João Card. Braz de Aviz: “in these 50 years, consecrated life has followed a fruitful path of renewal”

Posted on 4 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Over at the best weekly in the UK, The Catholic Herald, I saw an article about religious life and the upcoming year for religious.

There is a comment about João Card. Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious:

“We are also convinced that in these 50 years, consecrated life has followed a fruitful path of renewal — certainly not without difficulties and struggles,” the cardinal said. “In this year, we want to recognize and confess our weaknesses, but we also want to show the world with strength and joy the holiness and vitality that are present in consecrated life.

Later in the article, there is information from Archbishop Jose Rodriguez Carballo, the Secretary of the Congregation.

In October, the archbishop wrote that between 2008 and 2012, the congregation for religious issued 11,805 dispensations, releasing men and women from their religious vows. Other religious received dispensations from the congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Bishops and for Clergy, bringing to about 3,000 the average number of perpetually professed religious who left each year.

11K in 4-5 years?

3K each year?

?!?

UPDATE:

A friend sent an SMS:

Ob-la-di ob-la-da life goes on Braz
La-la how the life goes on
Ob-la-di ob-la-da life goes on Braz
La-la how the life goes on

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, Women Religious | Tagged , , , ,
21 Comments

More on Brentwood Butler and revolt against the ICEL translation

Posted on 4 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A little while ago, a priest of the Diocese of Brentwood (UK), Fr. Michael Butler – director of the diocesan commission for liturgy, sent a letter to the priests of that diocese, and to the über-liberal, dissident weekly publication The Tablet (aka The Pill), claiming that priests can – on their own authority – refuse to use the current ICEL English translation of the Roman Missal and go back to the obsolete 1973 translation.  I took him apart HERE.

Immediately the local bishop, Most Rev. Thomas McMahon corrected the record.  He wrote to the priests of the diocese to affirm the obvious: we must use the new, corrected translation and priests cannot use the older version, and he made it clear that Butler was not speaking for the diocese.

An eminent liturgical scholar, Fr. John Hunwicke of the Ordinariate of O.L. of Walsingham (btw… see Daniel Mitsui’s fine new artwork HERE), weighed in with his comments at his blog Mutual Enrichment.  He treats Butler’s risible remarks with the tone they deserve:  “they are a joke”… but a joke we have to pay attention to.  Let’s plunge in media res and with my trademark emphases and comments:

[…]

We thought that there was a self-supporting, self-validating network of so-called ‘experts’ or ‘liturgists’ who were determined to impose their own very narrow group agenda upon the Church. Fr Butler confirms this. He tells us that the Roman document Liturgiam authenticam is “a laughing stock among academics and scholarly linguists“. Clearly, that last phrase means, in the Vernacular, ‘me and my chums and people who agree with us’. [Exactly.  They are in a self-constructed and remarkably small echo-chamber.] So Butler is not a lone, ridiculous, figure. His own claim is that he represents a significant group. These are, presumably, the same jokers who, when Joseph Ratzinger started to write about Liturgy, threw up their hands in outrage and cried “But he’s not a liturgist!” [Remember that?  I recall the retort of Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP: “Liturgy is too important to be left to liturgists.”] The ones with regard to whom somebody coined the good old witticism about what the difference is between a terrorist and a liturgist (“You can negotiate with a terrorist”).

And it is an apparently illiterate group. Specimens of its illiteracy are Butler’s absurd discussion of the word ‘vernacular’ [Even I, with my heart as cold as a frog’s on a mountain, felt embarrassment for him.] and Archdeacon’s bizarre statement that “there is nothing sacred about Latin”. [Patently ridiculous.] Clearly, despite the lofty manner which each of them adopts in putting us lesser mortals straight, they do not have at their finger-tips … to take but one example … any of the many works of the great linguist and liturgist Christine Mohrmann, who dominated her field for decades. Writing in English, French, German, and Dutch, she demonstrated [in a classic monograph that every person who opens his pie-hole ought to have read and retained on his shelf …] how Christian Latin emerged, was consciously developed, in order to fill the needs and instinct of the worshipping community for a deliberately sacral language. She felt that the time was not ripe for vernacular liturgies in the late twentieth century, because modern European languages had not developed their sacred vernaculars. Liturgiam authenticam, interestingly, echoed her words in its call for the development of such vernaculars, even if this meant the possible use of archaisms. In other words, ‘vernacular’ does not possess anything like the univocal, simplistic sense which Butler claims. … [My friend Fr. Uwe Michael Lang has also written about Latin and vernacular HERE.]

