Andrew Napolitano reacts to Pope Francis comments on economics

I am close to being done with Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium. Let’s remember that it is not an encyclical. It is not even an Apostolic Letter. It’s only an Exhortation.

It is, however, an Exhortation which has some puzzling stuff in it and not all reactions have been accompanied by applause. It is good to attend also to the less than positive reactions as well as to the warmly enthusiastic.

Here is one from the Washington Times, an op-ed piece by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge in NY, writer, broadcaster, who has strongly libertarian leanings. He is also a hard-identity Catholic, from what I can tell.

NAPOLITANO: Pope Francis should be saving souls, not pocketbooks
Church teaching on personal freedom includes a moral imperative to work and share

By Andrew P. Napolitano Wednesday, December 4, 2013

What is the worst problem in the world today? Might it be war, starvation, genocide, sectarian violence, murder, slaughter of babies in the womb? Any of these would be a rational answer. When Pope Francis was asked this question recently, he replied, “Youth unemployment.”

To be sure, youth unemployment is a serious problem. In some parts of the United States, the richest country in the world, it has reached 25 percent. These are people who are no longer in school full time and are not yet 30 years of age. It is a problem for them and their families, for their communities and for the welfare states that are supporting them. Is it the worst problem in the world, though? Is it a problem for the Roman Catholic Church? Is it something the pope is competent to comment upon or to resolve?

The pope’s youth-unemployment comments recently were removed from the Vatican’s website. No sooner had that been done than the Holy Father issued his first encyclical — a formal papal teaching, as opposed to his now-famous, impromptu back-of-the-plane yet on-the-record comments.

His encyclical is about economics, [No.  It is neither an encyclical nor is it – primarily- about economics.  These errors of fact, however, don’t change the argument too much.] and it reveals a disturbing ignorance. [At least about economics.] I say this with deference and respect. I also say this as a traditionalist Roman Catholic who laments the post-Vatican II watering down of sacred traditions, lessening of moral teaching and trivialization of liturgical practices. [OORAH!] I also say this, though, as a firm believer that Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and, as such, personifies the teaching authority of the church. He is morally and juridically capable of speaking ex cathedra — that is, infallibly — but only after surveying and distilling traditional Church teachings and only on matters affecting faith and morals.

Thank God, so to speak, that his teaching authority is limited to faith and morals, because in matters of economics, he is wide of the mark.

His encyclical, [See above.] titled “Joy of the Gospel,” attacks free-market capitalism because it takes too long for the poor to get rich. [That may be the money quote.] “They are still waiting,” the pope wrote. Without capitalism, which rewards hard work and sacrifice, they will wait forever. No economic system in history has alleviated more poverty, generated more opportunity and helped more formerly poor people become rich than capitalism. The essence of capitalism goes to the core of Catholic teaching: the personal freedom of every person. Capitalism is freedom to risk, freedom to work, freedom to save, freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labors, freedom to own property and freedom to give to charity.

The problem with modern capitalism — a problem that escaped the scrutiny of His Holiness — is not too much freedom, but too little. The regulation of free markets by governments, the control of the private means of production by government bureaucrats, and the unholy alliances between governments, banks and industry have raised production costs, stifled competition, established barriers to entry into markets, raised taxes, devalued savings and priced many poor out of the labor force. The pope would do well to pray for those who have used government to steal freedom so as to satisfy their lust for power, and for those who have bowed to government so as to become rich from governmental benefits and not by the fruits of their own labors.

Traditional Catholic social teaching imposes on all of us a moral obligation to become our brothers’ keepers. [This isn’t just an imperative from Catholic social teaching, by the way.] But this is a personal moral obligation, enforced by conscience and church teaching and the fires of hell [When is the last time you saw that in a secular paper?  When is the last time you heard that from a pulpit?] — not by the coercive powers of the government. Charity comes from the heart. It consists of freely giving away one’s wealth. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. That’s theft, not charity.

[…]

The pope seems to prefer common ownership of the means of production, which is Marxist, or private ownership and government control, which is fascist, or government ownership and government control, which is socialist. All of those failed systems lead to ashes, not wealth. [Sometimes those ashes are human.] Pope Francis must know this. He must also know that when Europe was in turmoil in 1931, his predecessor Pius XI wrote in one of his encyclicals: “[N]o one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist.” [Which has been on the masthead of The Wanderer for decades.]

