Here a but of few of the misleading statements in this "news report":
"Permitted the return of celebrating Mass according to the Liturgy before Vatican II"? The Traditional Latin Mass WAS the Mass of Vatican II. No other Mass existed during Vatican II. Further, Vatican II did not specifically call for the so-called "New Mass". It was created at the request of Paul VI by the Consilium.
"For three years, the bishops from around the world reported to the Vatican the problems they faced in implementing this"? For three years, with a few courageous exceptions, bishops from around the world HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM. They have either ignored or created obstacles in implementing the Holy Father's Motu Proprio. Need examples? Just click here and here.
"Whenever a sufficiently large number of people ask for it"? No. That is not what it says. Specifically, it reads:
A coetus fidelium (“group of the faithful”) can be said to be stabiliter existens (“existing in a stable manner”), according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, when it is constituted by some people of an individual parish who, even after the publication of the Motu Proprio, come together by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in an oratory or chapel; such a coetu (“group”) can also be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose.
16. In the case of a priest who presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some faithful, and wishes to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria, as foreseen by articles 2 and 4 of the Motu ProprioSummorum Pontificum, the pastor or rector of the church, or the priest responsible, is to permit such a celebration, while respecting the schedule of liturgical celebrations in that same church.
17. § 1. In deciding individual cases, the pastor or the rector, or the priest responsible for a church, is to be guided by his own prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.
§ 2. In cases of groups which are quite small, they may approach the Ordinary of the place to identify a church in which these faithful may be able to come together for such celebrations, in order to ensure easier participation and a more worthy celebration of the Holy Mass.
18. Even in sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage the possibility to celebrate in the forma extraordinaria is to be offered to groups of pilgrims who request it (cf. Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, art. 5 § 3), if there is a qualified priest.
"The Tridentine Mass...only follows the Roman Canon"? This might be the most misleading statement of all, an implicit criticism of the older Form of the Mass, because the "New Mass" offers four different Eucharistic Prayers. Fine--read the Roman Canon. Compare ANY of the four Eucharistic Prayers, and none are as complete, beautiful or comprehensive as the Roman Canon.
Enough said. Even the "Catholic" media can't be trusted in these times.
Pope Locks Down Bishops Unfriendly to Summorum Pontificum
by Christopher A. Ferrara & Michael J. Matt The Remnant On a beautiful sunny morning here in Rome a handful of journalists, including your correspondents, gathered at the Vatican Press Office to receive an advance copy of the long-awaited instruction on the implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. The document is entitled Universae Ecclesiae and is signed by William Cardinal Levada and Secretary of Ecclesia Dei Mons. Guido Pozzo.
Upon second reading, the overall intent of the document as a legal framework becomes clear: (1) Summorum Pontificum is "a universal law for the Church intended to establish new regulations for the use of the Roman Liturgy in effect in 1962;" (2) the Ecclesia Dei Commission is to serve as a court of appeal by the faithful "against any possible singular administrative provision of an Ordinary which appears to be contrary to the Motu Proprio," and its decisions shall be binding on the bishops, who may appeal to the Apostolic Signatura (which is hardly likely to overrule the papal commission); (3) while the bishops are to "monitor liturgical matters to guarantee the common good and to ensure that everything is proceeding in peace and serenity in their Dioceses," they are to do so "always in agreement with the mens [mind] of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
And what is the mind of the Holy Father? Here the Instruction is at its strongest. The Instruction declares that the Pope "reaffirms the traditional principle, recognized from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained in the future, that [quoting Summorum] "each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith... but also as to usages handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition. They are to be maintained not only so that errors may be avoided, but also that the faith may be passed on in its integrity, since the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her rule of belief.... What was sacred for prior generations remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot suddenly be prohibited altogether or even judged harmful."
So much for the neo-Catholic bromide that the Latin Mass pertains merely to "tradition with a small 't'" and can be amended or discarded at the Pope's pleasure. Indeed, the Instruction cites Saint Gregory the Great and Saint Pius V as "those Roman Pontiffs who, in a particular way, were notable in this task" of preserving "usages handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition."
The mind of the Pope is further specified in a declaration that Benedict, as "Vicar of Christ [!] and Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church... has the aim of"
"offering to all the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquoir";
"effectively guaranteeing and ensuring the use of the forma extraordinaria" for all who ask for it..."
Note well the key principle that the traditional Mass is to be made available to every member of the Church who requests it. The epoch of the niggardly indult is over.
On that score the Instruction clarifies that the vexed term "group of the faithful" requesting the traditional Mass means "some people" in a particular parish or even "persons coming from different dioceses or parishes, who gather together in a specific parish church or in an oratory or chapel for this purpose." No particular minimum number is required. A group of the faithful may even "approach the Ordinary of the place to identify a church" for celebration of the traditional Mass, presumably with the right to appeal to the Ecclesia Dei Commission if the Bishop refuses to make the church available. This provision is clearly targeted at bishops who claim no parish is available.
Further, when a priest "presents himself occasionally in a parish church or an oratory with some of the faithful" to celebrate the traditional Mass "the pastor or rector... is to permit such a celebration..." And when the faithful request the traditional Mass at sanctuaries and places of pilgrimage, they are to be given access "if there is a qualified priest." Here the bishops are bypassed completely.
As for the question of what constitutes a "qualified priest," the bishops are stripped of another pretext for impeding the Motu Proprio. The Instruction declares that "Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law is to be considered idoneus ("qualified") for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria." The only knowledge of Latin required is enough to "pronounce the words correctly and understand their meaning." Moreover, there are to be no Latin tests as prerequisites for offering the traditional Latin Mass: "priests are presumed to be qualified who present themselves to celebrate [the Latin Mass]... and have celebrated it previously.
The Instruction reaffirms that priests require no permission from "their Ordinaries or superiors" to celebrate the traditional Mass privately. This means that absolutely every priest in the Roman Rite is free to return to the Traditional Mass for "private" celebrations, which of course may involve the attendance of certain members of the faithful.
What about fears that we will see Communion in the hand or even altar girls at Traditional Masses? The Instruction slams the door on any possible attempt to impose Novus Ordo rubrics on the traditional liturgy, declaring that the MP "derogates" from the "sacred rites promulgated from 1960 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics in effect from 1962." In other words, in an ironic development the traditional rubrics are now considered to be legally sanctioned exceptions to the prevailing liturgical law of the Novus Ordo, in just the way the Novus Ordo was introduced as a derogation from the liturgical law of the traditional Roman Rite.