[…]

Like many slippery operators, Butler mentions Sacrosanctum concilium [sic] of Vatican II. But SC 22 (3) (the sub-section which lays down that nobody is to do things by their own authority) does not deter him from informing his readers that “it is legitimate to use our previous Missal”. And it is clear from his letter that, in his official capacity, he has been going round the clergy of his diocese with an agenda which does not noticeably include encouraging them to behave legally, or helping them by explaining to them things they do not understand. By listing dissentient malpractices with such cheerful relish, he is either naive or he is encouraging others to join in breaking the Law. Perhaps the most amusing of his absurdities is his characterisation of the current translation of the Missal as ‘illegitimate’. I simply love that: is the poor Bu**er aware that this precisely echoes the rhetoric of Archbishop Lefebvre, who often remarked that the post-Conciliar rites were “illegitimate” (sometimes translated as ‘bastard’)?  [To echo a grand American prelate, Butler manifests a “Lefevbrism of the Left”.]

[…]

Perhaps the tone of what I have written has, too flippantly, suggested that the Butlers are merely a joke. They are not. They represent a very evil (I use the word advisedly) threat to the hopes of recovery in the Latin Church. I plan to deal with this at greater length.

But they are a joke too, and we are entitled to our laughs.

Fr. Z Kudos to Fr. H.

Read the whole thing over there. If you comment, tell him Fr. Z sent you.

Rem acu tetigit.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, The Drill | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
16 Comments

A bottle of wine: “Novus Ordo”

Posted on 4 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

When I was in Chicago, I picked up a bottle of wine called “Novus Ordo.”  When I brought it back home for a priest friend he insisted that we create an appropriate wine stopper capturing the “spirit” of Vatican II.

Of course we had to honor Bugnini and even Rembert Weakland who where responsible for creating such a magical liturgy.  And to mark their lasting success we crowned them with a rainbow and fluffy unicorn!

… All sitting on an orb of shinny glitter and rainbows.

We even made the bottle into a lava-lamp.

It wiggles and bubbles and gurgles–just like my stomach at the sight of some creative renditions of the Novus Ordo.  And with the little light bulb in the bottom, here in this place, “new light is streaming!” 

Funny!

No… heyyyyyy… wait just a doggone minute here! Unicorns?  Stomach…. lava…?

Are they making fun of the Novus Ordo?

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged , ,
18 Comments

QUAERITUR: Priests acting as deacons in the Novus Ordo

Posted on 4 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a priest reader…

QUAERITUR:

In light of par. 22 of the Ceremoniale which states that presbyters are not to wear diaconal vestments but also in light of the return of cardinal deacons and the Vatican’s explanation of it, what can be done? Can a priest friend help me with a Solemn Mass by vesting and functioning as deacon if a competent one cannot be found? Thanks.

I would like to say: given the vesting of cardinals (who are bishops) as deacons (albeit
with miters), and given the resurrection of the TLM, … to hell with CE 22.

Let dalmatics abound. And lots and lots of maniples!

On the one hand, one could claim that the Holy Father, by washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday, has not altered the liturgical law that restricts that washing to men.  On the other hand, one could say that the Holy Father, by allowing Cardinals to vest as deacons, has abrogated CE 22.

I’m certainly sympathetic, but be ready for accusations of hypocrisy.

That said, “¡Vaya lío!”  It’s what Pope Francis would want.

On an entirely different topic, having nothing whatsoever to do with what went before.  One of these days we could discuss the development contra legem customs.  You know, something done isn’t quite according to Hoyle but it is custom in a place.  If the bishop (or higher authority) does not reprobate that custom when he becomes aware of it, all one has to do is keep it up for 30 years… and…

… what were we talking about again?

Oh, yes!  Novus Ordo Masses with priests acting as deacons, and vesting in dalmatics.





Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , , , ,
25 Comments

ASK FATHER: Valid absolution from Orthodox priest, but not from SSPX priest?

Posted on 3 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

Quaeritur:

Why is absolution from an Orthodox priest valid but absolution from an SSPX priest invalid? I was told by someone that this is one argument from the SSPX as to why their Confessions are valid.

This won’t satisfy some SSPXers – what will? – but the answer lies in the concept of jurisdiction.  I’ve explained this before on this blog, but let’s try again in yet another way.