The church does not teach just for today, but for the life of man on Earth. That’s why the essence of the papacy is not contemporary problem-solving, but preservation of truth and continuity of tradition. For this reason, popes do not lightly contradict their predecessors. If it was sacred then, it is sacred now. [Sacred then… sacred now which is a phrase associated with preservation of traditional sacred liturgy.  The judge is tapped into traditional sacred worship.]

[…]

You can read the rest there.

 

Posted in Francis, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
103 Comments

You have GOT to be joking: Making the sacred as ugly as sin!

From a reader.

I’ve visited Dresden in Germany yesterday and my first steps led to the Catholic cathedral. To my greatest horror and shock, I’ve discovered this monstrous “thing” in the side chapel. I have asked the lady working in the cathedral shop what it is and she said: “It’s Mary with Jesus”. I asked one more time (I couldn’t believe that): “.THIS is the Virgin Mary with Jesus?”. She replied with mischievous grin: “Of course”. I left quite sad, not spiritually strengthened, but rather doubtful about the Catholic Church.

The chapel was orignally dedicated to St. Ioannes Nepomucen, a Czech saint – a perfect example for the post-war reconciliation. Instead, the orignal altar was taken away and the horrible blasphemy erected. The author of this mockery of the most holy Mother of God and her Divine Son is Friedrich Press. Wikipedia entry in German language does not reveal too much about him. I wonder if you have readers who could perhaps provide more info about his life. The man must have been mad or evil.

Unfortunately, it’s not the first time when I see doubtful “art” in Catholic Churches. I wonder, is it perhaps intentional? Do they try to push away people from churches? If you decide to share this story with other readers, then don’t publish my name please.

P.S. Apologies for the quality of the image, picture taken by a mobile phone in a dark environment.

Now for the really bad news:

 

Just so you can have a closer look. Click for a larger shot:

Posted in Liberals, Pò sì jiù, You must be joking! | Tagged
119 Comments

“Antinomianism in high places” – Canonist Ed Peters on divorce, remarriage, Communion

From Prof. Ed Peters, canonist, and his blog In The Light Of The Law – which has not an open combox.

Antinomianism in high places is still antinomianism

We live in pervasively antinomian times, and basic unawareness of law is all around us. [Two related yet distinct problems.] Yet ignorance of what law is, of why we have it, and even of how one needs to talk about law in order to make good sense, hampers the cause of clarity and reform.

The recent comments of Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, [Factoid: He is Titular Archbishop of Diocletiana… which was also the titular see of the late Annibale Bugnini.] new Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, regarding possible changes in the canonical discipline of withholding holy Communion from Catholics divorced-and-remarried outside the Church, seem a good example of antinomianism. But, while several recent Roman statements benefit by interpretation secundum leniorem (in particular, not taking every unhappy phrase as a harbinger of doctrinal disaster), I think that Archbishop Baldisseri’s remarks require something more. They require, I suggest, direct response.

“A new approach needs to be taken with respect to the administration of the sacraments to remarried divorcees.”

Simply put, [NB] there is no pastorally plausible middle-ground between admitting one to holy Communion and not admitting one to holy Communion. (What is one to suggest? Allowing divorced-and-remarried Catholics to take Communion every other Sunday?) [Absurd.] Setting aside some rare fact patterns that even now would countenance divorced-and-remarried Catholics going to Communion (e.g., living in a brother-sister manner), [The “Yah, right!” Factor is high on this one.] the only “new approach” to prohibiting Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics would be to permit Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Trying to pass off a reversal of discipline by describing it as a “new approach” is a disservice to this important issue.

“The Church needs to apply Church doctrine taking the circumstances of each specific case into account. This approach does not mean making general conclusions and rules for everyone.”

Good grief, “general conclusions and rules” are for everyone because that’s whom “general conclusions and rules” are for! [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] If one wants to suggest the possibility of exceptions to rules, or even whole new rules, fine, suggest them, and let the debate proceed. But do not try to claim that “general conclusions and rules” mean not having “general conclusions and rules”—unless, of course, one’s intention to abolish “general conclusions and rules”.

“…even in the case of marriage annulments, we deal with each case separately. This is what pastoral care is all about; it is not a set framework.”