Further important housekeeping includes clarification that Confirmation, Minor Orders and the Easter Triduum are all to be made available in the Traditional Rite for those who seek them (with Traditional Minor Orders rituals being reserved to institutes and societies under the Ecclesia Dei Commission). Remarkably, the Instruction provides that the Triduum should be made available even in Novus Ordo parishes, even when this would entail a repetition ("not excluding the possibility of a repetition") of the Triduum in the same parish or oratory. Thus is eliminated the prospect, feared by some, that Latin Mass adherents would be compelled to participate in the Novus Ordo Triduum.
The Instruction also confirms that the traditional Breviary, Pontificale and Rituale are all permitted for Latin Mass institutes and societies.
Not all the news is good. Of particular concern is paragraph 19 of the Instruction, which provides that those who seek access to the Traditional Liturgy "must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy" of the Novus Ordo rites or "against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church." There is clearly here the potential for application of an ideological litmus test, employing alarmingly open-ended terminology. Only time will tell whether and to what extent this virtually standardless provision will become pernicious. One can be optimistic on this score, however, in view of the permission granted to the Institute of the Good Shepherd to engage in legitimate criticism of the Novus Ordo, as indeed the current Pope has done when writing as Cardinal Ratzinger.
Of less concern in the bad news department is the provision that "new saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently." The Roman Missal has always been open to the inclusion of new Feast Days and Prefaces, and, significantly, there is no suggestion that the Novus Ordo calendar or readings as such are to be incorporated into the Traditional Liturgy.
All in all, the Instruction is not the disaster we feared, and indeed it seems to have limited rather drastically the room in which certain bishops thought they could maneuver to militate against the MP. Of course, the document is only as good as its enforcement and as to this we shall have to wait and see. But, in sum, today cannot be seen as a good day for those who had hoped the Instruction would signal Novus Ordo revanchism. We cannot fail to note the significance of the approval of the document by the Holy Father on the very Feast of St. Pius V.
Overall, a sigh of relief is indicated, but not without vigilance for what will no doubt be a continuing rearguard action against the dreaded return of liturgical tradition.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.
The text of the instruction is widely available on the internet. If you wish to read it, you can do so by clicking here. This link provides the text of the document in its entirety as well as the always excellent observations of Fr. Zuhlsdorf.
I will simply point out a couple of items that I personally find significant:
1. Pastors are to be guided by their own “prudence, motivated by pastoral zeal and a spirit of generous welcome.
2. A “group of the faithful” requesting this Mass can be composed of persons coming from different parishes or dioceses.
Let us pray that our previously less-than-welcoming pastors will obey the Holy Father and cease mining the depths of their creativity to create new obstacles to what the faithful rightfully request.
In Buenos Aires, Argentina, the Basilica of San Jose de Flores had their country's Apostolic Nuncio dedicated a statue of Bl. John Paul II on May 1. Just one problem: The statue is actually a statue of St. Pius X with a mask over the face that now resembles John Paul II.
Honoring a newly beatified saint is one thing. Doing so by defacing a statue of one of history's greatest popes and another saint (especially a saint that all modern-day priests and bishops to learn from) is just plain shabby.
What does it say about the current condition of our Church when it becomes more fashionable to venerate one saint over another? Trendiness and Catholic faith are not compatible.
The removal of a dissident Australian bishop, announced by the Vatican on May 2, came after more than a decade of conflict between the bishop and the Vatican, and almost four years after he was originally asked to resign.
Bishop William Morris reluctantly surrendered his authority in the Toowoomba diocese as of May 2. The Australian bishop—who was only 67 years old when he stepped down, 8 years short of normal retirement age—has stressed that he did not resign.
Bishop Morris, who has complained bitterly about the manner of his departure, claims the support of most of the priests in the Toowoomba diocese, including all of the members of the diocesan College of Consultors. In addition to protesting the bishops’ removal, the College of Consultors has provided a detailed report of the bishop’s long history of conflict with the Vatican. CWN has obtained copies of that report, as have several Australian media outlets. Personal popularity is not the measure of a good priest or bishop. In a society like ours, it can even be a red flag.
Friction between Bishop Morris and the Vatican became evident soon after he was installed in the Toowoomba diocese in 1993. “Bishop Morris, immediately, proved to have a very different style of leadership from previous bishops,” the Consultors report. The new bishop eschewed the Roman collar, preferring to wear a necktie emblazoned with his episcopal coat of arms. Bishop Morris encouraged the practice of scheduling children to receive their First Communion before making their first Confession. More seriously, he approved the widespread practice of services at which priests would offer general absolution, despite clear canonical directives that general absolution should be used only under extreme circumstances.
“The issue of the use of General Absolution led to a dispute between the Bishop and Cardinal Francis Arinze,” who at the time as prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Consultors report. (Their summary adds a somewhat condescending note: “Some of this dispute took on a personal aspect.”)
In 1998, the leaders of the Australian Catholic hierarchy gathered in Rome with Vatican officials, to discuss some serious concerns about the centrifugal forces within the Church in Australia. The meeting ended with a “Statement of Conclusions” that offered a blunt critique of some commonplace practices in Australian dioceses, notably including the use of general absolution. The Statement of Conclusions was not aimed directly at Bishop Morris--it applied equally to other Australian dioceses—and it receives no particular attention in the Consultors’ time-line of the developing conflict between Toowoomba and Rome. But the December 1998 document is an important element in the overall story. The Statement of Conclusions illustrates the grave concern in Rome over the liberal tendencies of the Australian hierarchy in general, and the bishops’ tolerance of general absolution in particular. Those concerns, clearly, applied with particular force to Bishop Morris’s leadership in Toowoomba.
The simmering tensions between Bishop Morris and the Vatican came to a boil in 2006, when the Australian bishop wrote a pastoral letter in which he suggested that the Church should consider ordaining women, as a way to respond to the shortage of priests. Although he only suggested a discussion of the issue, and did not openly advocate the ordination of women, Bishop Morris was flagrantly disregarding the message of Pope John Paul II in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, that the Church cannot ordain women. He was also disregarding the Code of Canon Law, which made it a punishable offense to call into question the enduring teaching of the Church that it is impossible for women to be ordained.