Absolution of sins is both a sacramental and a juridical act.

The sacramental and juridical aspects cannot be separated. They are intertwined.

A priest’s sacramental authority, or power, to forgive sins comes from his ordination, the ontological change to his soul from Holy Orders.  A priest’s juridical authority to forgive sins comes from the bishop, the chief judge of the diocese (… or his religious superior).

The Church says that a priest must have both to be able to absolve validly.

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X have separated themselves from the legitimate authority of the diocesan bishop, in union with the Roman Pontiff.  Since they have no connection to the local bishop’s authority, they are not given faculty – permission – to hear to absolve.  They lack the jurisdiction to do so. The SSPX bishops are not diocesan bishops who are authorized to share their jurisdiction to absolve, to exercise the power of the keys, as it were.  The SSPX bishops are an anomaly unheard of in Christian tradition: bishops without no diocese, either actual/real or titular.  They are like husbands without wives.  They have orders but no jurisdiction.  They are like husbands without wives.

Therefore, they have no basis to claim any jurisdiction for themselves, let along provide jurisdiction to a priest. As my old pastor Msgr. Schuler used to say, Nemo dat quod non got.

By contrast, an Orthodox priest is in communion with a bishop who has a diocese. That bishop, while in schism, has jurisdiction over his flock. Since he has jurisdiction, he can share that jurisdiction with priests that are subject to him. They have both orders and jurisdiction.  Therefore, their absolution is valid.

A Catholic –unless he had no reasonable recourse to a Catholic priest (reasonable time to find one, distance to travel, other moral reasons) – would illicitly confess to an Orthodox priest, but the absolution would be valid.  Both the sacramental and jurisdictional required for validity would be met.

That is a bit about what lies behind some of the Canons in the Latin Church’s 1983 Code of Canon Law, such as:

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ? can. 969.  [Even a priest who has been laicized automatically has the faculty when a person is in danger of death.]

Can. 967 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, cardinals have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world by the law itself.  Bishops likewise have this faculty and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case. [Every Cardinal is at least a priest (sacerdos) as are bishops.]

§2. Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of ? can. 974, §§2 and 3.  [SSPX aren’t incardinated anywhere and no one has given them faculties.]

§3. Those who are provided with the faculty of hearing confessions by reason of office or grant of a competent superior according to the norm of cann. ? 968, §2 and ? 969, §2 possess the same faculty everywhere by the law itself as regards members and others living day and night in the house of the institute or society; they also use the faculty licitly unless some major superior has denied it in a particular case as regards his own subjects.  [The Holy See itself has clarified that they don’t have faculties.]

[…]

Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.  [The SSPX superior does not have the authority to grant faculties.]

[…]

Can. 970 The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted except to presbyters who are found to be suitable through an examination or whose suitability is otherwise evident.  [It is not that the SSPX priests are “unsuitable” in regard to knowledge or good will or holiness.  They are good men for the most part. They are separated from proper authority, which makes them unsuitable.]

[…]

I could go on, but that is sufficient for now.

I long for the day that the SSPX priests will be fully re-integrated with proper authorities and will be able to set all these things aside.

Comment moderation is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
29 Comments

Stay frosty, my readers. Things are getting weird out there.

Posted on 3 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

As my eyes scan around and watch the signs of the times, these two items seem to me eerily related.

First, from Breitbart:

SUPER BOWL 2014: RIOT POLICE RESTORE ORDER IN SEATTLE AFTER SEAHAWKS WIN

After the Seattle Seahawks won their first Super Bowl in franchise history on Sunday, fans in Seattle jumped on cars, took over intersections, torched couches, and riot police had to be brought in to restore order.

[…]

Panem et circenses.

Next, from Infowars:

Students Sign Petition To Have Gun Owners Executed In Concentration Camps

College kids To Activist Prankster: “No Problem!” “sounds about right.”

Political prankster Mark Dice has once again documented how many young Americans are completely disconnected from reality, capturing California college students signing a fake petition to imprison all legal gun owners in concentration camps and even to have them executed.
“We just want to make sure we disarm the citizens. We can trust the government to be the only ones with guns.” Dice said to students on campus in San Diego, while they unquestioningly signed the petition to “repeal the Second Amendment.”
“These peasants don’t need guns,” Dice stated, adding “We want to put all registered gun owners in prison,” prompting one student to replay “Yes, it’s too dangerous.” for people to own guns.
“It’s just a simple repeal of the Second Amendment and we’ll be terminating and executing all of the gun owners.” Dice told another signatory who replied “OK, thank you.” and walked off.