What can one say? Every court worthy of the name deals with (the facts of) each case separately, but courts do not make up separate rules for each case. [BINGO!] A tribunal is expressly about working within a doctrinal and disciplinary framework set by the Church; to imply that a tribunal apply ‘rules without a framework’ is the essence of antinomianism. [This should go on a billboard.]

“…the [synodal] intention is to discuss the issue [of Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics] without any taboos, otherwise it would not have been mentioned.”

This is perhaps the most vexing line in the prelate’s remarks, for it implies that Church practice against administering holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics might be a “taboo,” that is, a superstitious practice which, once brought into the light of reason, should be abolished with an alacrity that admits we were silly ever to have thought this way at all. I suggest, we do not need to rid ourselves of “taboos” in regard to Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics because there are no “taboos” associated with the prohibition.

What there is, on the other hand, is Christ’s teaching on marriage, the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, and the long-settled practice linking one’s observance of our Lord’s teaching on the former with receiving Him in the latter, that need to be clearly and forthrightly explained, defended, and observed as, indeed, Abp. Gerhard Müller recently did in a manner approaching brilliant.

In the meantime, antinomianism in high places, no matter how it got there, is still antinomianism. And I trust it’s not taboo to say so. [It isn’t.]

Big Fr. Z kudos to Dr. Peters!

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
33 Comments

QUAERITUR: Am I being selfish for not reading at Mass?

From a reader:

I am newly back to the Church (just over a year) and attend daily mass frequently (NO). [Great!] I have been approached twice now asking to either regularly do the readings or help out as a Eucharistic Minister. I politely declined each time stating that I am not comfortable and don’t feel called to do that. I am female btw. I’m sensing a bubbling frustration from those who do because it’s the same small group of people who are filling these positions and the rest of us “won’t help”. My questions are: Should I feel guilty for not helping? Am I obligated to? What happens when no one steps forward, will daily mass discontinue? I really dislike feeling this pressure. I just want to go to mass and quietly worship God and not feel stressed out about not helping or if I do end up helping, stressing out about when it’s time for me to go up, etc. Am I being selfish?

Should I feel guilty for not helping?

NO!

Am I obligated to?

NO!

Will daily mass discontinue?

NO!

Am I being selfish?

NO!

If you don’t want to do this, you don’t have to do this.

Furthermore, it is not obligatory to have a lay woman read at Mass.  If a Mass is cancelled because there is no woman to read or distribute Communion… well… that priest might just be the stupidest priest in the world.

You might tell Father that you want to be left alone and simply participate at Mass with full, active and conscious participation by being quiet and receiving what the Lord has to give.

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

Some reading options… including a Chinese invasion of Seattle!

Not all my reading is spiritual these days.

As I mentioned I am rereading Benedict XVI’s third volume of Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives.  A good Advent read.

Also, on my Kindle right now, is John Allen’s, The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution.

Click!

I just finished reading two books by Christopher Kennedy – quick reads – with the intriguing scenario of the Chinese figuring out a way to invade Seattle and hold hostages in the city as a way to invade Taiwan and force its reintegration into the PRC.  This isn’t heavy reading, but it is diverting and fun.

The serious side is that we in these USA have been pretty lax about our national cyber-security.  In Kennedy’s book, the Chinese start with a savage cyber attack.  This is a realistic threat.

Some years ago, on the recommendation of a retired 3-star Marine, I read a white paper by two Chinese colonels in the PLA about how to conduct an asymmetrical unrestricted war on us.  Since they can’t go head to head with us, yet, in a conventional war, they posit ways to achieve many of the same effects through unconventional ways.  For example, hacking a computer to cause sewage to flood a city’s streets can create havoc and damage that bombs could cause.

They can’t deliver bombs, but they can hack our computers.   Get the idea?

Anyway, the title of the first of the two books by Kennedy is Red Tide.  The second is Occupied Seattle.  Kennedy hits a balance of light-hearted but serious, impossible but plausible.  (And good guys win in the end, but not without a lot of good guys dying… nobly.)

I wonder why so many TEOWAWKI books are set in Washington state?

My Kindle reads to me!

BTW… books are inexpensive for Kindle!

I knocked off James Wesley Rawles’ latest in his series, Expatriates.

I am also rereading The Genius in the Design: Bernini, Borromini, and the Rivalry That Transformed Rome by Jake Morrissey and Caravaggio by Helen Langdon.

