacrifices to get to Mass which is far away and at a tough time.  I know that is the case where I usually say Sunday Mass: it is early in the morning, the parking is awful, many come from a distance and with small children and… quite a few people are late.

A caution needs to be applied here: when nearly everyone who is there comes from devotion rather than mere obligation, some spiritual hubris can set in. We should remember that our brothers and sisters whose devotion or interest in the Holy Mass is less than ours are still our brothers and sisters.  Close parenthesis.

Another factor: Perhaps culture of lateness developed in a parish because for years Mass didn’t start on time.  Mass should start on time. That is something that the pastor owes to the congregation: be on time.

What can one do to reduce the number of parishioners arrive late?

That’s a difficult question, not knowing the specific congregation and the reasons for the lateness. Is this mere laziness? Are there parking problems? Do many of the people in the parish work in jobs that have odd shifts?  The pastor would know.
It would be best to presume the best of people.  Perhaps the person is arriving late because the relief nurse, who was hired to watch over dear old dad who suffers with Alzheimer’s, was late.  Perhaps he had to stop and help an elderly woman change the tire on her car.  Perhaps there was a mixup and decaf coffee was mistakenly substituted for the normal routine of Mystic Monk Midnight Vigils blend.

What can a parish do to lessen the impact of parishioners arriving late? Here we’re on more solid ground.

Yes, Father could address it in the bulletin and in the pulpit, but with great care.

Perhaps more people could sit closer to the front and leave the pews in the back for the latecomers to make as unobtrusive an entrance as possible. Yes, I know.  We are talking about a Catholic church: Come early and get a seat in back!  So, fill in the pews in the front and center aisle – leaving room on the side aisles for the ushers to escort the later arrivals to their places… discreetly. Indeed, the pastor should tell the ushers not to make a scene every single time someone comes in late.

If you know your always-late-fellow-parishioners well, then perhaps fraternal correction can kick in.  Raise the question – still presuming good intentions – and if the answer is mere laziness, then gently challenge, encourage, and even goad a little.  Offer to drive.

But do be wary about focusing on this question too much.  The Devil constantly strives to distract us from fully putting our hearts and minds into one’s own full, active and conscious participation at Holy Mass.

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

ASK FATHER: Converting to Catholicism. Do we need convalidation of marriage?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I am in RCIA and am scheduled to be confirmed at Easter. I was raised Baptist and baptized as a teenager, as was my husband, but we had both left church and were only married civilly. I am converting to Catholicism. My husband is not and is hostile to Christianity. I asked my pastor about this and he said our marriage would be made OK when I was confirmed and that convalidation would not be needed, but everything I have read seems to say otherwise.

Also, there is a good change we may end up divorcing, so would it be wrong to have a convalidation if one is needed, knowing that upfront?

If not, should I hold off on confirmation, go through with it but abstain from the Eucharist until my marriage situation is sorted out and made valid, or what?

Thanks for your helps, and for the wise words and straight talk on your blog.

I double-checked on this with a good canonist.

It seems your pastor is telling you the truth. At the time you married your husband, if I’m reading this correctly, neither of you were Catholic. Therefore, presuming it was a first marriage for both of you, all that was needed to make that marriage valid was a valid act of consent (“I do”). That marriage is presumed valid.  When you enter the Catholic Church, you bring that presumed-valid marriage into the Church with you, as it were. There is no need for a new marriage, or a convalidation, or a blessing.

You raise the prospect of the marriage possibly ending in divorce. That is definitely something you should talk about with your pastor.

Divorce is serious business and should not be considered lightly.

If the reason for a possible divorce is the tension created by your new-found faith and your husband’s apparent hostility to Christianity, that should be discussed.  Perhaps counseling would help. Propose professional counseling, if your husband is unwilling to attend pastoral counseling. Divorce should not be seen as an inevitability.

Pray for your husband. His hostility to the Church might be something that can be overcome by your prayers and the witness of your own joy in embracing the faith.

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

FRONTLINE documentary “Secrets of the Vatican”

I have just watched the PBS Frontline hit piece “Secrets of the Vatican”.