When he was called to Rome to account for his unorthodox statement, Bishop Morris refused, saying that he had “serious pastoral reasons” for staying in Australia rather than answering the Vatican summons. So the Vatican assigned Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver to conduct an apostolic visitation of the Toowoomba diocese, investigating not only the bishop’s statement on women’s ordination but also the teaching and liturgical practices within the diocese. Archbishop Chaput delivered his report to Rome in May 2007. (Bishop Morris complains that he has never seen that report.)
Matters came to a head in September 2007, when Bishop Morris received a letter from the Congregation for Bishops, requesting his resignation. The Australian prelate replied that he would consider the matter. In November he replied, saying that he would like to discuss the question with Vatican officials. Cardinal Re, who was prefect of the Congregation for Bishops at that time, agreed to the suggestion, and set up a meeting in January 2008. When that meeting produced no agreement, Cardinal Re against requested the bishop’s resignation.
Bishop Morris again resisted. In June 2009 he met with Pope Benedict XVI to discuss the situation. The Pope apparently thought that the Australian bishop had agreed to step down; Bishop Morris says that he made no such promise. After yet another request for his resignation, the bishop wrote to Pope Benedict in November 2009, saying that he could not in conscience resign. The Pope wrote back, reminding him that the decision had already been made, and a papal decision cannot be appealed.
Still Bishop Morris resisted. For nearly 2 more years he continued to negotiate the terms of his departure, eventually agreeing to accept “early retirement” in the middle of 2011, but adamantly refusing to resign. Finally the apostolic nuncio in Australia informed him that his “resignation” would be announced on May 2. In fact, the Vatican finessed the question of “resignation” or “retirement” by announcing simply that the bishop had been “removed.” This is important. There is a great deal of privacy and secrecy in what goes on behind the scenes when the Vatican is dealing with problem bishops. We often have no clue what is actually going on, which is why we have no business criticizing the Vatican for being remiss in removing problem bishops.
Bishop Morris and his supporters have charged that the Vatican treated him unjustly. But the long history of this conflict suggests that the Vatican made every effort to give the Australian bishop a fair hearing, to provide him with ample opportunities to correct errors, and finally to arrange a quiet departure. Pope Benedict exercised his authority only after it became painfully clear that Bishop Morris would neither abide by the decisions of the universal Church nor leave his post voluntarily.
The bishop’s many supporters within the clergy of Toowoomba attribute his ouster to “a small number of disaffected priests and lay people”—dismissively termed the “temple police”—who have complained to Rome about the bishop’s leadership. On Sunday, May 8, the newsletter at St. Patrick’s Cathedral offered thanks “for the overwhelming expression of support for Bishop Morris,” and provided addresses at the Vatican for parishioners who wanted to voice their objections to the bishop’s removal. After 18 years of Bishop Morris’s leadership, the seeds of dissent are widely sown in the Toowoomba diocese.
The wheels of the Church move slowly, often in the name of prudence. This is a wise practice, but, unfortunately, it sometimes gives a bad situation time to fester and grow, as is evident in this case. How long will it take the next bishop to re-educate this flock out of the apostasy and dissent sown by Bishop Morris? Only time will tell.
The writer and author (of "The Catholic Adventure") Matthias Matussek has turned on the critics of the church, Hans Küng and Heiner Geissler. In an interview with the news magazine FOCUS, Matussek said that they were "two old, narcissistic and sick men, both of whom believe that they would be the better pope. In any case, they think themselves infallible. Matussek called for a return to the tradition of the Catholic Church. In a "totally uninhibited society", the avant-garde should recognise tradition, he said. Matussek defended celibacy as the strongest signal to the "anti-bourgeois counter-world". Celibacy received criticism mainly because "refusing sexual intercourse is apparently the last mortal sin in our over-sexed society." The author also criticized the typically German support for the ordination of women. In this country, "a lot of energy is squandered on reform papers circulating in the ecclesiastical establishment, instead of taking into account the worldwide Church. The Germans take this too seriously. "Matussek praised Pope Benedict XVI. for his humanity and directness in the "hardest job that one can have on this earth."
CathCon adds: At seminary, Hans Küng was deeply conservative, and a vigorous supporter of the definition of Our Lady's bodily Assumption into heaven, in contrast to the present Pope who was a radical at seminary. While Hans Küng was moving to the left, Joseph Ratzinger was moving to the right. They were good friends at the Vatican Council, where both were advisers, as they were at that stage occupying the same intellectual ground.
I add: Who ya gonna trust? The conservative who became a liberal (Kung) or the liberal who became a conservative (The Holy Father)?
A good time to remember the words of Winston Churchill: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
Two Clues: 1) The brain directs the body. 2) Never trust a priest dressed in lay clothes
Right now there are six dioceses in the United States without a bishop. They are:
• Rapid City, South Dakota • Joliet, Illinois • Fresno, California • Salina, Kansas • Baker, Oregon • Pensacola-Tallahassee, Florida
There are also six dioceses in the U.S. with bishops serving past the mandatory resignation age of 75. They are:
• Savannah, Georgia • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Manchester, New Hampshire • Lincoln, Nebraska • Bismarck, North Dakota • Rockford, Illinois
While it's true that the only "major league" diocese on the list is Philadelphia, each of these dioceses still has faithful Catholics and potential Catholics in need of a shepherd.
Let us all renew our prayers that the Holy Father will send each of these dioceses worthy shepherds to lead them forward.
May 5, 2010 South Bend - American Catholic Lawyers Association President Christopher Ferrara announced that all pending criminal charges against the "Notre Dame 88" represented by the ACLA were dismissed with prejudice by the St. Joseph County, Indiana Prosecutor.
The dismissals were requested by the University of Notre Dame as part of the joint efforts of the University and the ND 88 to reconcile and pledge to move forward together for the sake of the faith and the pro-life cause.
"I wish to thank Christopher Ferrara and the ACLA for their invaluable assistance in the criminal matters, which are now definitively resolved," said Tom Dixon, who was lead counsel in the criminal cases, and who, along with attorneys from the ACLA and the Thomas More Society in Chicago, negotiated this outcome on behalf of the ND 88.
"ACLA's attorneys were honored to assist Tom Dixon and TMS attorneys Tom Brejcha and Peter Breen in bringing these important cases to a successful conclusion, and I look forward to working with them in other pro-life matters in the future," said Ferrara.
