Monday, February 25, 2013
Let the Purge Begin
In light of the latest regarding Cardinal O'Brien from Scotland; I say, "LET THE PURGE BEGIN!"
I am of the opinion that if a deacon, priest, or bishop is accused of a crime he should be immediately removed from office and sequestered into a convent or monastery until such time as his innocence can be proved. If it cannot be proved, then he should remain in said monastery or convent indefinitely with a mandate to do two things, say Holy Mass and pray.
We do not live in an age where chances or the benefit of the doubt can be given any longer. Every Archdiocese, Diocese, and Eparchy in the Catholic world must run above board and there can be nothing which can cause scandal.
There will be more to come out. Of that I am sure. This is not the end, but it is a good thing. We must relieve the priesthood of any and all criminal predators, whatever the stripe.
The answer is clear though to solve this issue which exists in the Church today. We must start teaching sexual temperance and we must start living in a temperant way. This means that we must do all we can to snuff out several things:
(caveat: when I speak of priest, I include all three levels, deacon/priest/bishop)
1. Active homosexuality within the priesthood. We cannot control the inner dispositions of another, so if he does not disclose that he his homosexual, there is nothing which can be done until such time as it is discovered. However, any and all active homosexual activity must end immediately. This ranges from identifying as homosexual all the way to actively living the lifestyle.
2. Disobedience regarding celibacy. Priests must embrace the charism of celibacy. I know that it is not an infallible teaching of the Church, but it doesn't need to be. The great graces attained from a celibate lifestyle are immeasurable. But that really is secondary in the argument. The bigger impediment to Holy Orders is Matrimony. I believe that a priest should have the freedom to exercise his ministry without the bonds of marriage. This is where the charism really lies. Insofar as this is the case, celibacy falls in line because for a single person the chaste action is celibacy.
3. We must demand, absolutely demand that our clergy be chaste. There should be a zero-tolerance policy in this arena. If a priest is found to be unchaste, off to the monestary or convent he goes.
I firmly believe that the diaconate should be closed to married men. The charism of celibacy is too important for the priesthood to allow marriage to be a distraction. Deacons are too closely related to the priest to be permitted. The role of the permanent deacon is an experiment which is failing. They are underutilized and they are ineffective, in most places.
I know this will upset many, but the reality is that the permanent deacon is nothing more than the embodiment of the flawed post-Vatican Council II notion of participatio activa trumping true and meaningful participatio actuosa. The role of a permanent deacon in today's world is nothing more than a liturgical minister. It has been my experience that in 99.9% of cases and in all but one parish, that the permanent deacon assists at Holy Mass, takes Holy Communion to the sick and that's about it. But then again, laymen do the very same thing.
The other side of that coin is that it is the first step in legitimizing a married priesthood and that is unacceptable, as a general rule (This excludes the East, btw). The charism of celibacy is compromised.
This is my opinion and anyone is free to disagree, but I would ask them to prove why it is so.
4. His place of solace and comfort should be one of two places, either a monestary or convent. If the priest identifies as gay, he should be sent to minister to a convent, wherein his temptations will be lessened because he will not be around other men. He would live a cloistered life and he would offer the Sacraments to the sisters as well as live the rest of his life in solitude and prayer. If a priest is accused/convicted of any other crime, he should be placed in a monestary, where he can say Holy Mass and live a life of solitude and prayer.
The time for action is now. We cannot wait any longer. Bishops must, absolutely must choose those men who are free from the bonds of deviant sexual behavior, homosexual or heterosexual. Bishops must give men an honest shot to get through seminary and finally bishops must promote vocations to the priesthood as a valued way of life. It is not easy and there is much self giving as well as self denial, but in the end it will cause a boom in vocations.
In short, the priesthood must return to a chaste state. The key is chastity and we must start teaching it and living it. It must start at home and it must continue until such time as the world ends.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Reminder
Hello All,
I am posting a quick reminder that module #2 for the Basic Catechist Course is this Sunday evening @ 7pm. It will be at St. Mary's in Humboldt, Iowa.
If you are able, we'd love to see you there. If not, please pray for those who are coming to the course. They are on a journey which should deepen their understanding of the Catholic faith.
Thank you.
I am posting a quick reminder that module #2 for the Basic Catechist Course is this Sunday evening @ 7pm. It will be at St. Mary's in Humboldt, Iowa.
If you are able, we'd love to see you there. If not, please pray for those who are coming to the course. They are on a journey which should deepen their understanding of the Catholic faith.
Thank you.
Holy Water and Lent
This is a total rip-off, but to be honest I don't really care. It is a good reminder:
(source)
In recent years, some parishes have taken the holy water out of the holy water fonts during Lent. They have even filled them with sand in some cases.
The idea, they say, is to convey the thought that Lent is a time of spiritual dryness--a "desert" experience--that precedes Easter, in which we refrain from using the sacramental of holy water.
Despite its popularity in some places, this practice is not permitted.
It has been the Church's practice to empty the holy water fonts during Triduum, but for a different reason. It is not permitted to have them empty through the whole season of Lent.
The Congregation for Divine Worship has stated:
This Dicastery is able to respond that the removing of Holy Water from the fonts during the season of Lent is not permitted, in particular, for two reasons:
1. The liturgical legislation in force does not foresee this innovation, which in addition to being "praeter legem" [i.e., "apart from the law"] is contrary to a balanced understanding of the season of Lent, which though truly being a season of penance, is also a season rich in the symbolism of water and baptism, constantly evoked in liturgical texts.
2. The encouragement of the Church that the faithful avail themselves frequently of the sacraments is to be understood to apply also to the season of Lent. The "fast" and "abstinence" which the faithful embrace in this season does not extend to abstaining from the sacraments or sacramentals of the Church.
The practice of the Church has been to empty the Holy Water fonts on the days of the Sacred Triduum in preparation of the blessing of the water at the Easter Vigil, and it corresponds to those days on which the Eucharist is not celebrated (i.e., Good Friday and Holy Saturday) [3/14/03: Prot. N. 569/00/L].
(source)
Thursday, February 14, 2013
An Insight into the Liturgical Movement
I am reposting an article written by my friend, Fr. Christopher Smith. Please read:
The Unfinished Liturgical Work of Benedict XVI
Posted by Revd Fr Christopher Smith
One of the things that I hoped against hope for during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was an encyclical on the liturgy marking the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum concilium. That will now never come to pass. Only the future can tell how much the liturgical theology of Joseph Ratzinger will continue to enter into the life of the Church via the Roman Magisterium. That liturgical theology, of course, is itself the heir of the classical Liturgical Movement, applied to the problems of today in such a way as to herald a New Liturgical Movement. This renewal movement, like its early 20th century predecessor, has not been a uniform one by any stretch of the imagination. But it clearly reflects the thought of Joseph Ratzinger.
But there are also some significant lacunae that present themselves at the end of this papacy as well, that his successor will have to in some way address. There is much in Ratzinger’s theology, which never saw itself translated into anything concrete via the munus regendi of the Roman Pontiff and the Curia. There are other things which found their counterpart in things the Pope did by way of example, but were never enshrined in any other way. A question burning in the hearts of many a disciple of the Pope of the Liturgy is whether any of those things will find their way into the next pontificate. Or will they remain as they were in the papacy of Benedict XVI: quiet provocations to thoughtful people to integrate them into the ars celebrandi, not by force but by their intrinsic worth becoming more visible (or not) with time? It can also be asked, and must be, whether the Reform of the Reform was a “quixotic movement doomed to extinction” as a priest friend once said of the Traditionalist Movement, a force which will lose its guiding star, fading before the burning sun of secularist might? Or is now the moment of its greatest epiphany, as Pope Benedict leaves to his followers the shadow of a blueprint for how to go about it all?
I don’t think anyone can adequately answer these questions. But we can look at the work that has been done in the years of Pope Benedict’s papacy and then surmise what is left to accomplish if we are to advance the goals of the New Liturgical Movement.
Reorientation of the Liturgy
If I had to say what I thought is the single most important accomplishment of Pope Benedict’s liturgical magisterium, I would have to say the reorientation of the liturgy. That might surprise you. After all, the only public papal ad orientem celebrations were on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, in the context of what otherwise might have been an ordinary Italian Novus Ordo parish Mass. No edict issued forth from Rome encouraging the type of celebration that Klaus Gamber and Joseph Ratzinger argued had an inherent and irreducible liturgical symbolic weight. What has come to be called the Benedictine arrangement, which in reality is just the post-Tridentine arrangment of cross and candles on altars in Roman Basilicas where a confessio precluded celebration of the Mass in front of the altar, appeared in the papal liturgy and was imitated all over the world. It had no legal force behind it.
But Ratzinger/Benedict was very clear on the christological orientation of the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass had to be oriented towards the Christ of the Paschal Mystery. His insistence on this principal was a needed corrective to a one-sided emphasis on self-celebrating community and the meal aspect of the Mass. It serves to reduce the temptation of clerical presiders to be protagonists in creating the liturgy, and puts priests and liturgy commissariat apparatchniks in their place, which is not in the center of the celebration, but in its service.
Yet how is this principle translated into action? It is foremost a spiritual principle which can be made visible in liturgical celebration in various ways. The challenge for the future is that, now that more and more celebrants are choosing to celebrate the Mass facing what is now described as liturgical East, will it remain an eccentric option able to be marginalized, and hence manipulable by those who claim it causes division? Will it grow unencumbered by discriminatory retributions on the part of those who despise it in principle and in action? Or will a future edict of the Pope, the Congregation for Divine Worship, or Bishops’ Conferences mandate or proscribe it?
Leadership from on high will be needed if the movement towards ad orientem worship is going to contribute to the unity of the Church and not detract from it. And that leadership cannot ignore the fundamental Christ-centered liturgical action of Benedict’s teaching.
Two Forms of the Roman Rite
The 2007 document Summorum pontificum and its 2011 follow-up Universae ecclesiae introduced a radically new notion into the life, and the law, of the Church. The Roman Rite was henceforth to consist of two forms, an ordinary one (the 1970 Missal of Paul VI) and an extraordinary one (the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII). This declaration is unparalleled in the history of the Church.