In the “Kydd” series, I am up to Invasion.  I also read recently the newest Jack Reacher book, Never Go Back.

Moreover, I am pecking away at Charles Krauthammer’s new book, Things That Matter.

So… titles like these keep my lips moving day after day.  They keep the mind fresh.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Semper Paratus, TEOTWAWKI, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged , , ,
7 Comments

Fox News opinion piece BLASTS Pope Francis as “the Catholic Church’s Obama”

It seems that not everyone in the MSM is an adoring fan of Pope Francis.

This is an … interesting op-ed on the site of Fox News, which is, yes, pretty much MSM now:

Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us

by Adam Shaw [I admit that I haven’t heard of Mr. Shaw.  I looked him up on Fox and did not discover much writing about matters having to do with the Church. See below.]

Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church. [I guess that is a “no” vote.  It also strikes me as hyperbole.  There have been really bad Popes in the Church’s history, but she pulled through.  Moreover, there is the role of the Holy Spirit.  I, like Joseph Card. Ratzinger before me, don’t believe that the Holy Spirit chooses Popes.  I do believe that Holy Spirit prevents the elevation of a man who would be a total disaster for the Church.  As Catholics, we know that one of the marks of the Church is her indefectibility.  No attack on the Church, from within or without, will completely bring her down.  There is no guarantee from the Lord that Hell and hellish minions won’t bring down the Church in certain places, but the Church is indefectible.]

My fellow Catholics should be suspicious when bastions of anti-Catholicism in the left-wing media are in love with him.  [True enough, but they will eventually turn on him.]

[…]

But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.

Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities. [Is that what the Pope is doing?  Is the writer psychic?  I think I could be counted as an experience top Pope-watcher, but I can’t figure out what Francis is up to most of the time.  I don’t always like what I see, but I am not ready to come down on any one square yet.]

In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, [I sense the writer is not a fan!] Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”

This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this. [I am beginning to wonder if, perhaps, the writer attends a certain kind of chapel.]

The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. [Okay.  The gloves are really off now!] Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked hard to turn this trend around, but now Pope Francis wants the bad old days to resume.

Proof of this is Francis’ aforementioned statement of the Church being obsessed with controversial issues and the need to rebalance by talking about it less.

That Francis didn’t see that this would be translated into headlines of “Pope tells Catholics to shut up about things that offend Sandra Fluke” by every left-wing media outlet shows a terrifying naivety.

Nor do his comments reflect reality.

For years, the majority of priests didn’t dare cover controversial topics in their homilies in fear of getting angry letters from pick-and-choose Catholics outraged that their pastor dared to say something out of line with the Democratic Party.  [Yes, the writer is correct on this point.  When Pope Francis has spoken about all these people, especially priests, who are obsessed about rules and preaching only about abortion, etc., I had to scratch my head.  Where are these people?  Who are they?  I sure haven’t met them.]

[…]

In trying to please the media and the modern world, Francis mistakes their glee for respect. Just like Obama thought he’d won over Putin by promising a reset, Francis thinks by talking vacuously about the poor, he will be respected. And it is vacuous — the pontiff recently asked why it’s news that the stock market drops but not when an old person dies. When your leader is asking, “Why isn’t the newspaper a laundry list of obituaries?” you know you elected the wrong guy. [Okay. It’s official.  He is definitely not a fan.]

What effect is this having? [And now we get to The Francis Effect™.] For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased. Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected.  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?  I mean… he’s right, right?  We can debate whether Francis is doing that, but the point is right.]

Francis not only panders to enemies and professional grievance mongers, but also attacks his allies. Just as Obama snubs Britain and Israel, Pope Francis swipes at practicing Catholics.  [Well… he … welll…. ]

So not only has he insulted, and severely damaged the work of, pro-life and pro-marriage groups with his comments, he has also gone on the attack, dismissing Catholics who attend the older rites in Latin as ‘ideologizing’ and being guilty of ‘exploitation.’ Apparently “Who am I to judge?” doesn’t apply here.

On world matters, Francis’ statements are embarrassing. About communism, a destructive ideology that slaughtered millions of Catholics, he said:

“Learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized…an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.”

Not such kind words for the free market, however. In his recent apostolic exhortation he slammed unfettered capitalism, [I don’t think the Pope used that phrase in Evangelii gaudium.] calling it ‘a new tyranny.’