Authorities in the northern San Diego County beach town of Encinitas will likely order the removal of an illegal mural depicting Our Lady of Guadalupe on a surfboard despite pleas from some citizens to leave it alone.
The 10-foot-square mosaic made from pieces of stained glass showed up on a support wall below a train trestle on Good Friday, April 22. It shows Our Lady of Guadalupe surfing, with Juan Diego riding the tip of her surfboard, and bears the slogan: “Save the Ocean.”
According to various press reports, the elaborate “guerrilla art” was the work of a group posing as construction workers.
“Throngs of people came, one group after another, caressing the glass pieces forming Our Lady of Guadalupe on a surfboard or snapping cell phone photos of each other in front of the artwork,” the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
Fr. Brian Corcoran of St. John the Evangelist Parish, located about a mile from the mural site, told the Union-Tribune he hoped the artwork would not be removed – but that if city officials ordered it taken down, he would welcome at his parish. “It is a great representation of God being close to us,” Fr. Corcoran told the newspaper.
An online Union-Tribune poll revealed that 90 percent of those responding favored leaving the mural alone. Supporters and opponents of the mural have also begun online petitions. Supporters of the mural even showed up at last week’s meeting of the Encinitas City Council.
But, according to the North County Times, it seems highly likely the city will order the mural removed. Encinitas assistant city manager Richard Phillips told the newspaper the artwork, regardless of its merit, “fits the definition of graffiti."
“Phillips emphasized that the city has a standard public art review process in which proposals are vetted by the city's Arts Commission before they can be installed,” reported the Times. “Allowing the mosaic to remain in place subverts that process, he said.”
Encinitas Councilman Jerome Stocks told the Union-Tribune he had even received complaints from Catholics, who found the depiction of Our Lady of Guadalupe as a surfer offensive.
“Chances are if we don’t take this down -- if someone puts a loving, glowing mosaic of Hitler or Osama Bin Laden across the street -- then how could we take that one down?” Stocks told the Union-Tribune.
Municipal officials were reportedly meeting with the city attorney yesterday to discuss their options. Because of the way the mural was erected – glued to the wall – authorities said it was unlikely it could be removed without doing damage to it.
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has sacked an outspoken Australian bishop who had called on the church to consider ordaining women and married men. Let this be a lesson to other priests and bishops who insist on propagating the same nonsense.
The Vatican said in a statement Monday the pope had "removed from pastoral care" Bishop William Morris of the Toowoomba diocese, west of Brisbane. Benedict ain't your father's pope. He's actually governing the Church.
That move was strong by the usual standards of the Vatican, which usually stops short of saying outright that it has ousted a church leader. More often, the Vatican asks wayward church leaders to resign and then announces the pope has accept their resignations. Yes, usually they allow the heretics and apostates to save face if they are bishops.
Australian media report that Morris recently published an open letter saying he was being removed for a 2006 message to the faithful in which he argued that a shortage of priests should prompt the church to consider ordaining women and married men. How typical of the "progressive wing". They do all they can to discourage normal young men from becoming priests, then whine about the shortage of priests in the name of changing the nature of the priesthood.
Benedict, as did his just-beatified predecessor, John Paul II, has staunchly has uphold Vatican teaching that only celibate men can be ordained in the Roman Catholic church, although married men in the Latin rite church loyal to the pontiff can become priests. Recent years have also seen the Vatican warmly welcome married Anglican priests who have converted to Roman Catholicism.
Morris said the letter sparked complaints to Rome, which in turn led to a Vatican investigation. According to the daily newspaper The Australian, Morris said he had never written a letter of resignation. Of course not. Resigning would be the honorable thing for one to do as a leader in a Church whose teachings he no longer accepts or assents to. Liberals have no room for honor. Instead, they cling to their positions of authority in the vain hope of changing the Church into their distorted image.
A month ago, the Vatican dismissed a Congolese bishop, Jean-Claude Makaya Loemba, also saying he was "removed from pastoral care." According to African media reports, he was sacked for management problems in his diocese. Is there a new trend afoot?
Would the Holy Father care for the names of some U.S. Bishops?
* * *
Back in the 1990's, I asked Fr. Mitch Pacwa if there was any place in the world where the Church was in worse shape than America. Without hesitating, he said, "Australia." Thanks be to God the Holy Father is doing something about it.
The Law Firm of King & Spaulding, hired by the House of Representatives to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) dropped out of the case when gay activists began making death threats. However, the attorney selected from their firm to represent the House, Paul Clement, resigned from the firm and will still represent the House to defend DOMA.
Why?
Here are his own words:
“I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. … Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.”
When was the last time you heard of an attorney who put his principles above furthering his career?
Citing what he called threats from the Rev. Michael Pfleger to leave the church, Cardinal Francis George has removed the outspoken priest from St. Sabina parish and has suspended his "sacramental faculties as a priest."
Pfleger had publicly feuded with the cardinal about possibly being reassigned to Leo High School, telling a radio show recently that he would look outside the Catholic church if offered no other choice.
"If that is truly your attitude, you have already left the Catholic Church and are therefore not able to pastor a Catholic parish," George wrote in a letter dated today.
"A Catholic priest's inner life is governed by his promises, motivated by faith and love, to live chastely as a celibate man and to obey his bishop," the cardinal continued. "Breaking either promise destroys his vocation and wounds the Church.
"Many love and admire you because of your dedication to your people," the cardinal wrote. "Now, however, I am asking you to take a few weeks to pray over your priestly commitments in order to come to mutual agreement on how you understand personally the obligations that make you a member of the Chicago presbyterate and of the Catholic Church.
"With this letter, your ministry as pastor of Saint Sabina Parish and your sacramental faculties as a priest of the Archdiocese are suspended."
The cardinal ended the letter by saying, "This conflict is not between you and me; it's between you and the Church that ordained you a priest, between you and the faith that introduced you to Christ and gives you the right to preach and pastor in his name. If you now formally leave the Catholic Church and her priesthood, it's your choice and no one else's. You are not a victim of anyone or anything other than your own statements."
Kimberly Lymore, associate minister at St. Sabina Parish, read the following statement early tonight:
"On March 11, 2011, Father Pfleger met with Cardinal George, where he was asked to take over as president of Leo High School.
"On March 19, 2011, Father Pfleger sent a letter to Cardinal George saying he was neither qualified nor experienced being president of a high school, but that he was willing to help Leo High School in any way that he could.