But what has it actually done? First of all, it has removed the stigma that ambiguously marked millions of Catholics who were attracted to the classical form of the Roman Rite. No longer second-class citizens, traditionalist-minded faithful all of a sudden found themselves (at least most of them) no longer questioned for their loyalty to the Church. What’s more, the traditionalist critique of men such as Lefebvre and Siri and their heirs has once more began to be heard in the open, and no longer in secret enclaves. Whether this should be the case or not, it is, and a newer generation of clergy and young people are asking questions that were stifled only a decade ago.
Second, it has enshrined the principle that there is such a thing as legitimate liturgical diversity even within the one Roman Rite. This has been used to free other ancient uses as well, such as the rites of the religious orders, and can be applied also to other historic uses.
Third, it puts the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, and the pre-reformed rites, front and center in the Church’s life again. It is no longer marginalized, and cannot be. The steady increase of the older missal’s adoption marks a new stage in the faithful’s expectations of liturgy.
Yet, since the proclamation has done all these things, it also brings up numerous unresolved issues. Will the Church revisit Vatican II and seek out its authentic interpretation? How will the Church do this? By another council, by the Synod of Bishops, by theologians laboring to bring it forth, by Roman decree? How can the traditionalist critique that the liturgical reform was a rupture be integrated into a Church which has been oriented by Benedict XVI to seek out a hermenutic of continuity?
The diversity of the Roman Rite also presents its own challenges. Does that diversity only apply to preconciliar expressions of worship, or can it also apply to things like the Zairian Rite, the newer liturgical customs of individual monasteries, LifeTeen Masses and the Neocatechumenal Way? In what does the Roman Rite consist now?
Greater access to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII also has had the effect of raising some searching questions about the preconciliar liturgical reform. How will the Church address the growing momentum to reconsider the reforms of the Pontifical and Holy Week before Vatican II, and liberate the usage of previous forms of them? Likewise, how will the Church address the ways in which Liturgiam authenticam inspired translations of the Ordinary Form which have not always been received well by liturgists and pewsitters alike and through processes which have not always been accepted by them either? Will any of the indications of Sacrosanctum concilium, such as the use of the vernacular, be brought to bear on the Extraordinary Form?
Pastors, theologians and liturgists have a weighty task now in evaluating how the christological reorientation of the liturgy in this papacy, and its accompanying recontextualizing of the Roman Rite, looks in practice.
Reform of the Reform
Ratzinger had indicated that the time was propitious for there to be a Reform of the Reform. But in what does that consist? For all of the rumoring of various propositions that were supposed to be coming out of the Vatican which would give flesh to a Reform of the Reform, nothing has ever seen the light of day. Did Pope Benedict have a Marshall Plan for the reform of the liturgy, or was that a fanciful notion driven by wishful thinking and some inside knowledge? Regardless, the motor which drove forward the whole project, the person of Pope Benedict XVI, has now been removed from the vehicle of the liturgy. Can that motor be replaced by another charismatic person who understands what must be done, or by a series of liturgical and legal proposals to bring the liturgy to a state of what would make its Christocentric nature more apparent?
“Something must be done” has been on the lips of many Catholics about the liturgy for a very long time. But the question now becomes what that something is, and how it can be done in a way so as to not compromise the unity of a Church which finds itself pressured from inside and out by dividing forces?
Can the proposals for how the liturgy should be reformed enter into a dialogue with the whole Church, with theologians, liturgists, pastors or lay faithful? Or will they be imposed by the hierarchy? Will their imposition by the hierarchy yield long-time benefits despite short-term discomfiture? When do the Pope, the Curia, Bishops and pastors know the time is right to advance the Reform of the Reform, and in what does it consist?
Mutual Enrichment
The placement side by side of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Missal was done with a hopeful view to mutual enrichment. Some people have claimed that such enrichment has been too one-sided. How are the two Missals supposed to enrich each other? How can they do so if the mixing of the two forms is forbidden? Is there a tertium quid which will recognize the merits of both and combine them in some fashion into a once again unified Roman rite?
Sacred Art and Music
The Liturgical Art and Sacred Music Commission of the Congregation for Divine Worship has been formed under the leadership of the Pope. But what is its competency? What is it supposed to do and how can it be used as a tool for the Reform of the Reform? Will black lists of music and art be published, or will general guidelines for the arts in church be crafted? How can they take into account what actually exists in the Church and the many different situations in which the Church’s worship is celebrated throughout the world? Will the Congregation for Divine Worship oversee the Reform of the Reform as Consilium did the original reform? How will the new commission be integrated into that project, if it ever sees the light of day?
Inculturation
Theologians and liturgists continue to puzzle over the guiding principles of inculturation in various spheres of the Church’s life: theology, liturgy, discipline, clerical formation, and more. They also continue to puzzle over what that looks like in the concrete. Where are the boundaries of such inculturation? What limits do Revelation, canon law, or common sense impose on the experimentation which drives inculturation? Will inculturation increase the diversity of the Roman Rite, or will there cease to be a recognizable Roman Rite? Does inculturation apply only to mission countries in the developing world, or is there a sense in which the nations of Old Christendom need their own inculturation of the Gospel as well?
Ceremonial
The Pope, in all of his thought on the liturgy, avoids discussion of minute details of how the liturgy should be celebrated. An exaggerated rubricism seems hardly amenable to the spirit of the times, but how does the papal vision look when it is celebrated according to the principles which guide it? If it is up to individual interpretation, it is hard to see how the liturgy can remain a unifying factor in the Church’s life. The Reform of the Reform advanced in an individualistic way can risk the same type of protagonism alien to Benedict’s conception of the ars celebrandi. Greater guidance is needed from the Roman Curia on how to craft a workable ceremonial which incarnates the principles. Greater guidance is needed to see how such a ceremonial may be adapted to the different situations in which the Church worships. Is it too much to hope that a new General Instruction of the Roman Missal and an accompanying Ceremoniale Presbyterorum, rich in catechetical and theological depth alongside the necessary rubrics, may end the stop-and-go gradual transformation of the liturgy according to Benedictine principles and create a harmonious whole for the Ordinary Form just as the old books did for the Tridentine liturgy?
Reception of Holy Communion
The various indults allowing Communion in the hand have continued to exist and be granted, even in the papacy of Pope Benedict. The norms for the reception and distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds remain what they are according to the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. The norms for standing and kneeling remain what they are. Yet, Pope Benedict himself chose to distribute Holy Communion to communicants who knelt at a prie-Dieu and received under the form of bread alone and directly on the tongue. This mode of reception of Holy Communion, so closely associated with preconciliar practice and the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form, was clearly preferred by Pope Benedict XVI. Books like that Athanasius Schneider’s Dominus est! provide a loud call for a return to that mode of reception.
In what sense can that mode be called traditional and preferred when there are many counterindications to its perduring historical presence? What does it mean when the Roman Pontiff mandates it at his Masses, does not allow those receiving at his Masses to exercise all of the options allowed to them by liturgical law and at the hands of every other celebrant in the Roman Church, and clearly prefers it? Do other modes merely indicate greater diversity in liturgical practice, and are they helpful for unity in worship?
The way in which Pope Benedict XVI distributed Holy Communion at his Masses reflects much of the thought in traditionalist and Reform of the Reform quarters, and goes against everything the Liturgical Establishment has said for 50 years should be the norm. Perhaps during this Year of Faith there can be a reflection on how modes of distribution of Holy Communion should be located in the context of what it means to be properly disposed to receive, and how they have positively or negatively affected faith in the Real Presence. It is time to address whether, and to what extent, Communion in the hand, Communion under both species, and Extraordinary Ministers have contributed to the growing crisis of faith. It is also time to address whether aspects of the liturgical celebration, such as the mode of reception, should be conformed to the practice of the early Church, to pre-Vatican II practice, or to current needs, especially in light of confusion as to sacramental theology. For decades now the Roman Magisterium has urged proper catechesis to go along with what has become accepted practice in many places for the current modes, but can a case be made for the modes themselves obviating or obscuring what is done in the catechesis?
Also, given that we have this struggle between norms in liturgical books and indults, local exceptions and eccentric practices, is it too much to ask that the Roman Magisterium clarify or mandate one form of reception for Holy Communion for the Roman Rite? If Holy Communion is supposed to be a sign par excellence of the unity of the Body of Christ, can this bewildering diversity of practices in the modes of reception of Holy Communion really manifest and help preserve that unity?
Papal Liturgy and the Roman Tradition
People for centuries have looked to Rome for how to celebrate liturgy (or how not to, as well). Modern media have made it possible for everyone to analyze and imitate (or react against) what they see, particularly at papal liturgies. The aesthetic cultivated under Pope Paul VI and Virgilio Noë became a standard for what the post-conciliar liturgy should look like, and how it should be celebrated. Continuing under Bl. John Paul II and Piero Marini, this aesthetic formed opinions about how the reformed rites should be celebrated.
Under Pope Benedict XVI, however, something different has happened. While the Noë look continues to a certain extent in the Vatican Basilica liturgies and in international celebrations, there has been a progressive adoption, at least in papal liturgies at the Roman Basilicas, of an ars celebrandi, from vesture and vestments to interpretation of rites, which to many recalls the papal liturgy before the Second Vatican Council. To those who live outside the clerical culture of Italy, this has become a source of concern. Many have interpreted it as a symbolic repudiation of the ecclesiology and liturgical reform of Vatican II. Some have charged that it is a return to triumphalism, mediated by the restoration of a style associated with the now-abolished Papal Court and too tied to Baroque ceremonial traditions. While many of those who make these comments are of a reformist, self-identifying liberal bent, this is not the case of all of the detractors.
Even conservative columnist George Weigel in his recent book Evangelical Catholicism identifies this trend with what he sees as “Counter-Reformation Catholicism” whose time has come and gone, and is no longer applicable to today’s needs. As more and more younger clergy reproduce this new/old style in their own spheres, he intimates that it is “precious” and “prissy” and must be rejected as an unwelcome effeminate accretion to the liturgy.