“We are going to ban all guns except for the military and police.” Dice told another student, who signed the petition. “We’ll do door to door confiscations, we have lists of all the registered weapons, so the military will just go and take those away from people.” Dice added. “Ok.” the student replied.

Another male student signed the petition even though Dice suggested confiscating gun owners’ weapons and shooting them with them. “If they like their guns so much, lets just feed the gun owners some of their own lead.” Dice ludicrously said.

“I didn’t think I could get any more ridiculous.” Dice stated after the student thanked him and went about his day.

But he did get more ridiculous. “We need to take these gun owners and put them into FEMA concentration camps to keep everybody safe.” Dice told a skateboarding jock who replied “well I agree with you there, keep them safe.” Although he refused to sign “something I don’t know anything about,” which is something the next student did not consider as he replied “sounds about right” to Dice’s FEMA camp suggestion.

Several other students then happily signed the petition, with responses such as “no problem!” as Dice suggested putting Americans in detention camps and killing them.

Dice has now successfully managed to persuade Americans in his area to agree to repeal the First, Second, Third, Fourth , Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments, as well as the entire Bill Of Rights.

Stay frosty out there, my readers.

Things are getting weirder and weirder out there.

 

Posted in Pò sì jiù, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
34 Comments

Ghent Altarpiece in 100 Billion Pixels

Posted on 3 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Here is something for your Just Too Cool file.

They Getty Foundation collaborated to render the Ghent Altarpiece in 100 billion pixels. Yes, that’s billion with a b.

HERE

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged ,
5 Comments

Priest (D. Brentwood, UK) claims we can use obsolete English translation of Missal. FAIL.

Posted on 3 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE:  HERE

Readers of Protect the Pope have informed us that Bishop Thomas McMahon has acted decisively against Fr Butler’s letter advocating that they abandon the revised Roman Missal by writing to the priests of Brentwood diocese to refute his arguments and make clear that his maverick letter does not express the policy of the diocese.

Augustine writes:

‘In any case, the President of the Diocesan Liturgical Commission is Bishop Thomas McMahon – who has already written to all his priests very politely and very firmly putting the record straight. The letter he sent to all his priests this morning made it quite clear that Fr Butler acted without his knowledge or approval. With a few crisp words the Bishop has refuted Fr Butler’s verbose and incoherent arguments – as surely as if he had used a pin to burst the balloon of an over-inflated ego. Which is in fact what he has done.’

‘Apparently he acted even faster than you! My contacts tell me that he sent an email to all his priests this morning (30th January 2014).

I would very much like to see that!

Fr. Z Kudos to Bp. McMahon!

__________

ORIGINAL:

A priest friend alerted me to this at the site Protect The Pope:

Fr Butler sends his Tablet letter to every priest in Brentwood diocese telling them it’s OK to dump the new Roman Missal

Fr Michael J. Butler, the chairman of Brentwood’s diocesan commission for liturgy, has sent his letter in The Tablet [Wouldn’t you know that RU-486 (aka The Bitter Pill) would be involved…] to every priest in the diocese telling them it’s legitimate for priests to ditch the new translation, and use the previous missal. [Which is, of course, a lie.] Fr Butler has sent his brother priests the full version of his letter which the Tablet significantly edited for reasons that will be obvious as you read it.

I think everyone should see this.

Dear Sirs, [meaning, editors of The Tablet]

Re: Revised Translation of the Roman Missal

‘It doesn’t get better’ is a very apt heading for Martin Redfern’s letter (9 November 2013) on the Revised Translation of the Roman Missal. [Alas, I don’t have access to the full, online edition of The Pill. Anyone wanna share their access with me?]

I am Chairman of our Diocesan Commission for Liturgy and have had much discussion with clergy, both within the diocese and without. [He didn’t contact me. Did he talk to the bishop?] Most priests [Oh? Perhaps the priests with whom this guy associates with.  Which would be “few priests”.] have got on with it but grumbled about it. Not only grumbled but also changed or avoided some words and phrases that they found somewhat difficult to say with meaning. [Maybe the priests he hangs with aren’t very smart.  Hey!  It happens!] Some avoid words like ‘dewfall’, ‘oblation’, ‘consubstantial’, ‘many’ (and prefer ‘all’), some refuse point blank to use the Roman Canon ever again. Others reject the Sunday Collects and have returned to the previous translation’s Book of the Chair. Another has said that he has returned fully to the previous translation ‘in order to preserve his sanity’ – clearly ‘all is not well in the state of Denmark’! [That’s not the proper quote, but let that pass.]