"There has been no response by phone call or letter from the cardinal. Today Father Pfleger was called to a meeting at 4:30 at the Pastoral Center. At that meeting, Father Pfleger was given a letter that he was suspended and Cardinal George did not want to discuss it.
"The leadership of Saint Sabina will have an official response tomorrow. We are in shock. For your information, the press received this letter before Father Pfleger and the church heard about it through press calls."
Lymore said Pfleger was in the church tonight but he did not appear when the statement was read.
During the flap over his possible assignment to Leo, Pfleger appeared on the "Smiley & West" public radio program that he had been banned from speaking at events in the archdiocese and blamed pressure from conservative Catholics and the National Rifle Association for his most recent clash with George.
"I want to try to stay in the Catholic Church," Pfleger said. "If they say 'You either take this principalship of (Leo High) or pastorship there or leave,' then I'll have to look outside the Church. I believe my calling is to be a pastor. I believe my calling is to be a voice for justice. I believe my calling is to preach the Gospel. In or out of the Church, I'm going to continue to do that." And there you have it. He publicly confesses that his own authority supersedes the authority of his Church and his bishop and following his feelings are more important than being faithful to his promises.
In a later interview with the Tribune, Pfleger clarified that he feels called to preach and push for social justice in a Catholic context. He said he loves the Catholic Church and prefers to stay there, but he would not go to Leo full time. Here he actually uses the "F"-word. He "feels called".
"I've always said I could not do something that I don't feel called or equipped to do," he told the Tribune. "A full-time position at Leo is not something I'm equipped to do. I think Leo has made it clear they don't see any need for me to come there. For both sides, it would be a lose-lose." Obedience isn't about winning or losing.
On the radio, Pfleger said conservative Catholics want to return St. Sabina, a mostly African-American parish, to the way it was before he got there nearly three decades ago and silence what they believe to be progressive messages from the pulpit. Maybe conservative Catholics (he means faithful Catholics) would just like to see St. Sabina function as a Catholic parish instead of a Protestant church with Communion offered at the end of the show.
For a couple of years, he said he has been the target of petitions and letter-writing campaigns by the NRA. Letters are often copied to the cardinal, Pfleger said.
"The NRA ... says I've been much too vocal about assault weapons and much too vocal about guns being registered and being accountable to gun owners," Pfleger said on the radio. "So all that combined and I guess the cardinal didn't have anything to do one morning and decided he wanted to get rid of me again." This is getting old. Blame others and play the victim.
But in his letter, the cardinal said he had no ulterior motives in wanting Pfleger at Leo.
"As you know, this was an honest offer, not driven by pressure from any group but by a pastoral need in the Archdiocese," George wrote. "You promised to consider what was a proposal, not a demand, even as I urged you to accept it." That's it, Your Eminence, apologize all over yourself and walk on eggshells.
The cardinal says his private conversation with Pfleger "was misrepresented publicly as an attempt to 'remove' you from Saint Sabina's. You know that priests in the Archdiocese are 'removed' only because they have been found to have sexually abused a minor child or are guilty of financial malfeasance.
"In all other cases, priests are reassigned, moving from one pastoral office to another according to the policies in place for the last forty years," George wrote. "That process has now been short-circuited by your remarks on national radio and in local newspapers that you will leave the Catholic Church if you are told to accept an assignment other than as pastor of Saint Sabina Parish." The Cardinal is right on target. Catholic Churches aren't supposed to be focused on the personality of one priest and parishioners are not supposed to fall into the Protestant trap of personality cults. Bishops transfer and move priests. No single parish belongs to any single priest.
The cardinal named the Rev. Thulani Magwaza, the associate pastor at St. Sabina, as administrator during the suspension and the Rev. Andrew Smith, a priest at St. Ailbe Parish, as his assistant.
Smith, an African-American priest who was ordained in 2009, said he had “mixed emotions” about going to St. Sabina under such “awkward” circumstances. He said he learned of the assignment Wednesday when he received a brief phone call from the cardinal. TRANSLATION: "Please don't put me in charge, Your Eminence! They'll eat me alive!"
He said the cardinal provided no details, including how long he would be at St. Sabina.
“It’s very complicated. The situation with Father Pfleger has been brewing a long time, and I don’t really know what is going on between them,” Smith said in a telephone interview. “But when the cardinal tells me to go, I go. It’s part of my vow.” At least Fr. Magwaza understands his duties as a priest.
As Cardinal George said, Fr. Pfleger has already left the Church--and he did it a long time ago. Just watch the video below (and take note of how the altar is place in a position secondary to Pfleger's pulpit).
The typical member of the ordination class of 2011 is a 31-year cradle Catholic who prayed the Rosary and took part in Eucharistic adoration before entering seminary, according to a survey of 329 of the 480 men slated to be ordained to the priesthood in the United States this year. The survey was conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
Among the survey’s findings: • the median age of ordinands is 31; the mean age, 34 for diocesan ordinands, the mean age is 30; for religious ordinands, it is 36 This is good. That means these young men are about the same age as those who are getting married. They have had time to taste young adulthood and have a more balanced view of life.
• the typical diocesan ordinand has lived in his diocese for 15 years It is only fitting that a diocese have a good number of priests who are native to the area.
• 69% are white, 15% are Latino, 10% are Asian, and 5% are African-American This reflects a growing diversity.
• 33% were foreign born, with the typical foreign-born ordinand entering the US in 1998 at age 25; the most typical countries of origin were Colombia, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, and Vietnam Even though a diocese needs native vocations it is also a great blessing to get priests from foreign countries. Many of these men have lived in cultures that have more respect for the Church and bring the passion fostered by those cultures with them.
• 52% of religious ordinands are foreign-born Not surprising. Joining a religious order is even more of a self-giving act than the diocesan priesthood, and that kind of thinking isn't a part of our culture--unfortunately.
• 8% are converts, with the typical convert entering the Church at age 25
• 60% had completed college before entering the seminary Good. At least they know how to write a research paper when they get to the seminary. They can also expect to deal with congregations that are more educated. It is more likely that they are aware of the liberal nature of higher education and will be better equipped to deal with the dissent that such an education fosters.
• 47% attended a Catholic elementary school, 39% attended a Catholic high school, and 39% attended a Catholic college; 4% were homeschooled It would be interesting to see which Catholic colleges these vocations are coming from. I would be willing to bet more vocations are coming from Christendom and Thomas Auqinas College than universities like Georgetown or Loyola Marymount.