It can be easy for critics of this Benedictine style to charge that these elements are all exercises in “retro-liturgy.” Because many people associate so-called fiddleback chasubles, lace albs and surplices and birettas with the pre-Noë aesthetic, they also surmise that their use is evidence, at best, of nostalgia, and at worst, of moral degeneracy.
Yet, outside of the Vatican, these same things are not interpreted, at least in Italian clerical circles, the same way. The dichotomy applied to them is not liberal/traditionalist, but antico/moderno. The choice for their use depends on a complicated calculus which includes the aesthetic of the church building (are you in a Baroque building, a Bauhaus church, or a Neo-Gothic chapel), the degree of solemnity (is it a feria of Lent or is it Easter Sunday), and the rank of the celebrant (is it a permanent deacon doing a Baptism or the Pope at a canonization). While to outsiders, it may seem entirely too much falderol, it does represent a certain continuity with what came before. It is a cultural thing which is peculiarly Roman, and has little to do with ecclesiology and liturgical questions in se.
The Roman basilica aesthetic and ars celebrandi is a tradition which has been handed down. Gromier and Dante’s cultivation of it had its successor in Franck Quoëx’s application of it to the Extraordinary Form in our time and in Guido Marini’s reapplication of it, d’après la scuola liturgica siriana-genovese, to the papal liturgy.
But is the cultivation of this style in the Benedictine papacy a secret attempt to force effete nostalgia via Counter Reformation frocks upon an unwilling Pilgrim Church? Is it an exercise in the hermeneutic of continuity, by stressing that the post-Vatican II papacy is in communion with that, both of Paul VI and Pius XII, at least in some visible way? Is it simply bringing forth things new and old from the Church’s storehouse? Or is it just a sign that polyester is out and brocade is back in? And why have many younger people, particularly clergy, responded so enthusiastically to it?
Part of this question also involves concrete actions which have a symbolic weight. Until recently, the Pope in the reformed liturgy was the only person who did not wear a Eucharistic vestment proper to his rank. The restoration of the fanon brought back an important liturgical principle. That action was rejected by many, because they depart from an esentially conciliarist principle that the Pope is really primus inter pares, and if anything should dress like any other Bishop, or any other Christian. Difference is interpreted as a sign of willful clericalist discrimination. Or the fanon is seen as an incomprehensible piece of nostalgia for people who like dressing up.
In reality, the fanon is the liturgical complement to the nota previa to Lumen gentium. Just as the conciliar constitution on the Church had to have an appendage to salvage a proper understanding of the Roman papacy against the just clarification of the episcopal office by Vatican II, the fanon underscores the papal office against the anti-papal court style of the reformed rites.
Even though the Holy Father himself neverly celebrated the Extraordinary Form publicly, his unleashing of Summorum pontificum has led to a renewal of interest in both the papal and pontifical forms of that liturgy. But that has led to some thorny issues. Are celebrations of Bishops and the Pope in the Extraordinary Form to be brought in line with Pontificalis Domus of 1968, for example? Are they subject to the 1983 Code of Canon Law (forbidding Mass coram Ss.mo)? Or are they carried out according to the terms of the old liturgical books without reference to current legislation? The fact that these are happening is already leading to calls for a revision of the austere pruning of Pontificalis Domus and the gutting of the Pontifical and Ceremonial in the revised rites.
In short, is the reappropriation of certain elements of Roman Basilica style in this reign a blip on the screen? Were they just pushed by the private taste of Marini II and Gänswein? Or are they part and parcel of a Reform of the Reform which will continue on into the next pontificate?
Conclusion
Nobody doubts that Ratzinger’s rich teaching and Benedict’s beautiful practice of the liturgy has been tremendously influential in a brief space of time. But has it had time to take root, and will it be appreciated and advanced in the next pontificate? The liturgy in our time is in a delicate situation, in a time of transition. Only the Spirit can say how the next generation will engage the Sacred Liturgy, and whether Benedict’s unfinished work will morph into an enduring legacy.
(source)
The Unfinished Liturgical Work of Benedict XVI
Posted by Revd Fr Christopher Smith
One of the things that I hoped against hope for during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was an encyclical on the liturgy marking the 50th anniversary of Sacrosanctum concilium. That will now never come to pass. Only the future can tell how much the liturgical theology of Joseph Ratzinger will continue to enter into the life of the Church via the Roman Magisterium. That liturgical theology, of course, is itself the heir of the classical Liturgical Movement, applied to the problems of today in such a way as to herald a New Liturgical Movement. This renewal movement, like its early 20th century predecessor, has not been a uniform one by any stretch of the imagination. But it clearly reflects the thought of Joseph Ratzinger.
But there are also some significant lacunae that present themselves at the end of this papacy as well, that his successor will have to in some way address. There is much in Ratzinger’s theology, which never saw itself translated into anything concrete via the munus regendi of the Roman Pontiff and the Curia. There are other things which found their counterpart in things the Pope did by way of example, but were never enshrined in any other way. A question burning in the hearts of many a disciple of the Pope of the Liturgy is whether any of those things will find their way into the next pontificate. Or will they remain as they were in the papacy of Benedict XVI: quiet provocations to thoughtful people to integrate them into the ars celebrandi, not by force but by their intrinsic worth becoming more visible (or not) with time? It can also be asked, and must be, whether the Reform of the Reform was a “quixotic movement doomed to extinction” as a priest friend once said of the Traditionalist Movement, a force which will lose its guiding star, fading before the burning sun of secularist might? Or is now the moment of its greatest epiphany, as Pope Benedict leaves to his followers the shadow of a blueprint for how to go about it all?
I don’t think anyone can adequately answer these questions. But we can look at the work that has been done in the years of Pope Benedict’s papacy and then surmise what is left to accomplish if we are to advance the goals of the New Liturgical Movement.
Reorientation of the Liturgy
If I had to say what I thought is the single most important accomplishment of Pope Benedict’s liturgical magisterium, I would have to say the reorientation of the liturgy. That might surprise you. After all, the only public papal ad orientem celebrations were on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, in the context of what otherwise might have been an ordinary Italian Novus Ordo parish Mass. No edict issued forth from Rome encouraging the type of celebration that Klaus Gamber and Joseph Ratzinger argued had an inherent and irreducible liturgical symbolic weight. What has come to be called the Benedictine arrangement, which in reality is just the post-Tridentine arrangment of cross and candles on altars in Roman Basilicas where a confessio precluded celebration of the Mass in front of the altar, appeared in the papal liturgy and was imitated all over the world. It had no legal force behind it.
But Ratzinger/Benedict was very clear on the christological orientation of the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass had to be oriented towards the Christ of the Paschal Mystery. His insistence on this principal was a needed corrective to a one-sided emphasis on self-celebrating community and the meal aspect of the Mass. It serves to reduce the temptation of clerical presiders to be protagonists in creating the liturgy, and puts priests and liturgy commissariat apparatchniks in their place, which is not in the center of the celebration, but in its service.
Yet how is this principle translated into action? It is foremost a spiritual principle which can be made visible in liturgical celebration in various ways. The challenge for the future is that, now that more and more celebrants are choosing to celebrate the Mass facing what is now described as liturgical East, will it remain an eccentric option able to be marginalized, and hence manipulable by those who claim it causes division? Will it grow unencumbered by discriminatory retributions on the part of those who despise it in principle and in action? Or will a future edict of the Pope, the Congregation for Divine Worship, or Bishops’ Conferences mandate or proscribe it?
Leadership from on high will be needed if the movement towards ad orientem worship is going to contribute to the unity of the Church and not detract from it. And that leadership cannot ignore the fundamental Christ-centered liturgical action of Benedict’s teaching.
Two Forms of the Roman Rite
The 2007 document Summorum pontificum and its 2011 follow-up Universae ecclesiae introduced a radically new notion into the life, and the law, of the Church. The Roman Rite was henceforth to consist of two forms, an ordinary one (the 1970 Missal of Paul VI) and an extraordinary one (the 1962 Missal of Blessed John XXIII). This declaration is unparalleled in the history of the Church.
But what has it actually done? First of all, it has removed the stigma that ambiguously marked millions of Catholics who were attracted to the classical form of the Roman Rite. No longer second-class citizens, traditionalist-minded faithful all of a sudden found themselves (at least most of them) no longer questioned for their loyalty to the Church. What’s more, the traditionalist critique of men such as Lefebvre and Siri and their heirs has once more began to be heard in the open, and no longer in secret enclaves. Whether this should be the case or not, it is, and a newer generation of clergy and young people are asking questions that were stifled only a decade ago.
Second, it has enshrined the principle that there is such a thing as legitimate liturgical diversity even within the one Roman Rite. This has been used to free other ancient uses as well, such as the rites of the religious orders, and can be applied also to other historic uses.
Third, it puts the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, and the pre-reformed rites, front and center in the Church’s life again. It is no longer marginalized, and cannot be. The steady increase of the older missal’s adoption marks a new stage in the faithful’s expectations of liturgy.
Yet, since the proclamation has done all these things, it also brings up numerous unresolved issues. Will the Church revisit Vatican II and seek out its authentic interpretation? How will the Church do this? By another council, by the Synod of Bishops, by theologians laboring to bring it forth, by Roman decree? How can the traditionalist critique that the liturgical reform was a rupture be integrated into a Church which has been oriented by Benedict XVI to seek out a hermenutic of continuity?
The diversity of the Roman Rite also presents its own challenges. Does that diversity only apply to preconciliar expressions of worship, or can it also apply to things like the Zairian Rite, the newer liturgical customs of individual monasteries, LifeTeen Masses and the Neocatechumenal Way? In what does the Roman Rite consist now?
Greater access to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII also has had the effect of raising some searching questions about the preconciliar liturgical reform. How will the Church address the growing momentum to reconsider the reforms of the Pontifical and Holy Week before Vatican II, and liberate the usage of previous forms of them? Likewise, how will the Church address the ways in which Liturgiam authenticam inspired translations of the Ordinary Form which have not always been received well by liturgists and pewsitters alike and through processes which have not always been accepted by them either? Will any of the indications of Sacrosanctum concilium, such as the use of the vernacular, be brought to bear on the Extraordinary Form?