The objectives of the show are to pin all responsibility for every case of clerical sexual abuse not just on local authorities but on “the Vatican”, to detach sexual abuse from homosexuality, to undermine a celibate clergy, and to convince you that there are more homosexual priests than there really are.  Finally, Pope Francis is the most wonderfullest Pope ehvurrr.

NB: Do not watch this show with any children around.  Just don’t.  Some of the stuff about the abuse scandal is pretty horrible and explicit. 

Some notes I made as I watched this hit piece follow:

It is beautifully filmed, and the production values are very high.  That will make this seductive, especially for the low-information viewer.  Second, they tapped heavily a writer from The Tablet, and from the National Schismatic Reporter, Fr. Thomas Doyle in a suit, the Church-hating lawyer and now incredibly wealthy Jeff Anderson, aetheistic Communist Eugenio Scalfari, etc.  What could go wrong?

As you watch it, if you watch it, listen carefully, consciously, to how they use music.  You are being manipulated at nearly every moment.

Next, sadly some of the issues brought out are true: it delves into the Legionaries scandal and Maciel.  There are still a lot of unresolved questions involving what John Paul II knew and when he knew it, who was giving information to him or keeping it from him.  I have no interest in defending anything having to do with the Legion.  I still believe it should be disbanded.  If we could still feasibly practice damnatio memoriae, I would apply it to Maciel.  The documentary spends a lot of time on this topic, because – I think – it is so ugly that they can hurt the Church with it more.

They treated Card. Ratzinger’s role with some sympathy, noting that, as Prefect, he was in a tough spot.  John Paul II had given the Legion – and Maciel – a lot of support.

Robert Mickens of The Pill claimed that Joseph Ratzinger had “absolutely zero” pastoral experience, which is false, and that he should “never ever have been a bishop”.  No baggage there.  Doyle says that Ratzinger was “a creature of the institutional church”, which is in keeping with those like the Fishwrappers who pit “institutional” against the “prophetic church”, which they themselves embody (rather like gnostics).  They show one clip of Doyle addressing “Voice of the Faithful”, which is an extremist dissident faction on the left.  That’s the crowd the producers of the Frontline show seem to be enmeshed with.

Then there are gross statements like “when THE CHURCH chose to suppress stories of clergy sexual abuse it was to silence people like…”.  NO.  THE CHURCH did not choose to suppress this.  Individuals in the Church did, and they should be held accountable.

Remember: an objective of the show is to pin all responsibility for every case of clerical sexual abuse not just on local authorities but on “the Vatican”.

They spent a lot of time in Milwaukee, which is pretty fertile ground for dissent in the Church. Alas, it also had many cases of abuse.  The documentary goes into the transfer of $57 million dollars during the time of Archbp. Dolan to a cemetery fund.  The claim is that that transfer was made to avoid paying victims.  This comes right after showing victims talking about their pain.  However, they cut to a brief shot of the Vatican’s Secret Archives… get it?  [cue ominous music – not kidding] SEEEEECRET!  And then they show a copy of a letter from Cardinal Hummes, once Prefect of Clergy, to Archbishop Dolan, and zero in on the words nihil obstat for the transfer of the money.  They make a big deal out of nihil obstat meaning “nothing stands your way”, as if to say that Hummes (=”The Vatican”) thinks nothing of the victims.  Get it?  They then cut to Jeff Anderson interpreting nihil obstat for us.  Nihil obstat is, of course, a technical term, which doesn’t seem to have occurred to the makers of the docudrama.

They look at what Pope Benedict did about filtering out homosexuals from seminary formation and they Church’s teaching on homosexuality as an objective disorder.  One expert claims that the number of priests who abuse by far outnumber Protestants.  I have no idea if that it true or not.  That doesn’t sound right.  The expert connects this to repressed sexuality.  He rightly attaches this to the 60s-80s, but for reasons that I agree with.

They interview a priest, living in Rome, who became disillusioned about the Church (shock!) because of the terrible priests he encountered in Rome (more shock!).  So he quit to get married.  They showed him as so happy with his wife, they are in luv, but they are soooo misunderstood.  But wait! There’s more!  At the end of that section we learn, amost as an aside, that they broke up and he has left Rome!  Perhaps the problem was not THE CHURCH in ROME, but rather him and his ability to commit?  Just wondering.