• 34% have a relative who was a priest or religious in 82% of cases, both parents were Catholic
• 37% have four or more siblings; 16% have three siblings An atmosphere that forces one out of self-centered thinking.
• 94% had a full-time job before entering the seminary This is very important. Priests have long been criticized or dismissed for being "out of touch" with the real world and have "no idea what the average person's life is like." This discredits any such argument.
• 8% served in the military, and 19% had a parent with a career in the military
• 66% were encouraged by a parish priest to consider a vocation; 42% were encouraged by their mother, and 27% by their father
• 52% were discouraged by a parent from considering a vocation; 20% were discouraged by a priest, and 8% were discouraged by a religious
• ordinands typically first began to consider the priesthood at 16
• 48% took part in a parish youth group, 30% participated in Boy Scouts, and 23% participated in the Knights of Columbus before entering the seminary
• 21% attended World Youth Day, and 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville high school youth conference I'm not sure what this means. Either they have great respect for John Paul II and were inspired by him or they have great patience for waiting in line to use portable toilets and are very comfortable clapping their hands and shouting.
• 71% served as altar servers, and 55% served as readers at Mass 71 PERCENT. LET'S DITCH THE ALTAR GIRLS FOLKS! They can never hope to be ordained and it's unfair to take the spots that could yield future vocations.
• 70% prayed the Rosary and 65% took part in Eucharistic adoration before entering the seminary The only troubling thing about this statistic is that it suggests that there are priests who don't value the Rosary or Eucharistic adoration. Let's hope I'm wrong.
All of us should pray daily for new, solid vocations to the priesthood and religious life and encourage our young people to consider this for their vocation.
Speaking of hopeful signs...
This photo was taken at the North American College in Rome in 2008. It's a sign-up sheet to learn how to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.
NEWARK, N.J.-- Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who resigned after announcing he was gay, was denied his request to become an Episcopal priest, a church official said.
It wasn't McGreevey's sexual orientation that was a problem for the church, which has embraced gay parishioners and clergy, but the former governor's bitter divorce, a source with the Episcopal Diocese of Newark told the New York Post in an exclusive interview published Monday.
"It was not being gay but for being a jackass," the official said. McGreevey "didn't come out of the whole divorce looking good."
The official said some church leaders feared they were being used, expressing concern about McGreevey's sudden embrace of their faith after his scandal.
After resigning as governor, McGreevey "was sort of looking for every angle to make a complete redo of his professional life," another church source said. "He ran to the church for some kind of cover, which isn't fully appropriate. Even if he's a good guy, he should wait five to 10 years to get over his issues."
McGreevey, citing the confidentiality of the priesthood process, declined comment to the Post. Bishop Mark Beck of the Newark Diocese also declined comment. (upi)
Lest we forget, the John Jay Report gave us a good idea of the kind of "gift" that homosexual priests have bequeathed to the Catholic Church:
His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, has authorized the public recitation of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel - originally composed by the Holy Father Pope Leo XIII in 1886 - following the dismissal at the end of Mass and before the recession.
He announced this authorization to the priests of the Diocese at a dinner preceding the Chrism Mass Tuesday evening and to the people of the Diocese at the conclusion of the Chrism Mass.
Prayer cards with the text of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel were distributed after every Mass with the newly blessed and consecrated oils to be place in the pews of the parish churches throughout the Diocese.
In a letter to parish leaders accompanying the cards, Bishop Paprocki explained the reason he has authorized this practice. He wrote:
One of Satan’s greatest assets is his camouflage, the belief that he doesn’t exist. Disbelief in Satan and the forces of evil leave us unable to resist them. That is why it is good to remember the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel. We need to remember that each time we pray we work to defeat our real enemies, not each other, but rather the devil and his evil spirits...
In recent years, a number of parishes have begun reciting the prayer once more, and many individual Catholics have kept up the practice. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have urged the faithful to pray it daily, and especially after Mass.
On the back of the prayer cards to be placed in the pews, Bishop Paprocki explains his vision for the Diocese, using some of the homily he preached at the Masses of Welcome celebrated in each of the Diocese's seven deaneries:
I envision a local Church where Catholics seek to grow in holiness, attend Mass every Sunday and participate regularly in the sacramental life of the Church. I see Catholics, who love God with all their heart, mind and soul and love their neighbors as themselves. I see the faithful who bear witness to Jesus Christ in their daily lives and promote respect for all human life from conception to natural death.
I envision an abundance of vocations with priests sufficient to staff and serve our parishes with virtuous commitment. I see dedicated deacons, nuns, brothers and lay people teaching the faith, caring for the sick, reaching out to the poor and dying. I see communities where family life is valued, homes where mothers and fathers love their children and whose children love them. In short, I envision God's kingdom already foreshadowed in the life of the Church and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet in the Eucharistic feast.
Everything that I have described is attainable. The only real obstacle in our lives is sin. Original sin is our inherited condition. The spiritual treasures of paradise were forfeited by our human ancestors. While Jesus Christ's death and resurrection have restored the gifts of heavenly treasures for us, we also have to recognize that the devil, Satan, is real, and he will do everything in his power to deflect us from our goal, which is eternal life with Christ in His kingdom. This reality should not frighten us nor lead us to despair, for Christ is more powerful than Satan.
Prayer and the sacraments are an essential part of what Saint Paul called the "armor of God" in his letter to the Ephesians. The Saint Michael prayer can help us "stand against the deceits of the devil" (Ephesians 6:11) by "taking the shield of faith" (Ephesians 6:16). God permits us to be tempted by the devil but gives us the grace to resist him through prayer in our daily lives. We can and should say the prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel at church with the assembly or on our own during the day for spiritual protection for ourselves and for others.
May God bless our diocese and our mission with every grace we need to grow in faith, hope and love. May Saint Michael the Archangel protect us from all evil, harm and temptation.
Yes, and may God bless Bishop Paprocki a man who shows demonstrable love and concern for his entire flock.
NEXT SUNDAY IS DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY YOU CAN FIND THE NOVENA OF MERCY BY CLICKING HERE
Plenary Indulgence To ensure that the faithful would observe this day with intense devotion, the Supreme Pontiff himself established that this Sunday be enriched by a plenary indulgence, as will be explained below, so that the faithful might receive in great abundance the gift of the consolation of the Holy Spirit. In this way, they can foster a growing love for God and for their neighbour, and after they have obtained God's pardon, they in turn might be persuaded to show a prompt pardon to their brothers and sisters.