Pastors, theologians and liturgists have a weighty task now in evaluating how the christological reorientation of the liturgy in this papacy, and its accompanying recontextualizing of the Roman Rite, looks in practice.
Reform of the Reform
Ratzinger had indicated that the time was propitious for there to be a Reform of the Reform. But in what does that consist? For all of the rumoring of various propositions that were supposed to be coming out of the Vatican which would give flesh to a Reform of the Reform, nothing has ever seen the light of day. Did Pope Benedict have a Marshall Plan for the reform of the liturgy, or was that a fanciful notion driven by wishful thinking and some inside knowledge? Regardless, the motor which drove forward the whole project, the person of Pope Benedict XVI, has now been removed from the vehicle of the liturgy. Can that motor be replaced by another charismatic person who understands what must be done, or by a series of liturgical and legal proposals to bring the liturgy to a state of what would make its Christocentric nature more apparent?
“Something must be done” has been on the lips of many Catholics about the liturgy for a very long time. But the question now becomes what that something is, and how it can be done in a way so as to not compromise the unity of a Church which finds itself pressured from inside and out by dividing forces?
Can the proposals for how the liturgy should be reformed enter into a dialogue with the whole Church, with theologians, liturgists, pastors or lay faithful? Or will they be imposed by the hierarchy? Will their imposition by the hierarchy yield long-time benefits despite short-term discomfiture? When do the Pope, the Curia, Bishops and pastors know the time is right to advance the Reform of the Reform, and in what does it consist?
Mutual Enrichment
The placement side by side of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Missal was done with a hopeful view to mutual enrichment. Some people have claimed that such enrichment has been too one-sided. How are the two Missals supposed to enrich each other? How can they do so if the mixing of the two forms is forbidden? Is there a tertium quid which will recognize the merits of both and combine them in some fashion into a once again unified Roman rite?
Sacred Art and Music
The Liturgical Art and Sacred Music Commission of the Congregation for Divine Worship has been formed under the leadership of the Pope. But what is its competency? What is it supposed to do and how can it be used as a tool for the Reform of the Reform? Will black lists of music and art be published, or will general guidelines for the arts in church be crafted? How can they take into account what actually exists in the Church and the many different situations in which the Church’s worship is celebrated throughout the world? Will the Congregation for Divine Worship oversee the Reform of the Reform as Consilium did the original reform? How will the new commission be integrated into that project, if it ever sees the light of day?
Inculturation
Theologians and liturgists continue to puzzle over the guiding principles of inculturation in various spheres of the Church’s life: theology, liturgy, discipline, clerical formation, and more. They also continue to puzzle over what that looks like in the concrete. Where are the boundaries of such inculturation? What limits do Revelation, canon law, or common sense impose on the experimentation which drives inculturation? Will inculturation increase the diversity of the Roman Rite, or will there cease to be a recognizable Roman Rite? Does inculturation apply only to mission countries in the developing world, or is there a sense in which the nations of Old Christendom need their own inculturation of the Gospel as well?
Ceremonial
The Pope, in all of his thought on the liturgy, avoids discussion of minute details of how the liturgy should be celebrated. An exaggerated rubricism seems hardly amenable to the spirit of the times, but how does the papal vision look when it is celebrated according to the principles which guide it? If it is up to individual interpretation, it is hard to see how the liturgy can remain a unifying factor in the Church’s life. The Reform of the Reform advanced in an individualistic way can risk the same type of protagonism alien to Benedict’s conception of the ars celebrandi. Greater guidance is needed from the Roman Curia on how to craft a workable ceremonial which incarnates the principles. Greater guidance is needed to see how such a ceremonial may be adapted to the different situations in which the Church worships. Is it too much to hope that a new General Instruction of the Roman Missal and an accompanying Ceremoniale Presbyterorum, rich in catechetical and theological depth alongside the necessary rubrics, may end the stop-and-go gradual transformation of the liturgy according to Benedictine principles and create a harmonious whole for the Ordinary Form just as the old books did for the Tridentine liturgy?
Reception of Holy Communion
The various indults allowing Communion in the hand have continued to exist and be granted, even in the papacy of Pope Benedict. The norms for the reception and distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds remain what they are according to the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. The norms for standing and kneeling remain what they are. Yet, Pope Benedict himself chose to distribute Holy Communion to communicants who knelt at a prie-Dieu and received under the form of bread alone and directly on the tongue. This mode of reception of Holy Communion, so closely associated with preconciliar practice and the rubrics of the Extraordinary Form, was clearly preferred by Pope Benedict XVI. Books like that Athanasius Schneider’s Dominus est! provide a loud call for a return to that mode of reception.
In what sense can that mode be called traditional and preferred when there are many counterindications to its perduring historical presence? What does it mean when the Roman Pontiff mandates it at his Masses, does not allow those receiving at his Masses to exercise all of the options allowed to them by liturgical law and at the hands of every other celebrant in the Roman Church, and clearly prefers it? Do other modes merely indicate greater diversity in liturgical practice, and are they helpful for unity in worship?
The way in which Pope Benedict XVI distributed Holy Communion at his Masses reflects much of the thought in traditionalist and Reform of the Reform quarters, and goes against everything the Liturgical Establishment has said for 50 years should be the norm. Perhaps during this Year of Faith there can be a reflection on how modes of distribution of Holy Communion should be located in the context of what it means to be properly disposed to receive, and how they have positively or negatively affected faith in the Real Presence. It is time to address whether, and to what extent, Communion in the hand, Communion under both species, and Extraordinary Ministers have contributed to the growing crisis of faith. It is also time to address whether aspects of the liturgical celebration, such as the mode of reception, should be conformed to the practice of the early Church, to pre-Vatican II practice, or to current needs, especially in light of confusion as to sacramental theology. For decades now the Roman Magisterium has urged proper catechesis to go along with what has become accepted practice in many places for the current modes, but can a case be made for the modes themselves obviating or obscuring what is done in the catechesis?
Also, given that we have this struggle between norms in liturgical books and indults, local exceptions and eccentric practices, is it too much to ask that the Roman Magisterium clarify or mandate one form of reception for Holy Communion for the Roman Rite? If Holy Communion is supposed to be a sign par excellence of the unity of the Body of Christ, can this bewildering diversity of practices in the modes of reception of Holy Communion really manifest and help preserve that unity?
Papal Liturgy and the Roman Tradition
People for centuries have looked to Rome for how to celebrate liturgy (or how not to, as well). Modern media have made it possible for everyone to analyze and imitate (or react against) what they see, particularly at papal liturgies. The aesthetic cultivated under Pope Paul VI and Virgilio Noë became a standard for what the post-conciliar liturgy should look like, and how it should be celebrated. Continuing under Bl. John Paul II and Piero Marini, this aesthetic formed opinions about how the reformed rites should be celebrated.
Under Pope Benedict XVI, however, something different has happened. While the Noë look continues to a certain extent in the Vatican Basilica liturgies and in international celebrations, there has been a progressive adoption, at least in papal liturgies at the Roman Basilicas, of an ars celebrandi, from vesture and vestments to interpretation of rites, which to many recalls the papal liturgy before the Second Vatican Council. To those who live outside the clerical culture of Italy, this has become a source of concern. Many have interpreted it as a symbolic repudiation of the ecclesiology and liturgical reform of Vatican II. Some have charged that it is a return to triumphalism, mediated by the restoration of a style associated with the now-abolished Papal Court and too tied to Baroque ceremonial traditions. While many of those who make these comments are of a reformist, self-identifying liberal bent, this is not the case of all of the detractors.
Even conservative columnist George Weigel in his recent book Evangelical Catholicism identifies this trend with what he sees as “Counter-Reformation Catholicism” whose time has come and gone, and is no longer applicable to today’s needs. As more and more younger clergy reproduce this new/old style in their own spheres, he intimates that it is “precious” and “prissy” and must be rejected as an unwelcome effeminate accretion to the liturgy.
It can be easy for critics of this Benedictine style to charge that these elements are all exercises in “retro-liturgy.” Because many people associate so-called fiddleback chasubles, lace albs and surplices and birettas with the pre-Noë aesthetic, they also surmise that their use is evidence, at best, of nostalgia, and at worst, of moral degeneracy.
Yet, outside of the Vatican, these same things are not interpreted, at least in Italian clerical circles, the same way. The dichotomy applied to them is not liberal/traditionalist, but antico/moderno. The choice for their use depends on a complicated calculus which includes the aesthetic of the church building (are you in a Baroque building, a Bauhaus church, or a Neo-Gothic chapel), the degree of solemnity (is it a feria of Lent or is it Easter Sunday), and the rank of the celebrant (is it a permanent deacon doing a Baptism or the Pope at a canonization). While to outsiders, it may seem entirely too much falderol, it does represent a certain continuity with what came before. It is a cultural thing which is peculiarly Roman, and has little to do with ecclesiology and liturgical questions in se.
The Roman basilica aesthetic and ars celebrandi is a tradition which has been handed down. Gromier and Dante’s cultivation of it had its successor in Franck Quoëx’s application of it to the Extraordinary Form in our time and in Guido Marini’s reapplication of it, d’après la scuola liturgica siriana-genovese, to the papal liturgy.
But is the cultivation of this style in the Benedictine papacy a secret attempt to force effete nostalgia via Counter Reformation frocks upon an unwilling Pilgrim Church? Is it an exercise in the hermeneutic of continuity, by stressing that the post-Vatican II papacy is in communion with that, both of Paul VI and Pius XII, at least in some visible way? Is it simply bringing forth things new and old from the Church’s storehouse? Or is it just a sign that polyester is out and brocade is back in? And why have many younger people, particularly clergy, responded so enthusiastically to it?