After that they interview an anonymous priest (they claim) about the “gay” priest scene in Rome.  They use video from an Italian journalist who claimed that he investigated this slimy underbelly. Some pretty wild claims are made at this point.  From what I saw, the disgusting videos could have been entirely falsified or unrelated to anything clerical.  I am not denying that this sort of thing goes on, but I have a strong level of suspicion about that whole section of the documentary.  Again, they play on emotions (follow the music) as they interview priests who are in pain about being so conflict, so misunderstood.  Boo hoo.

Back to the Roman Curia. They associate the “Vatican Bank” (IOR) with the mafia.  Look.  There are problems with the “Vatican Bank” and I can’t say they were far off the mark.  This part made me sick to my stomach, especially at interior shots of the bank where I have been forced to waste hours of my life standing in lines.  How I hate that room.  But enough about me.   They go after Card. Bertone, which is when I was tempted to make popcorn.  Again, follow the music.

They made an interesting comment that Benedict found out by watching TV that the head of the bank, Gotti Tedeschi, had been dismissed via Bertone from his post.  That says a lot.

Then they get into Vatileaks, and we are now about 55 minutes into this endless thing.  Remember?  The butler did it.  Or did he?  They present the Pope’s butler as a scapegoat: it wasn’t really the butler who did it and his trial was a “show trial”.

I found the section about what was done to the intrepid Archbishop Viganò to be dead on.  They really got on Bertone’s case.

When they talk about the internal investigations in the Vatican about the vatileaks and corruption, they had a laughable dramatization of an interrogation, which reinforced my suspicion about the videos of “gay” priests earlier.

When they get to the election of Francis (again, follow the music) they present him as the only Pope who has ever thought about the poor, the marginalized, ehvurrrr.  He is the outsider who will roll back the corruption.  One commentator, Barbie Nadeau of CNN, said “he is already the best Pope anyone can remember”.  He’s taking on the Curia!  At this point we hear from Card. Rodriguez Maradiaga.  Enough said.

Here is a quote from the voiceover in the documentary, thus, from the makers of this show: “Francis has said that the Catholic Church will fall like a house of cards if fails to balance rules on abortion and homosexuality with the greater need to be merciful.”  This conflates the Pope’s comments about small-minded “rules” with the Church’s clear doctrine.  They also quote “Who am I to judge?”, but without context, instead saying that he said that in relation to homosexuality.  That is a gross distortion.

Shift now to Francis on capitalism.

Okay, I am tired of this.

Bottom line: There was/is corruption in the Vatican!  There were/are careerists and bad people!  Some men are homosexuals! What a shock!

Keep in mind that Lent and then Easter are on the horizon and that is when the MSM likes to start bashing the Church.  Also, the canonization of John Paul II is in April.  What better time to run “documentary” like this.

UPDATE:

Another view of the Frontline piece HERE.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Clerical Sexual Abuse, Liberals, The Drill, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , , ,
27 Comments

So a Lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop…

… a lawsuit ensues.

This story underscores something increasingly common: more and more people want to force you to their will and they will use intimidation and government agencies and violence to force your conformity.

Let’s watch what happens, when special interest groups clash.

Posted in Liberals, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, The Religion of Peace | Tagged , , , ,
27 Comments

@Pontifex Latin Tweet

Each day there are tweets from Pope Francis’ account.  They post more or less the same content in different languages.  Someone is busy!

Today we have this, in Latin:

Debiliores domi ultro curamus. Qua re humani generis ne imbecillitatem neve fragilitatem extimescatis!

Pay attention to that ultro!

This is rendered in English as:

In a family it is normal to take charge of those who need help. Do not be afraid of frailty!

I think that limps.  And yes, I know that the original is probably not in Latin.

His exaratis, can you do better at putting the Latin into English?

I am still not convinced that Pope’s should tweet, though clearly this is not the Pope tweeting every day.  Who knows how these are produced.  There must be some sort of Tweeter Tiger Team.  I wonder if they have any contact with the Secret Vatican Vampire Assassins Squad.

Posted in Francis, Lighter fare | Tagged , ,
11 Comments