Three conditions for the plenary indulgence And so the Supreme Pontiff, motivated by an ardent desire to foster in Christians this devotion to Divine Mercy as much as possible in the hope of offering great spiritual fruit to the faithful, in the Audience granted on 13 June 2002, to those Responsible for the Apostolic Penitentiary, granted the following Indulgences:
a plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honour of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!");
A partial indulgence, granted to the faithful who, at least with a contrite heart, pray to the merciful Lord Jesus a legitimately approved invocation.
The following editorial appeared in a diocesan newspaper sometime this year somewhere in America. It was penned by a priest. Not wishing to give offense to any priest or diocese, both shall remain nameless. My comments are in red.
When an eccentric Florida pastor, Terry Jones, burned a Qu’ran, on March 20, he set more than a Muslim holy book on fire. He started a conflagration that already has a body count. Days of riot- ing have ensued, especially in Afghanistan, where at least three United Nations workers and four Nepalese guards were killed in the previously peaceful city of Mazar-i-Sharif by Muslims incensed by Pastor Jones’ act of disrespect toward them and toward their Qu’ran. This is very important. The writer is already admitting the barbaric overreaction of Muslims.
It is imperative for Christians everywhere to disavow the actions of Terry Jones and all who would distort the Christian message, which is, ultimately, a message of pure love: God’s love for all people, our love for him in return, and our love for one another. Using the term “Christian” is not necessarily wrong, however, in this case, it blurs the distinctions between Catholics, Protestants and, especially, some of the fringe Protestant sects. No mainstream Catholic would approve of burning books held sacred by a major religion and burning the Koran has earned Jones about as much credibility as Adolf Hitler. To quote Bill O’Reilly, Jones is an “idiot” with “blood on his hands”.
For what Jesus Christ commanded his followers was to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Love is the great commandment. And love entails respect for others, even those who do not share our faith, indeed, even our enemies. All true. However, let us keep in mind that there is a difference between “love and respect” and passively permitting one to do as he pleases.
It is true that the history of Christian-Muslim relations has been fraught with difficulties and, indeed, has not been without hatred and bloodshed. True Again. However, this is a good place for us to be mindful of the difference between Islam and Christianity. Historically, converting to Christianity often meant that one would be subject to the penalty of death, as in ancient Rome. Contrast that with the way Islam converts people: They have the choice to become Muslims or die. And the Muslim notion of “martyrdom” is seriously twisted when people blow themselves up or attack tanks armed with a knife, believing such acts will bring them through the gates of paradise.
Yet it has been widely acknowledged by Christians (and especially by the Catholic Church) that the Christian Crusades against Islamic powers were wrong and that fanning the flames of hatred against those who do not believe what Christians believe is sinful. No, it has not.
1. Pope John Paul II apologized for things that were done in the course of the Crusades, not for the actual Crusades. 2. The Crusades were waged at the request of various popes. 3. The Pope preached the First Crusade because the Byzantine Emperor begged him for military assistance to fight the Muslim encroachment into Byzantine (at the time Christian) territory. 4. Christians attempting to visit the Holy Places were being massacred. 5. Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
The Crusades had a legitimate purpose. The purpose was not hatred. It was protection.
It may well be that Islam allows or tolerates the use of violence to advance its message. One would have to be a more learned scholar of Islam than this writer is in order to say so. No, one doesn’t need to be a learned scholar of Islam. Simply read the Koran. Here are but three choice excerpts every citizen of the western world should know:
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."[ 9.29]
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. " [9.5]
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult or oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression." [2:190-193]
Isn’t it interesting that our God loves sinners and hates sins, while their god “Allah”, “loveth not transgressors”? Christianity seeks to convert sinners and bring mankind to God’s mercy, while Islam offers death to any and all who disagree with their doctrine.
But Christian theology does not condone the use of violence to advance the Gospel. Yes. No violence TO ADVANCE THE GOSPEL.
And so Christians have to judge the use of violence by Christians, now or in the past, as unacceptable, even in the face of violence directed at them. No. We don’t. I would argue that we must look at the use of violence in the past and learn from the mistakes made as well as from any good that resulted.
For instance, St. Pius V was certainly rooting for the Christians who faced the Muslim fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. That victory is still celebrated by the Church at the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary/Our Lady of Victory.
St. Augustine of Hippo wrote that we have an obligation to provide for the defense of infants and children and innocent people. He also wrote that Christian rulers had the obligation to protect their subjects, if necessary by the force of arms. St. Thomas Aquinas later adopted these ideas and defined three conditions for a just war:
• Legitimate Authority—What authority is more legitimate than the Holy Father?
• Just Cause—Was it not a just cause to protect Christian pilgrims and rebuild a desecrated church?
• Right Intention: The intention of the Crusades was unquestionably just. The individual intentions of individual Crusaders is another matter.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other to him as well.” There is no room in the Christian heart for retaliation. Yes. Pacifism can be very effective for individuals who are persecuted for their faith. Turning the other cheek when someone insults us is a powerful way to take the power out of aggressive behavior (“a soft answer turneth away wrath”). However, as Augustine said, we also have a responsibility to protect those in our care. Would any parent not resist a child-molester who targets their children? Would any husband not resist someone attacking his wife? What would have happened if the Allied Powers had not resisted Hitler?
By Christian standards, not only were the Crusades wrong... Again, no they were not. They were initially successful, then a failure, and much of the failure stemmed from the behaviors of individuals.
...but so is Pastor Jones’ violent burning of the Qu’ran. But it would also be wrong for any Christian to hate Pastor Jones. There’s the rub. I have to agree here. Pastor Jones not only has blood on his hands, but he has given non-Muslims who hate Christianity more fodder for their hatred. But hating Jones doesn’t fix anything.
Christian love is all-encompassing, active and fiercely demanding. Now is the time for active love, for the love of Christians to encompass those who would be their adversaries as well as those who act wrongly in the name of Christ. The Gospel commands us to love even those who hate us, even those who falsify our message and leave us vulnerable to further attacks. Love has consequences. Hatred is like a cancer. Responding to hatred with hatred perpetuates the hatred until someone stops it with love. God’s Mercy is the most powerful force in the universe and it is the only force that can ultimately destroy hatred.