Part of this question also involves concrete actions which have a symbolic weight. Until recently, the Pope in the reformed liturgy was the only person who did not wear a Eucharistic vestment proper to his rank. The restoration of the fanon brought back an important liturgical principle. That action was rejected by many, because they depart from an esentially conciliarist principle that the Pope is really primus inter pares, and if anything should dress like any other Bishop, or any other Christian. Difference is interpreted as a sign of willful clericalist discrimination. Or the fanon is seen as an incomprehensible piece of nostalgia for people who like dressing up.
In reality, the fanon is the liturgical complement to the nota previa to Lumen gentium. Just as the conciliar constitution on the Church had to have an appendage to salvage a proper understanding of the Roman papacy against the just clarification of the episcopal office by Vatican II, the fanon underscores the papal office against the anti-papal court style of the reformed rites.
Even though the Holy Father himself neverly celebrated the Extraordinary Form publicly, his unleashing of Summorum pontificum has led to a renewal of interest in both the papal and pontifical forms of that liturgy. But that has led to some thorny issues. Are celebrations of Bishops and the Pope in the Extraordinary Form to be brought in line with Pontificalis Domus of 1968, for example? Are they subject to the 1983 Code of Canon Law (forbidding Mass coram Ss.mo)? Or are they carried out according to the terms of the old liturgical books without reference to current legislation? The fact that these are happening is already leading to calls for a revision of the austere pruning of Pontificalis Domus and the gutting of the Pontifical and Ceremonial in the revised rites.
In short, is the reappropriation of certain elements of Roman Basilica style in this reign a blip on the screen? Were they just pushed by the private taste of Marini II and Gänswein? Or are they part and parcel of a Reform of the Reform which will continue on into the next pontificate?
Conclusion
Nobody doubts that Ratzinger’s rich teaching and Benedict’s beautiful practice of the liturgy has been tremendously influential in a brief space of time. But has it had time to take root, and will it be appreciated and advanced in the next pontificate? The liturgy in our time is in a delicate situation, in a time of transition. Only the Spirit can say how the next generation will engage the Sacred Liturgy, and whether Benedict’s unfinished work will morph into an enduring legacy.
(source)
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Papa Ratzinger
So, we've all had time to take in the news now. Let's all take a deep breath and remember one all important thing, this isn't anything new. The Church has a protocol in place for this. When one has been around as long as the Church has been, everything is forseen. While the faithful may not expect it, the Church is prepared. She will endure, just as she always has.
That being said, I can honestly say that I wasn't surprised. I know that I said this yesterday, but in reality I wasn't. I don't like it, but then again it isn't up to me. I constantly say that the Church is eternal and speaking liturgically that we must lean on the 2000 year history of the Church. This is no different. Popes pass through time. Popes come. Popes go. I am no more attached to the man who is Pope than I am to any other priest. My faith is not bound by one person. It shouldn't be. So, Papa Ratzinger resigns, abdicates, retires, whatever it is called, by whomever is calling it. My response is this....the Holy Spirit will guide the next man in matters of Faith. I am not concerned.
I am concerned about the politics. I have a clear vision of what Pope Benedict wanted, but as I have also said several times, he was not the man to do it. He is an academic. He works in the hypothetical. It is my (personal) hope that the next pontiff will enact what this pontiff has taught. But, then again, if you've been reading my blog, that isn't anything new either.
My view is this...that the next Pope will continue the work of Benedict. My prayer is this...that he is just, that he is faithful, and that he will follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To the next man who is elevated to the papacy, TU ES PETRUS.
One final thing...for these pundits who think that Papa Ratzinger didn't have a chance. He did more in his 8 years as Pope to strengthen the life of the Church than the previous 2 Popes combined. In my estimation, Benedict was a good pontiff.
That being said, I can honestly say that I wasn't surprised. I know that I said this yesterday, but in reality I wasn't. I don't like it, but then again it isn't up to me. I constantly say that the Church is eternal and speaking liturgically that we must lean on the 2000 year history of the Church. This is no different. Popes pass through time. Popes come. Popes go. I am no more attached to the man who is Pope than I am to any other priest. My faith is not bound by one person. It shouldn't be. So, Papa Ratzinger resigns, abdicates, retires, whatever it is called, by whomever is calling it. My response is this....the Holy Spirit will guide the next man in matters of Faith. I am not concerned.
I am concerned about the politics. I have a clear vision of what Pope Benedict wanted, but as I have also said several times, he was not the man to do it. He is an academic. He works in the hypothetical. It is my (personal) hope that the next pontiff will enact what this pontiff has taught. But, then again, if you've been reading my blog, that isn't anything new either.
My view is this...that the next Pope will continue the work of Benedict. My prayer is this...that he is just, that he is faithful, and that he will follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To the next man who is elevated to the papacy, TU ES PETRUS.
One final thing...for these pundits who think that Papa Ratzinger didn't have a chance. He did more in his 8 years as Pope to strengthen the life of the Church than the previous 2 Popes combined. In my estimation, Benedict was a good pontiff.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Pope Benedict XVI
I think that before we get all bent out of shape we should take a look at a couple of factors...but, before I make my listings, we should pray for His Holiness that his mind is clear and his mind is free. At this point, I pray to the Holy Spirit: Veni Sancte Spiritus, tui amoris ignem accende in pontificem.
1. The Holy Father said of his predecessor that if his health were to deteriorate any further he should resign. He said that in '02.
2. The Holy Father's health has been bad for a long time. He has had bone breaks, strokes, etc...
3. It is clear that he didn't ever want to be pope. While this means very little, because he accepted the role, it does speak to his mindset.
4. He has worked his entire pontificate to centralize the curia and to bolster the number of Italian cardinals, it would seem that he is trying to bring the pontificate back to an Italian, but this again, means very little.
5. The Church will endure. This isn't unprecedented, it just hasn't happened since 1415, as Marc said. I think that it might be worth exploring Marc's post though, because I agree that there are some HUGE theological consequences in the offing.
My speculation is this...it will be a moderate Italian. I don't see a flaming liberal and I don't see a traddy. I see the status quo being continued and I see it being a man probably who will reign somewhere in the area of 10 years. I don't think the college wants a long pontificate, and I don't think that an aged man will suffice either. This will be via media....
As for St. Malachy....don't buy it, not even for a second.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Valid Does NOT Equal Good
In my ongoing conversation with a priest, the following was said;
The Reform in Continuity new liturgical movement is very, very different than what Vatican II did in terms of a shoving of a particular vision of it down everyone's throat in a lockstep fashion in the 1960's (in other words, Vatican II implemented in a pre-Vatican II way).
The renewal that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is implementing is one of invitation and giving example but not mandating. And it is catching on around the world, maybe not like wildfire, but it is catching on like the small mustard seed that is sprouting into some that will be very big and very grand.
For example, I would have never thought 5 years ago that we would have one Sunday Mass ad orientem for the Ordinary Form, that we would be celebrating the older Tridentine Mass and that people would have the personal choice to either stand or kneel comfortably at a kneeler for Holy Communion and that intinction would be as well received as it has been.
All of this is liturgical renewal without forcing anyone into a lockstep across the board. And what I have seen in my parish is that more and more people (not all certainly) are choosing to kneel as they witness others doing it. And yes there is a developing sense of a recovered piety and reverence at Mass not experienced since Vatican II!
I think that the impotice for this falls on something that Archbishop-elect Sample said in his interview, "...my fondness for the Tridentine liturgy is not based in nostalgia. Having been exposed to it, I’ve gained a great appreciation for it."
This, I think is key. For the majority of Catholics today who are either adhering or becoming adherents to the TLM; we see that they are not 53 or older, but rather they are almost all product of the post-conciliar era. This speaks volumes.
I think the other point he makes is related to this and speaks as much to the mindset as anything said in the last 10 years or so. His Excellency says, "I believe that Pope Benedict wants the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to influence liturgical reform, to lead to a reform of the reform, because in some areas we’ve gotten off track."
The bottom line is, in my estimation, that we're not going to find the answer in the Mass that we currently call the OF or Novus Ordo. It is too far gone. I think that the innovations must go. This includes everything from orientation, to language, to music, to use of extraordinary ministers, to ceremonials.
The Mass should be retired to the annals of history. It is, as the Holy Father states, "...in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."
While it is valid, validity doesn't equal goodness. When the abuse overrides the validity, then it is time to return.
This is a good example: let's say I go to confession to a priest of the parish next to my home parish. I confess that I have been having an affair with my next door neighbor (who is stupid hot and incredibly single). Father gives me absolution after I make a good confession. As I'm praying my penance, Father comes up to me and says, you've prayed enough, I completely understand your situation, your wife deserved it, everyone knows she's a b**ch anyhow, then sends me on my way as he locks up church. The sacrament was valid, but the deficiency caused by the abuse lessens the grace and efficacy of the Sacrament.
THE VERY SAME THING APPLIES TO THE NOVUS ORDO. The perversion of the Mass, by Paul VI, Bugnini, and the Consilium may be valid, but the deficiency caused by the abuse lessens the grace and efficacy of the Sacrament.
We must return to the TLM, ditch the Novus Ordo and then we can start an authentic "Reform of the Reform," if that is still in the cards. Who knows...maybe that horse has left the barn and a reform isn't needed, just a restoration. Now there's a thought, huh?
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God
Last night, I watched a documentary entitled "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God."
It was a very eye opening and a very sobering documentary to watch. I was disturbed, I was left questioning, and I was left with a new resolution. I know that this isn't what the liberals are going to want to hear, but it is actually quite a clear statement.
First; WE MUST SHOW AUTHENTIC CHARITY TO THE VICITIMS OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL IN THE CHURCH!!!!! This isn't a negotiable and this is what absolutely MUST happen before anything else. They were victims, they are victims and they deserve all the solace the Church can muster.
Next, we must show true justice toward the priests who committed these heinous acts. The story focuses mainly on one, but there are thousands of others. I am of the opinion that the priests who commit these crimes should be punished first through the court system and then once that is completed they should be remanded to a cloistered monestary where they can live out their days in solitude, penance and prayer. They have undergone an ontological change (that is not a heresy, as claimed in the documentary) and they are unique men; their prayers can do wonders, and priests should pray before all else.