What has gone wrong?

At the end of Vatican II in 1965, there was a final statement from the Pope’s Apostolic Letter, In Spiritu Sancto, read out to the assembled Bishops by Archbishop Felici, declaring the Council closed and enjoining that “everything the council decreed be religiously and devoutly observed by all the faithful.”

This prompted me to turn to Sacrosanctum Concilium to see what it was that referred particularly to matters of translation (Articles 34 and 36): [NB: He will avoid the texts that require that Latin be preserved, that pastors are obliged to make sure that people can respond in Latin, etc.]

*34: The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity, they should be short, clear and unencumbered by any useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

*36, #2: The use of the mother tongue is frequently of great advantage to the people in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments and other parts of the liturgy, the limits of its employment may be extended.

#3: … it is for competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned in art. 22,2 to decide whether and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used.

#4: Translations from the Latin text intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent local authority… [As if that somehow lessens the authority of the Holy See….(not).]

The above quotations from the same document contain the words ‘mother tongue’ and ‘vernacular’, both of which are rendered as ‘vernacula’ in the Latin document.

If we consult Oxford’s Lewis and Short (Latin Dictionary) we find that the word ‘vernaculus,a,um’ is translated as ‘of or belonging to home-born slaves’; in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary we find ‘vernacular’ defined as ‘the native language or dialect of a particular country or district; the informal, colloquial, or distinctive speech of a people or community. Now also, homely speech.’

‘Vernacular’, therefore, does not mean choosing the variety of English that is of scholarship and academe. [HUH?] I think that it would be closer to the reality if we were to think of the English that we learned from our mothers’ knees rather than the high flown, scholarly, Latinate vocabulary with which the Revised Translation of the Roman Missal is now unhappily afflicted. [LOL! THAT’s an argument?  Moreover, what Father doesn’t understand is that the ancient liturgical Latin was decidedly not “homely”.  It was stylistically elegant and replete with specialized vocabulary, references to Neo-Platonic and Stoic philosophy, etc.  It was the vernacular, yes, but it was not the language of people in the street.]

Of course, it is not the fault of the translators that brought about this sorry mess. It is ‘Liturgiam Authenticam’ that is at fault: a document that is now a laughing stock among academics and scholarly linguists. [Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.  Some scholars, perhaps.]

The document had the intention of creating a specific and recognizable language for the Liturgy – somehow a language set apart [as in sacred for the sacred liturgy] – but, of course, we already have a language that is suitable for Liturgical discourse, it is known as the Queen’s English with its enormous vocabulary, capable of describing all things to all men.  [Is he under the impression that the obsolete ICEL version was somehow a good example of “the Queen’s English”?]

‘Liturgiam Authenticam’, therefore, is a Latin document that should be quietly removed from the Vatican bibliography and never spoken of again. [Good luck with that.]

The notion of ‘competent local authority’ is a subject that is being given much attention these days by the Bishop of Rome, [An interesting title, among many, to choose.  It signals something about this fellow’s starting points.] so there is no need to discuss it further. [Doubtless, when we next have the excitement of translating Latin documents into English that is ‘understanded of the people’, it will be Anglophones who undertake the task. [I am not sure I ‘understooded’ that. But, hey… I’ll let typos slide. No wait, that’s a reference to Article XXIV of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England of 1549.  In real life, however, people whom Father thinks might want the obsolete ICEL will see “understanded” as a typo.  There are two in my column in the Catholic Herald this week.]

I do hope that we can make use of the 1998 Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales translation (at least for a trial period and perhaps in paper-back form). [Here we go….] In the meantime, I feel [good word choice… since the thought here is thin…] that it is legitimate to use our previous Missal, [No.] since what we currently have was conceived in error (neglecting to follow the rules from Vatican II’s Sacramentum Concilium and the type of English to be used), [No.] and it was not born of the competent local authority (and therefore lacks any authority). [No.]