Apart from the fact that there is no major nation practicing unfettered capitalism (like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men) there is more real tyranny in socialist cesspools like Francis’ home of Argentina than in places where capitalism is predominant.  [If only the writer were less inhibited!  C’mon, Adam!  What do you really think?]

[…]

As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and to repeat critical mistakes of the past.

Adam Shaw is a News Editor for FoxNews.com and has written on Anglo-American issues as well as topics related to the Roman Catholic Church. He lives in New Jersey and can be reached here[I looked up Mr. Shaw at the site of Fox News and didn’t find much credited to him on “topics related to the Roman Catholic Church”.  Perhaps he writes copy and doesn’t get credited.  He does, however, have a lot to say about video games.  HERE]

I wonder if we are seeing a new trend.

Did Rush’s criticism of Evangelii gaudium the other day give “permission”, as it were, to conservative newsies, etc., to start blasting away?

In any event, Shaw’s piece needed to be read.

I wonder if what sparked his was Pres. Obama’s nightmare speech on income inequality in which he quoted Pope Francis.  Obama’s use of the Pope’s words was utterly slimy, of course.  USA Today has it:

During his income inequality speech on Wednesday, President Obama invoked one of the hottest names in public life: Pope Francis.

“Across the developed world, inequality has increased,” Obama said. “Some of you may have seen just last week, the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length.”

Obama than quoted Francis: “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

Don’t be shocked to see a president-pope meeting in the coming months.

Blech.  Reading Obama quote Francis gives me the same feeling as the sight of a slug crawl.

I have the combox open, but the moderation queue is switched on.  This could get pretty ugly, and I have a busy day tomorrow.

Posted in Francis, The Drill | Tagged , ,
74 Comments

Why don’t as many men go to church as women?

Today is the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

What great fruits the liturgical reforms have produced!  Jammed churches, long confession lines, full schools, lots of weddings and baptisms, convents bursting, seminaries churning out priests as fast as they can be ordained….

Back in 1967 when the reformers were creating the Novus Ordo, an experimental “Missa Normativa” was celebrated for a groups of cardinals and bishops. After this Mass, Card. Heenan of Westminster remarked to the Synod of Bishops in Rome:

At home, it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children.

There is a good post at Cream City Catholic, which originates in Milwaukee, WI.  He tackles the question of why fewer men go to Mass than women.

This article, appearing in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, discusses various efforts being made by Milwaukee-area churches (Catholic and non-Catholic) to attract men back to the pews. [Reason #12 for SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM!!] The concern is that men are, for some mysterious reason, [Not mysterious to me.] checking out from liturgy or other Christian services.

[…]

According to a statistic presented in the article, the male/female discrepancy is especially felt in the Catholic Church, where 64% of parish life is comprised of women.

So why are the guys MIA?

This is another one of those instances within our local Church where you have a lot of people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom scratching their heads and asking “Why? Why? Why?” when the answer is not particularly elusive. This really isn’t a surprise to me, or to many others. I recall attending Mass in Rome at a local parish and, unbeknownst to me when I entered, it was a “Children’s Mass”. Start to finish, the liturgy was replete with childish, Sesame Street-styled songs and embarrassing hand motions. As I scanned the pews, only two groups of people were participating: the small children, and the women, especially the older women. The men, from young to old, were standing there, stone-faced, arms crossed, totally disengaged. It was painful. The music and everything else was thoroughly emasculating. No self-respecting man would participate in that. And they didn’t. If this is what is meant by “active participation” on the part of the laity, I and lots of guys, want nothing to do with it. Run for the hills.

This phenomenon has been replicated ad nauseam in the United States as well.

Authentic masculinity has been knee-capped in our Church. [OORAH!] This trend is conspicuously apparent in our liturgical life, as any manifestation of authentic masculinity is attacked as boorish male chauvinism, old manifestations of discrimination and oppression from a Church that is “unfairly” dominated by an all-male hierarchy. (The article cites an example of a parish in the Diocese of Madison where the pastor insisted on only boys serving as acolytes. Predictably, he received tons of criticism as a result. Fortunately, Bishop Morlino backed up his priest.) [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] What’s more, many of the “liturgical planning committees” have been taken over by women. The embellishments of many church buildings often look like a Jo-Ann Fabric was detonated inside. Pastel ribbons, crafts, baskets, streamers, quilts…BOOM!