Next, I think that there are a couple of glaring things, the slant of the documentary is biased. I think that if it were presented on an even level, then we could see both sides, however that isn't how it was portrayed. It was portrayed as the Church is evil and that the Church is evil. That isn't the case. The Church isn't evil. Certain men inside the Church are evil. These men, who have been in control for the better part of a century now have created perception of the Church which is not accurate. If the Church is made up of the people inside it, then the documentary writers are calling you and me and every other Catholic evil. No. We. Are. Not.
The answer doesn't lie in changing the Church. The answer lies in changing the men. And as of late, the Church is trying to do this. The measures put in place since the scandal broke try to address this, although it is still in it's infancy. There has to be time given to implement these actions. The problem didn't start over night and the problem won't be fixed over night. But a good first step would be for the leadership to be honest with themselves. Bishops MUST stop with the omerta. They must start being more transparent. I think that this is happening in pockets, but I think that a worldwide synod should be called and a definitive policy must be put into place. Every bishop should be held to it and it should be a zero tolerance policy, starting now. If a bishop doesn't comply, he should be held to the same remediation as the offending priest. He should be remanded to a cloistered monestary and he should spend the rest of his days in solitude, penance and prayer. One of the great things about the Church is that as long as there is a Pope, he can make new bishops and they can make new priests. If a purge should come, then a purge should come.
Next, the leadership of the Church must work diligently to regain the trust of the faithful. They must stand up and say BASTA! Enough! And then they must follow through on it. Priests should not be afraid of their peers. Bishops should not be afraid of Cardinals like Sodano and Bertone. They should be able to accomplish all that they can in the time they have.
Finally, this won't sit well with the liberals or with SNAP or with any group which is similarly associated, but this documentary for all that it says; did one thing for me. It resolved in my mind that I cannot give up on the Church, it's leaders, or the faithful around me. I fully support the Papacy. I fully support the episcopate. I fully support the priesthood. The resolve that I have found by watching this shows that man is fallible. It shows that man can be mislead and that man does fall. But it also shows that man can get back up. The Church has seen dark days before and has come through. The time of the Borgias, the time of implementing celibacy (which I still fully support, 1000000%), the time of the loss of the Papal States; all of these have led people astray and into darkness, but the Church has always seen us through. And the Church will see us through this.
We are Catholics and our faith is not dependent on one man, or a few. It is based upon 2000 years of teaching, tradition, and love of fellow man. The Church is the means to salvation, but the leaders don't always see that. It is time that we ask them to stand up! It is time that we ask them be transparent! And it is time for us to ask them to return to the traditional values which have stood since the dawn of Christianity and our Church!! We have the tools, we just need to start using them again.
If a priest acts out, end it. If a bishop covers it up, end it. If a congregation ignores it, clear it out and start over. This is why...absolutely why I opposed and still oppose the idea of the Pope not being a temporal monarch. His authority must extend to ruling justly. He is more than a spiritual leader, he is a temporal leader. And at times he must exert himself. Not ex cathedra, but a sede! From the throne!
We must allow time to work through this. My call is for those who are diligent to remain so. My call is for those who are doing good work, to keep doing good work. My call is that we cannot abandon the Church or her leaders in her greatest hour. We must continue to hold them accountable, but we shouldn't lock them out. They must be given the opportunity to change, and if they cannot, then they should be replaced.
Vocations will come. Bishops must allow them. Bishops will come, the Pope must vet them; not a Congregation, the Pope. And the Signatura must do what is necessary to protect the faithful through careful application of justice.
In the end, the Church remains and I remain with her. The leadership will pass, it always does, but the way to salvation remains.
It was a very eye opening and a very sobering documentary to watch. I was disturbed, I was left questioning, and I was left with a new resolution. I know that this isn't what the liberals are going to want to hear, but it is actually quite a clear statement.
First; WE MUST SHOW AUTHENTIC CHARITY TO THE VICITIMS OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL IN THE CHURCH!!!!! This isn't a negotiable and this is what absolutely MUST happen before anything else. They were victims, they are victims and they deserve all the solace the Church can muster.
Next, we must show true justice toward the priests who committed these heinous acts. The story focuses mainly on one, but there are thousands of others. I am of the opinion that the priests who commit these crimes should be punished first through the court system and then once that is completed they should be remanded to a cloistered monestary where they can live out their days in solitude, penance and prayer. They have undergone an ontological change (that is not a heresy, as claimed in the documentary) and they are unique men; their prayers can do wonders, and priests should pray before all else.
Next, I think that there are a couple of glaring things, the slant of the documentary is biased. I think that if it were presented on an even level, then we could see both sides, however that isn't how it was portrayed. It was portrayed as the Church is evil and that the Church is evil. That isn't the case. The Church isn't evil. Certain men inside the Church are evil. These men, who have been in control for the better part of a century now have created perception of the Church which is not accurate. If the Church is made up of the people inside it, then the documentary writers are calling you and me and every other Catholic evil. No. We. Are. Not.
The answer doesn't lie in changing the Church. The answer lies in changing the men. And as of late, the Church is trying to do this. The measures put in place since the scandal broke try to address this, although it is still in it's infancy. There has to be time given to implement these actions. The problem didn't start over night and the problem won't be fixed over night. But a good first step would be for the leadership to be honest with themselves. Bishops MUST stop with the omerta. They must start being more transparent. I think that this is happening in pockets, but I think that a worldwide synod should be called and a definitive policy must be put into place. Every bishop should be held to it and it should be a zero tolerance policy, starting now. If a bishop doesn't comply, he should be held to the same remediation as the offending priest. He should be remanded to a cloistered monestary and he should spend the rest of his days in solitude, penance and prayer. One of the great things about the Church is that as long as there is a Pope, he can make new bishops and they can make new priests. If a purge should come, then a purge should come.
Next, the leadership of the Church must work diligently to regain the trust of the faithful. They must stand up and say BASTA! Enough! And then they must follow through on it. Priests should not be afraid of their peers. Bishops should not be afraid of Cardinals like Sodano and Bertone. They should be able to accomplish all that they can in the time they have.
Finally, this won't sit well with the liberals or with SNAP or with any group which is similarly associated, but this documentary for all that it says; did one thing for me. It resolved in my mind that I cannot give up on the Church, it's leaders, or the faithful around me. I fully support the Papacy. I fully support the episcopate. I fully support the priesthood. The resolve that I have found by watching this shows that man is fallible. It shows that man can be mislead and that man does fall. But it also shows that man can get back up. The Church has seen dark days before and has come through. The time of the Borgias, the time of implementing celibacy (which I still fully support, 1000000%), the time of the loss of the Papal States; all of these have led people astray and into darkness, but the Church has always seen us through. And the Church will see us through this.
We are Catholics and our faith is not dependent on one man, or a few. It is based upon 2000 years of teaching, tradition, and love of fellow man. The Church is the means to salvation, but the leaders don't always see that. It is time that we ask them to stand up! It is time that we ask them be transparent! And it is time for us to ask them to return to the traditional values which have stood since the dawn of Christianity and our Church!! We have the tools, we just need to start using them again.
If a priest acts out, end it. If a bishop covers it up, end it. If a congregation ignores it, clear it out and start over. This is why...absolutely why I opposed and still oppose the idea of the Pope not being a temporal monarch. His authority must extend to ruling justly. He is more than a spiritual leader, he is a temporal leader. And at times he must exert himself. Not ex cathedra, but a sede! From the throne!
We must allow time to work through this. My call is for those who are diligent to remain so. My call is for those who are doing good work, to keep doing good work. My call is that we cannot abandon the Church or her leaders in her greatest hour. We must continue to hold them accountable, but we shouldn't lock them out. They must be given the opportunity to change, and if they cannot, then they should be replaced.
Vocations will come. Bishops must allow them. Bishops will come, the Pope must vet them; not a Congregation, the Pope. And the Signatura must do what is necessary to protect the faithful through careful application of justice.
In the end, the Church remains and I remain with her. The leadership will pass, it always does, but the way to salvation remains.
Archbishop Sample: We're of the Same Mind
I am going to post an interview of Archbishop-elect Alexander Sample, now of the Archdiocese of Portland. It is nice to see the mentality gaining steam....and now that His Excellency is in a place to do it, it is nice to see him follow through on the Monsignor's teachings....let's see how close Archbishop Sample and I are to one another in views.... (my emphasis is in red, through italics and through underlining)
(source)
Archbishop-elect Alexander Sample, 52, will be installed as the 11th archbishop of Portland, Oregon on April 2, succeeding the Most Reverend John Vlazny.
Archbishop-elect Sample was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Marquette, located on the upper peninsula of Michigan, in 1990. He was consecrated Marquette’s bishop in 2006. At the time of his episcopal ordination, he was the youngest Catholic bishop in the US, and the first to be born in the 1960s.
Sample was born in Montana and grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada, and attended Catholic schools there. Although he had thought about a vocation to the priesthood while growing up, he initially decided to pursue a career in engineering. He earned his BS and MS degrees in engineering before opting to go to seminary.
As a priest, he served in a variety of diocesan roles, including acting simultaneously as pastor of three small parishes. The Diocese of Marquette serves 50,000 Catholics, and has 55 active diocesan and religious order priests. The Archdiocese of Portland, by contrast, has 415,000 Catholics and 294 priests (including retired priests). It encompasses western Oregon.
Sample is known for his orthodoxy and fondness for a more traditional liturgy. And, according Marquette’s Director of Communications Loreene Koskey, Archbishop-elect Sample is “personable, intelligent, well-spoken, and likes to meet and talk with people.” She added that the promotion of Pope Benedict’s New Evangelization has been a hallmark of Archbishop-elect Sample’s episcopacy.
Sample recently spoke to CWR.
Archbishop-elect Alexander Sample (Courtesy Diocese of Marquette)
CWR: Were you surprised to discover that you’d been named archbishop of Portland?
Sample: Yes. The appointment of bishops is a process that is carried out in strict confidentiality. I had no idea I was being considered for Portland; the nuncio’s call to me informing me I had hit me out of the blue. It was quite a shock; it seems a little surreal.