I add a footnote, by way of a quotation from Father John O’Malley’s “What happened at Vatican II”: [Good grief. Him?] ‘On November 14 (1962) Cardinal Tisserant, the presiding president of the day, put Sacrosanctum Concilium to a vote on whether to accept the schema as the base text. … The outcome of the voting astounded everybody – a landside in favor, 2,162 votes, with only 46 opposed. .. The next year, on December 4, 1963, the council overwhelmingly gave its approval to the revised text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Paul VI then promulgated it. The final vote was even more of a landslide: 2,147 in favor, 4 against.’ [So?]

The current Revised Translation of the Roman Missal has already been labelled a failure; [By a few whingers.] it is also illegitimate. [No.]

I remain, Sirs, yours very sincerely,

(Rev. Michael J Butler)

Chairman,

Liturgy Commission, Diocese of Brentwood

Ridiculous.

First, the Congregation for Divine Worship has its competence and authority from the Roman Pontiff. The Congregation can develop its own translations and promulgate them.  However, in the case of the 2011 translation, the Congregation used the work of ICEL and the Vox Clara Committee.  The Council’s document did not diminish the authority of the Roman Pontiff to delegate tasks to dicasteries of the Roman Curia.

Second, the writer’s claim about what “vernacular” is is simply goofy.

Third, the fact that this priest took it upon himself to write this and actually distribute it in public is scandalous.  In my opinion he should be swiftly called to heel and should be obliged, under obedience, to issue an apology for what he did.

Posted in Liberals, WDTPRS | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
28 Comments

ASK FATHER: “Did you desire to completely destroy your relationship with God?” A serious error some priests are into.

Posted on 3 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

Quaeritur:

Recently went to confession at a parish near my new job.  I hadn’t been there ever before. I mentioned the phrase “mortal sin”. The priest said, “I don’t think there was any mortal sin. Mortal sin requires three things: serious matter, knowing that it’s serious matter and desire to completely destroy your relationship with God. [?!? – This sounds like a variation of the “fundamental option” error.] Did you desire to completely destroy your relationship with God when you [omitted]?”

Of course I answered honestly that I didn’t desire to completely destroy my relationship with God. I thought that arguing moral theology with the priest might raise questions about the sincerity of my repentance for my sins involving pride and anger, so I held my tongue. [In that moment, probably for the best.]

I would have expected any Catholic to have a better grasp on such a basic topic, let alone a priest who is a member of an order famous for its academic achievements. [I’ll get you a popsicle it was a Jesuit.] Makes me very glad that the efficacy of the sacrament is independent of the lunacy of the minister of the sacrament.  [Good call.]

I suspect that that priest is infected, willingly or not, with the deeply harmful errors of the likes of Richard McCormick SJ and Charles Curran.  Many priests of a certain age are.  Many of certain religious orders are.

First, let’s clarify what the Church teaches.

For a sin to be a mortal sin, it must meet three conditions.  It must be:

  • of grave matter
  • committed with full knowledge of the sinner
  • committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
Check out CCC 1857.

The third condition is NOT: “desire to completely destroy your relationship with God” – FAIL.  That could be a result, but the desire to do so is not a condition.

The third condition (deliberate consent) means that you must not only know that what you are going to do is a sin, you also will to do it.  If your will is not engaged, you are not guilty of a mortal sin.  If you are being forced, you are under duress, you are impaired in some way, etc., your will is not wholly involved.  Mortal sins are not accidents.  Mind you, objectively the act itself might be serious enough to be grave matter, but subjectively you are not guilty of a mortal sin if your will isn’t wholly involved.  Again, you have to know it is a mortal sin and then you commit that sin anyway, willingly. This means that mortal sins are intended by the sinner. They are a willing rejection of God’s law and love.  That does NOT mean that you want thereby “completely to destroy your relationship with God”.  Example: “I am going to do X.  I know X is wrong.  I am going to do it anyway.  I want to do X in order completely to destroy my relationship with God.”  NO.   That is not how 99.99999% of sinners wind up committing mortal sins.  As a matter of fact, that would be something so rare as to be unfathomable: that someone sets out to deliberately to do exactly that.  There is a difference between knowing that you are harming your relationship with God by sinning and “desiring to completely destroy your relationship with God”.

However, some moral theologians in decades past – thanks be to God this is fading as the Biological Solution takes them out – advanced erroneous ideas about mortal sin.  This bad theology infected myriad seminary and university professors, to the untold damage to countless people.  I tremble for their souls of those who spread it.

One of the bad ideas advanced by these aberrant moral theologians was that of the “fundamental option”.  See if this doesn’t sound a bit like what that confessor asked.