What I’ve often referred to as the “Oprahfication” of our Church has had a direct effect on the number of men who opt out of liturgy. Much of our Church culture has imbibed a pandering, touchy-feely, soft sofa approach to dealing with real challenges, and guys don’t dig that. Coupled with a de-emphasis on the Sacramental life, the Eucharist in particular, many men simply see no point in attending Mass if all they’re “getting” is meaningless psychobabble and Stuart Smalley motivational talks.

[…]

Dead on.

Vast swathes of the Church have been wussified.   Part of this is internal to the Church.  Part of this comes from the decades long war on boys and men.

I think a huge part of this comes from the fact that our sacred liturgical worship is massively screwed up.

 

Posted in Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, Vatican II | Tagged , , , , ,
59 Comments

450 years ago today: Council of Trent closed!

Today is the 450th anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

First, the day the Second Vatican Council opened Pope John XXIII gave an address to the world and to the Council Fathers which is now called Gaudet Mater Ecclesia.

In that address he said:

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

“For this a council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith or the truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing, the manner in which these truths are set forth – in the same meaning and understanding – is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”

Here is the full reference for those of you who have a spirit of discontinuity:

Blessed Pope John XXIII, Allocution “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia” on the Occasion of the Inauguration of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council , 11 October 1962, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis  54 (1962) 792

Also, recently Pope Francis sent His Eminence Walter Card. Brandmüller as his representative for the observance of the anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent.

In the official letter Francis sent to Card. Brandmüller the Pope wrote:

Harking closely to the same Spirit, Holy Church in this age renews and meditates on the most abundant doctrine of the Council of Trent. In fact, the “hermeneutic of renewal”[interpretatio renovationis] which Our Predecessor Benedict XVI explained in 2005 before the Roman Curia, refers in no way less to the Council of Trent than to the Vatican Council. To be sure, this mode of interpretation places under a brighter light a beautiful characteristic of the Church which is taught by the Lord Himself: “She is a ‘subject’ which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God” (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmas greetings – 22 December 2005).

Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, Linking Back, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, Vatican II | Tagged , , , , , , ,
11 Comments

Active Participation … for WHOM?

On the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, I read this:

Dutch bishops give Pope Francis a bleak picture of Catholic Church in decline

Dutch bishops visiting Rome this week have given Pope Francis a dramatic snapshot of the steep decline of Roman Catholicism in its European heartland.

Both Catholic and Protestant Christian ranks have shrunk dramatically across Europe in recent decades, and hundreds of churches have been sold off to be turned into apartments, shops, bars or warehouses.

In the Netherlands, churches have been closing at a rate of one or two a week. The bishops told the pope in Rome on Monday that about two-thirds of all Roman Catholic churches in the Netherlands would have to be shut or sold by 2025, and many parishes merged, because congregations and finances were “in a long-term shrinking process”.

Their five-yearly report blamed a “drastic secularization” of society, although a critical group of Dutch lay Catholics said the scandal of sexual abuse of minors by priests, which has afflicted many Catholic dioceses around the world, had also driven many people away, as had the closures themselves.  [Could there be other reasons?]

The only bright spot for the Dutch church was the finding that the election of the popular Pope Francis in March appeared to have slowed the exodus this year.

[…]

Uh huh.  That’ll make a difference.

Here is a question.

Has anyone considered “active participation” in light of the fact that only about 5% of French or Belgian Catholics go to Mass?

Is that “active participation”?

A health centre unit is built inside a former Catholic church in Eindhoven that has been sold because of dramatic falls in levels of churchgoing in the Netherlands. Photo taken 20 March 2012/Tom Heneghan

Posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, Vatican II | Tagged
18 Comments

“If you want your Latin in the Mass, you can keep your Latin in the Mass. PERIOD!”

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says, first, that Mass is to be celebrated in Latin, and then, or in other approved languages.

The Council’s document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, says that the Latin language is to be preserved.

Contrary to the LIE that Latin was forbidden or that special permission is required, Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 requires that pastors of souls teach their flocks to sing and respond in Latin and their mother tongue.

If you want your Latin in the Mass, you can keep your Latin in the Mass.  PERIOD!

Posted in Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ,
10 Comments