Sample: Yes. The appointment of bishops is a process that is carried out in strict confidentiality. I had no idea I was being considered for Portland; the nuncio’s call to me informing me I had hit me out of the blue. It was quite a shock; it seems a little surreal.
It’s going to be a huge change, not only geographically but in terms of added responsibility. But I’m also excited. I’m inspired by challenges.
It is going to be hard to say goodbye to Marquette. It’s my home. I’ve served here 22 years as a priest, and seven as a bishop. I’m not an emotional person, but saying goodbye will be emotional.
CWR: Before your appointment, had you ever been to Portland before?
Sample: My father took me fishing there as a boy. Until my appointment, I had not been back as an adult. It’s funny, my mother and sister and I were thinking last year about going on vacation to Portland and Seattle.
CWR: The Archdiocese of Portland is home to Oregon Catholic Press, which produces missals and liturgical music materials used by two-thirds of our country’s Catholic churches. You have developed an interest in the liturgy—in fact, you’re writing a pastoral letter on the topic. Can you share with us some highlights of that letter?
Sample: Yes. It is on pastoral music, and is just being released. We just hired a new director of sacred music, and this will be his road map. It will be my last contribution to the life of the Church in Marquette.
In this letter I discuss the liturgical movement of the Church, what Vatican II said about liturgical music, documents released on the topic after Vatican II, as well as writings by popes about [liturgical music]. It is not my vision or my ideas; I try to present the Church’s vision.
It is clear that the Council calls for the liturgy to be sung. In recent decades we’ve adopted the practice of singing songs at Mass. We take the Mass, and attach four hymns or songs to it. But this is not the Church’s vision. We need to sing the Mass. It is meant to be sung. The texts of the Mass are meant to be sung.
The Church provides us with chant, which is integral to liturgy, and should inspire the music of the Mass. We need to get away from singing songs at Mass and return to singing the Mass. And Gregorian chant is best suited to the Mass. The new director I hired [in the Diocese of Marquette] will introduce chant. It will be a huge shift for the people.
I mean no criticism of our sacred musicians, who are very dedicated. It will be a shift for them as well.
And, in addition to Latin chant, we also need to introduce chant in English. Although the Second Vatican Council said that chant should be given “pride of place,” one rarely hears it in parishes. Music is an important part of celebrating the Mass. As Pope Benedict has said, if we get the music right, we’ll get the spirit of the Mass right.
CWR: Where have you seen liturgy and liturgical music done well?
Sample: The parishes I’ve visited have all different levels of quality of music. In my formative years, the liturgy at the Church of St. Agnes in St. Paul, Minnesota, led by Msgr. Richard Schuler (1920-2007), was outstanding. More recently, the liturgy and music at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception for the March for Life was spectacular.
CWR: You’ve been involved in ordinations for the Fraternity of St. Peter, which celebrates the traditional liturgy of the Roman rite. What do you like about the pre-Vatican II rite of the Mass, and will we be seeing more of it in Portland?
Sample: I appreciate the Tridentine liturgy. I am 100 percent a product of the Second Vatican Council, in that I grew up in its wake, and all my formation was post-Vatican II. Therefore, my fondness for the Tridentine liturgy is not based in nostalgia. Having been exposed to it, I’ve gained a great appreciation for it.
What sparked my interest in it was Pope Benedict’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum [granting greater freedom to priests to celebrate the older form of the liturgy]. I thought, “I’m a bishop of the Catholic Church, and it’s my responsibility to know how to celebrate Mass according to both the new and old rites.” I’ve learned the Tridentine liturgy, and have since celebrated three Pontifical High Masses and Masses for the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King (in Florence, Italy).
I believe that Pope Benedict wants the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to influence liturgical reform, to lead to a reform of the reform, because in some areas we’ve gotten off track. He wants the pre-conciliar liturgy to help shape the new liturgy and help reconcile us with the past. If the Tridentine Mass was once beautiful, it cannot now be harmful.
The Tridentine Mass certainly has many strengths; for example, it clearly stresses the sacrificial nature of the Mass. It also draws many young people who did not grow up with it. They’re discovering their heritage and tradition. It’s providing them with something they’re not finding in the ordinary form. We need to pay attention to that.
When I arrive in Portland, I’ll find out the status of the Tridentine Mass, and see if there are stable groups who want it. As their archbishop, I’ll do what I can to make it available.
CWR: The Holy Father has encouraged the use of social media to promote the Faith. You tweet, do podcasts of your newspaper columns, and post videos on YouTube. What benefits have you personally seen in using new media to share the Gospel?
Sample: We’re reaching people where they are at. There are difficulties, as social media can be misused or overused, but this is a way people communicate today. This is where they are, and the Church needs to be there, breaking in to that world with the Gospel. I was initially reluctant to get involved with it, but I’ve been amazed to see all the people who are now following me.
Before it was announced that I was going to Portland, I had 1,200 Twitter followers. After the announcement, I had over 2,700. On my Facebook page, 880 people are friends. I use my Facebook page to share thoughts for the day, talk about the lives of the saints, or comment on things going on in the news. I even share some personal things, like some beautiful photos I took while mountain biking.
Social media has given me the opportunity to interact with people. I’m a teacher at heart, and I hope to teach them.
CWR: The Portland archdiocese declared bankruptcy in 2004, the first diocese to do so in the wake of the sex abuse scandals in the Church. Do you see Portland and other American dioceses moving away from this dark period in the Church’s history?
Sample: I’m optimistic. We’re going to have to live in the wake of what happened, and I hope it will lead to a purifying and strengthening of the Church. I was personally involved with meeting with the victims of sexual abuse and priests accused in the Diocese of Marquette. I served as the bishop’s representative. I can say it was heartbreaking.
When I hear people minimize the harm done to victims by saying something like, “That was 25 years ago, why bring it out now?”, I can say that you have no idea until you’ve spoken with these victims. Abuse is awful. What’s saddest is the spiritual damage done. The Church is supposed to be something people can trust, but an incident of abuse can destroy a victim’s faith. That, along with all the other harm done, is tragic.
But, I think we’re doing a good job providing a safe environment for children now. We’re taking steps to prevent abuse from happening again, and being careful to screen men who are candidates for Holy Orders to ensure that they’re healthy.
It is not a great consolation to me that the incidence of sexual abuse by priests is no higher than the general male population. Don’t we expect more from those who represent Christ in the priesthood? It is my hope that the Church going through the scandals will help expose the horrific nature of sexual abuse, bring the issue into the spotlight and create a ripple effect through society so we can eradicate this.
CWR: This year, you attended the March for Life in Washington, DC for the first time. How did it go?
Sample: I was moved beyond description. It was a most formative experience. I attended the Thursday evening vigil Mass in the Basilica, and saw the shrine filled with people, mostly young people. They filled every nook and cranny.
On the day of the march, there were 500,000 or more who took to the streets. We were there for a serious reason, but there was a great spirit among the people. I experienced charity and solidarity as I mingled with the crowd. I met people from all over the country.
Again, I was impressed by all the young people there. I’d say 75 percent were high school and college age. The younger generation gets it; they will lead to a change on this issue. They realize they are of an age when they could have been aborted. They’re going to change the world. They’re on fire.
CWR: You have been quoted as saying you’re ready to go to prison rather than comply with the HHS mandate regarding insurance coverage of contraception, abortion, and sterilization. If this mandate moves ahead as is, is it time for American Catholics to practice some courageous disobedience? [Editor’s note: This interview took place before the release of new proposed regulations regarding religious organizations and the HHS mandate.]
Sample: All the bishops have said that we cannot comply with this mandate. We’ll fight it at all different levels. Now, I don’t think it will come to us going to prison. We’re exploring a variety of different options, and then we’ll make a decision about what we’ll do. But we’ll fight it vigorously.
I take as my model St. Thomas More. He tried to do everything he could to avoid going to the gallows, without violating his conscience. But, when push came to shove, he was willing to die.
CWR: And, it’s important that conscience protection be extended to laymen running businesses as well, not just church-related institutions.
Sample: Yes. We want conscience protection extended to all. We’re not only fighting for Church institutions, but for the businessman or woman who shares our beliefs, yet is being forced to provide these services.
CWR: Fifty years ago, there were Catholic bishops who wouldn’t allow the then-Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, to speak on Church property because of his highly publicized divorce and re-marriage. Fast forward to Fall 2012, the Alfred E. Smith Dinner in New York. A number of political figures at odds with Church teaching shared a friendly stage with Cardinal Timothy Dolan, including President Barack Obama, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, and journalist Chris Matthews. Do you think it’s time for bishops to return to a more aggressive challenging of public figures on key moral issues?
Sample: I have no comment on this dinner and Cardinal Dolan, but I do have something to say about the scandal factor. Scandal means that one person’s sin or failure to live up to the Gospel can cause others to stumble. When Catholic politicians fail to live up to the moral teachings of the Church, or fail to promote the true common good rooted in human nature and moral values, they cause others to stumble. People say, “They’re Catholic and they’re going against the Church’s moral teachings. Why can’t I?” That’s scandal.
Catholic politicians have a particular responsibility to uphold the moral teachings which are common to all human beings, fundamental moral principles that guide all human beings. There needs to be a strong challenge to them to live their Catholic faith privately and publicly.
CWR: You’ve put a lot of time and energy into promoting the cause for canonization of Bishop Frederic Baraga, the first bishop of Marquette. What impresses you about Bishop Baraga?
Sample: First off, the cause for canonization of a particular person must be carried forward by the bishop of the diocese in which he or she died. I will do what I can in my remaining time in Marquette, but once I leave, it will be in the hands of my successor. However, I will do all in my power to support and promote the cause of Venerable Frederic.
I admire Bishop Baraga for his incredible zeal as a missionary priest and bishop. I think all priests and bishops need the example of someone like Frederic Baraga. He’s a perfect model for us, and I pray he is beatified. His life is such an inspiration.
I first discovered him when I was driving to visit the vocation director of Marquette, before I became a seminarian. In the town of L’Anse (northwest Michigan) there is a statue of Bishop Baraga holding a cross in one hand and snowshoes in the other. I said a prayer to him, asking him to intercede for me, that my meeting with the vocation director would go well. I admitted to him that I didn’t know too much about him (at that time!).