According to this false theory, a person makes a “fundamental” choice for or against God. If the acts you commit do not change your basic orientation for God, then you do not lose the state of grace. Only when your acts change your default position to be against God do you lose the state of grace.  Consequently, according to this false idea, you could commit particular sins (which otherwise fit the classic definition of mortal sins) without losing the state of grace.  Say you do X.  Say you choose to do X, knowing that it is a sin, and say X is grave matter, and you then do X anyway.  But … say that, well, you did X but you didn’t really shift your “fundamental option” in favor of God.  According to the “fundamental option” angle, yah, okay, you did something wrong, but… your sin wasn’t mortal after all.

See how dangerous this is?

Those who embrace this false understanding of mortal sin, claim that you could commit adultery, homosexual acts, masturbation, and all other manner of sins which the Church has always held are mortal, without changing your default position on God, your “fundamental option”.  (And it’s almost always about sex with these fundamental option types… it is the way they excuse all manner of behavior and then, once they are on the slippery slope and sliding, they rationalize all manner of moral turpitude and deviant acts.)

Moreover, these wrong-headed types say that no single sin can change your “fundamental option”.  Nice, huh?  Your default changes only you develop a lasting pattern of sinful behavior.   Do X once… pffft.   Do X twice… thrice… heck, a bunch of times, pffft. But, 365 times?  Maybe we will need to talk about that some day.

We got this rubbish in seminary back in the 80’s.  I got in serious trouble with our ultra-liberal overloads by asking how many times I could commit suicide in a calculated way before my “fundamental option” changed.

So, be wary of the sort of rubbish you heard from this priest confessor, may God have mercy on him.  John Paul II corrected the error of the “fundamental option” in his encyclical Veritatis splendor (cf. esp. 65-70).  He ought to know that.

In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made “a free self-commitment to God”. With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses “sanctifying grace”, “charity” and “eternal happiness”. As the Council of Trent teaches, “the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin”.

[…]

The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the “grave matter” of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is “full awareness and deliberate consent”. In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it. Even so, “care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of ‘fundamental option’ — as is commonly said today — against God”, seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. “For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts.Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner’s subjective imputability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a theological category, which is precisely what the ‘fundamental option’ is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin”.

Be clear and cut through the rubbish.  To coopt their terms: sins which do not change our true fundamental option are what we call venial sins, they do not kill the life of grace in the soul.  Sins which kill the life of grace in the soul are mortal sins. When we commit mortal sins, we lose the state of grace; we lose the friendship of God.  In that sense our fundamental option has indeed changed, for we have gone against what we know is God’s will and have deliberately set aside his love and gifts: we have lost the state of grace, which is pretty fundamental.  However, an individual mortal might not entirely change our “fundamental option” in the sense that we still hope for forgiveness and God’s love, we still have faith in God, even though we have lost supernatural charity.

Mortal sin is complicated because we are complicated.  But it isn’t as complicated as these dreamy egg-heads made it out to be.  Mind you, I suspect that most of the people who grasped onto this “fundamental option” thing thought they were doing the right thing, thought they were drilling down to the roots of sin, and forgiveness and God’s love, and reconciliation and conversion.  But … they got it wrong, and in spreading their error, have done serious damage to countless souls.

The fundamental option theory, erodes people’s awareness of what sin is.  It undermines the sense of danger sin creates for the soul.  And, apparently, it is still confusing some people in the confessional.

Bottom line:

GO TO CONFESSION!

Confess all your mortal sins in kind and in number, omitting nothing.

Comment moderation is ON.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
28 Comments

Registration and spammer attacks on the rise

Posted on 3 February 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A note to everyone:

There has been a sharp uptick of attacks on the registration form and on the combox.

I am getting lots of false registrations.  Also, I received a notification of a request from “someone” to be white-listed, to be allowed through my moat, boiling oil, alligators, arrows and attack dogs, flame-throwers, razor-wire and TVs with reruns of Green Acres.

So, if you try to register, use that “About Yourself” field in the registration form to convince me that you are not a spammer.  You don’t have to write a biography.  But, if you leave it blank or put nothing but generic pabulum in it, I will not approve the registration.

Also, I warmly advise that you do not use your own email address as your username.

I am also going to use the moderation option more often right now.

So… the Fishwrap closes its combox completely and spam attacks rise over here.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes |
Comments Off on Registration and spammer attacks on the rise