Having said that, one of the consequences of love is that it requires us to protect those we love. In some rare cases, that means the use of force or arms.
To completely repudiate ANY use of force or arms distorts the teachings of the Church and its Fathers. However, it is deplorable for any of us to use violence as our first line of defense.
Pastor Jones would do far more good to pray for the conversion of Muslims and offer sacrifices and mortifications for that intention. Taking up arms against anyone should be a last resort.
Did I say "Dignity" and "Tolerance"? Don't go looking for any at Brown University.
Our poor children. We spend thousands to send them to "respectable" colleges so that they can learn to call disagreement "hate", killing "choice" and protest in the name of peace while they unwittingly wage their educators' war on civilization.
FROM THE FIFTH COLUMN Lights, Camera, Roll Film... Action! As we prepare to enter Holy Week, orthodox Catholics should be checking their cell phones to make sure they understand video recording capabilities and their cell cameras are ready for action.
Get video and audio of the most popular liturgical abuses:
For Palm Sunday - is your priest allowing lay people, especially women, to read parts of the Gospel reserved for the priest for the lengthy Palm Sunday readings?
Get it on video and send a copy to your bishop!
Maybe with a box of microwave popcorn so he can really enjoy the show.
If your bishop is allowing it, get a copy and send it to the papal nuncio and/or the Congregation for Divine Worship. They won't need popcorn - they've got their own.
For Holy Thursday - is your priest washing the feet of anyone other than men? Roll camera!
For Good Friday - is your congregation doing anything other than walking forward to kiss the cross? Maybe their passing a cross through the crowd, or having a Living Stations in place of or during the Gospel reading? Roll film!
For Holy Saturday - is there applause for the choir, or applause encouraged from the pulpit at any point in the liturgy! Get it all on film!
Yes, these are the high holy days of the Catholic Church, so these are the days that abuse is most rampant. The more video your bishop gets, the more interested he will be in doing something about it.
In the Middle Ages, patrons subsidized the creation of high art.
With modern technology, we can film performance art with the click of a cell button.
Sure, it ain't liturgy, but it might end up being entertaining for all involved!
A sophomore at a local private high school thinks an effort to make Easter politically correct is ridiculous.
Jessica, 16, told KIRO Radio's Dori Monson Show that a week before spring break, the students commit to a week-long community service project. She decided to volunteer in a third grade class at a public school, which she would like to remain nameless.
"At the end of the week I had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that," Jessica said.
She was concerned how the teacher might react to the eggs after of a meeting earlier in the week where she learned about "their abstract behavior rules."
"I went to the teacher to get her approval and she wanted to ask the administration to see if it was okay," Jessica explained. "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat 'spring spheres.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs."
Rather than question the decision, Jessica opted to "roll with it." But the third graders had other ideas.
"When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres' and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.' So they knew," Jessica said.
The Seattle elementary school isn't the only government organization using spring over Easter. The city's parks department has removed Easter from all of its advertised egg hunts.
AND, TO REPEAT WHAT HAS GONE HERE BEFORE... THE USCCB LIED TO OBTAIN THIS INDULT (WHICH DEVIATES FROM THE NORM):
The pope himself is no fan of receiving in the hand. And if you are going to receive Holy Communion at a papal Mass, you almost always have to have a ticket to do so. You can bet that everyone who was approved to receive Holy Communion from the pope was instructed to do it in the traditional manner.
The future. Get used to it.
More bishops are starting to agree.
Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has advocated restricting Holy Communion to the traditional mode of reception, going so far as to say, "It is not a question of ritualism...but a question of faith and love for Our Lord, Jesus Christ."
Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline (Augh! Discipline?) of the Sacraments, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith has also stated, "I speak only for myself, but I am convinced of the urgency of reviewing the practice of Communion given in the hand, returning to giving the particle to the faithful directly in the mouth, without them touching it, reinforcing thereby that in the Eucharist there is really Jesus and that everyone must receive Him with devotion, love and respect...Beyond the office I occupy in the Vatican, as a Catholic I ask myself and wonder: why be ashamed of God? Kneeling at Communion would be an act of humility and recognition of our nature as children of God."
But it's permitted!
I'll answer that objection by quoting another Catholic website which contends that the entire enterprise is a product of disobedience:
The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. Fr. John Hardon likewise has affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed.
Pope Paul VI instructed bishops in 1969:
"Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.
"In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.'
Before its introduction in the 1970's Holy Communion in the Hand was NOT a custom or norm anywhere in the United States. IT WAS IMPOSED UPON US IN DISOBEDIENCE.
Did you get that? Pope Paul told the bishops that they could apply for the indult for Holy Communion in the hand only if they could demonstrate that this "contrary usage" prevailed.
THE U.S. BISHOPS LIED TO THE VATICAN TO FORCE THIS PRACTICE UPON THEIR FLOCK.
Thanks to them, now every day at every Mass in America, communicants unwittingly drop particles of the Body of Christ on the floor and walk over them. IS THAT RESPECT?
Thanks to them, people involved in Satanic worship and other occult rituals can easily obtain a Host to desecrate. DOES THIS REFLECT AN INCREASE IN PIETY?
Thanks to them, Hosts are regularly found on the ground in churches, under pews, between the pages of missalettes and in other inappropriate places. IS THAT REVERENCE?
Thanks to them, belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is at an all-time low. IS THAT AN INCREASE IN FAITH?
This practice was IMPOSED upon us in disobedience. Its fruits, predictably, have been a decline in the Church.
In my own parish at the time, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart in San Diego, I can still remember a nun taking the pulpit and saying, "This is the new way we are going to receive Communion."
She didn't bother to tell us that the old method was still the worldwide norm.
She did all she could to make it appear that this new method was mandatory.
"But this was how they did it in the early Church!"
Great. Do you want to return to hiding out in the catacombs too?
In its most primitive state, The Catholic Church permitted Holy Communion in the Hand, however, the laity were not even allowed to touch the host with their fingers. The hand was purified after. They had to bring their cupped hands to their mouths--and that was only in some places.
Do you think it is an accident that Holy Communion in the hand was soon prohibited and remained prohibited for hundreds of years?
There is a trend afoot here, one that scares the daylights out of the modernists. The trend is a return to reverence or, as Father Z put it, "Brick by brick, he (Pope Benedict) is rebuilding what is devastated."