From that moment on, I’ve had a strong connection to him. When I was named that holy man’s successor, I went to his tomb to pray. I’ve been happy to move his cause along. He’s a powerful figure in the history of our Church, and a role model to us in the New Evangelization.(source)
The Spirit of Vatican Council II has a New Lampshade
Continuing on the O'Malley misdirection, we can take some key thoughts of Vatican Council II and the "Spirit" crowd which he advocates
1. "from commands to invitations"
True. And there is the obliteration of liturgical law. That was object #1 of the radical left who sought to overthrow right reason and thinking after Vatican Council II.
2. "from monologue to dialogue"
This is a lie. The Mass has always, always, always been a call and response. It has been the hallmark of the liturgy from time immemorial. To argue otherwise isn't naive, it is stupid.
3. "from laws to ideals"
See point #1. This is object #2.
4. "from threats to persuasion"
Threat of what, exactly? And persuasion to what, exactly? The Council was pastoral, so what was the pastoral nature trying to persuade the faithful toward? And what was threatening (other than some ephebophilia priests) in the pre-conciliar church?
5. "from ruling to serving"
And this mistake will get Paul VI canonized. What a crock. The Holy Father is a monarch. He does rule, whether he likes it or not. Object #3 regarding my first point.
6. "from hostility to friendship"
Hostility toward what? Heresy? Error? What is the opposite of the Good? If the Church is good and some of her members are caught up in a heresy (namely 2; Protestantism and Modernism), how is that being hostile? It is only hostile, IF one accepts the heresy as legitimate.
7. "from rivalry to partnership"
Thank you Anibale Bugnini, his Consilium, and the Protestant cohorts involved, regarding the deregulation and reform of the Mass. "Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble an evangelical protestant." MG Siegvalt; a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at the University of Strasbourg.
Who exactly considers the Protestant a rival?
8. "from suspicion to trust"
And that trust has brought us what, precisely? The pews are empty. There is more disdain for the priesthood now, than ever.
9. "from withdrawal to engagement"
Withdrawl from what? The Catholic mind, heart, and soul was more engaged before the Council than it has been since. Ever sit in on a CCD class? Or an adult catechesis class?
10. "from passive acceptance to active participation"
Passive acceptance? So, unless somebody is doing something, he is not active? So, if somebody is not doing something he is passive? That is rather limiting. I wonder how Stephen Hawking feels about that? Actual participation is more important than active participation. We should engage our whole heart, our whole mind, our whole soul and our whole body in prayer, not just our body and call it good. If I am an EMHC (God forbid), but I don't pray, what good am I? If I am a lay reader, but don't understand the Scriptures, what good am I? That happens a lot, btw...how many lay readers stumble over words during the readings, must take time prior to Holy Mass to read through what they are charged with, etc...
11. "from behaviour modification to conversion of heart"
The Catholic was converted at baptism. Catechesis is not a form of conversion, but rather it is a modification of a behavior, to conform to the Life of Christ.
This isn't rocket science. But O'Malley and people of his mindset are so far off the mark that they can't even see in front of them. The reality is that those who have hijacked Vatican Council II are not looking for the best interest of the Church at large, but rather they are looking to promote an agenda, which is not that of the Church. There is no continuity between 2000 years of Catholic thinking and the last 50, unless it is directly influenced by the history and traditional teaching of the Church. It is most easily seen in the liturgy, but it is also clearly seen in "pastoral ministry" regarding sexuality, marriage, family life, and education.
We must return to the core values the Church teaches.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Four Keys That Obama Misses Regarding Catholicism
I read on another blog this:
The president stated last night, Super Bowl Sunday, the following: “My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life.”
In this declaration, I suspect he also means religious institutions, such as the Christian Church, like Lutherans and Roman Catholics. As you will recall his administration sought to force a Lutheran School to hire back an actively gay person who taught in one of their schools. The Supreme Court, fortunately, sided with the Lutherans not the president.
Well of course people with same sex attractions are in every institution, Catholic and otherwise. In religious institutions whether Christian or otherwise, where there is a prohibition against same sex activity or sexual expression, this could exclude them from some institutional functions, such as ministry, leadership and participation in specific religious organizations and ministries.
Heterosexual fornicators are excluded from some institutional access in the Catholic Church as are adulterers.
When the president says gays and lesbians should have equal access and opportunity in every institution and frames in "ex cathedra" does he mean those who are actively engaged in homosexual activity and publicly so?
The Church teaches that homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. [...] Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC #2357)
Continuing on, the Church teaches that the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (CCC #2358)
And finally, the Church says that homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC #2359)
There are a couple of key points that Obama either distorts or ignores. First, discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad. He just thinks it is. If discrimination is just, it is a good thing. And just discrimination against a homosexual is a good thing...just as it is against a heterosexual.
Second, under no circumstances can it be tolerated. You will never hear me tolerate an evil action. The homosexual action is evil. It is deliberately NOT ordered to God. Therefore it cannot be condoned.
Third, we should be willing to help the homosexual person through disinterested friendship. We must help them overcome the trial they are faced with, just as we should help anyone overcome any trial with which they are faced.
Finally, the homosexual person must realize that it is not the person we are intolerant of, no...it. is. the. action. The key concepts that Obama misses are these, right thinking regarding justice. Right thinking regarding tolerance. Right thinking regarding charity. And finally, right thinking regarding discrimination. When one turns his back on the truth, he is left to his own devices. Protestantism turned it's back on the truth. Islam turned it's back on the truth. What was and is left is simply this, error. Mr. Obama is wrong.
We don't think ill of the homosexual person, but until such time as the homosexual person has overcome the trial to which he has embattled himself, he cannot be free. And if he is Catholic, he must not focus on anything else. That is his cross. The Church does not condemn him for being homosexual, but the Church will condemn him for his actions.
We should add to our prayers, every day that that blight of the homosexual action is obliterated from society and that all God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Free from the homosexual action. Dr. King was right in this one instance. Even when he didn't mean it that way.
Friday, February 1, 2013
The Misdirection of Vatican Council II
Father John O'Malley, SJ has written a strong OPINION piece for America Magazine entitled, Misdirections.
It is his understanding of the faithful's mixing up of Vatican Council II. The title is apropos, but it is not for what he thinks, the misdirection is on his part. In order to understand my commenting, you will need to read the piece first. Slog through it and then what I write will make more sense. I do think that this is an interesting piece. I think that the old timer liberals are now starting to see the writing on the wall and they are doing EVERYTHING they can to justify their behavior over the last 50 years. They are like 5 year olds who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, at Grandma's house. This article speaks volumes about that...
A couple of points, I won't belabor the whole thing...because frankly most of it is nonsensical. But there are a couple of points of which to speak.
1. We must insist that Vatican Council II was a pastoral council, because that is how it was defined by the Pontiff who called it.
"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. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented 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." (Bl. John XXIII; opening address of Vatican Council II; emphasis mine)
It is clear that Fr. O'Malley is trying to revise history. For all we can do is take history for what it is...and Bl. John XXIII was clear. Especially, if we're going to follow his advice and look at the Council beyond the scope of the documents....(I bet he wasn't thinking that would come back on him that way, huh? LOL!!!)
2. Nobody has banished the idea of the "spirit of the Council." However, understanding it does mean that we find the spirit in the letter. Where else do we find it? If a Council is defined by what it promulgates, then that is the only place the spirit can be found. Fr. O'Malley is playing some mental gymnastics which are unnecessary, I think.
3. Nobody wants to outlaw "diaries, etc..." except the liberals. Case in point, The Ottaviani Intervention. Why don't the libbies take that bit of post-conciliar writing seriously? Hmmmm....
4. I disagree with the prevailing thought that Benedict doesn't mean to speak about rupture, Benedict does mean to speak about rupture. He is very clear about that. All we have to do is look to Benedict's writings to see that point. There is to be a change to RETURN to continuity, but in all honesty, right now we do live an ruptured age...
It is his understanding of the faithful's mixing up of Vatican Council II. The title is apropos, but it is not for what he thinks, the misdirection is on his part. In order to understand my commenting, you will need to read the piece first. Slog through it and then what I write will make more sense. I do think that this is an interesting piece. I think that the old timer liberals are now starting to see the writing on the wall and they are doing EVERYTHING they can to justify their behavior over the last 50 years. They are like 5 year olds who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, at Grandma's house. This article speaks volumes about that...
A couple of points, I won't belabor the whole thing...because frankly most of it is nonsensical. But there are a couple of points of which to speak.
1. We must insist that Vatican Council II was a pastoral council, because that is how it was defined by the Pontiff who called it.
"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. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented 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." (Bl. John XXIII; opening address of Vatican Council II; emphasis mine)
It is clear that Fr. O'Malley is trying to revise history. For all we can do is take history for what it is...and Bl. John XXIII was clear. Especially, if we're going to follow his advice and look at the Council beyond the scope of the documents....(I bet he wasn't thinking that would come back on him that way, huh? LOL!!!)
2. Nobody has banished the idea of the "spirit of the Council." However, understanding it does mean that we find the spirit in the letter. Where else do we find it? If a Council is defined by what it promulgates, then that is the only place the spirit can be found. Fr. O'Malley is playing some mental gymnastics which are unnecessary, I think.
3. Nobody wants to outlaw "diaries, etc..." except the liberals. Case in point, The Ottaviani Intervention. Why don't the libbies take that bit of post-conciliar writing seriously? Hmmmm....
4. I disagree with the prevailing thought that Benedict doesn't mean to speak about rupture, Benedict does mean to speak about rupture. He is very clear about that. All we have to do is look to Benedict's writings to see that point. There is to be a change to RETURN to continuity, but in all honesty, right now we do live an ruptured age...
Clearly, there is misdirection going on, but it isn't from the faithful mixing up the understanding of Vatican Council II. No way. It is through the liberal clergy distorting the intention of Vatican Council II. And friends, is the rupture that Benedict is talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)