Watering down Catholic teaching

An Apple a Day . . .

 . . . will make the doctor kill himself.

Apple products have been slowly transforming from the basic iPod or computer to these unnecessary luxuries that drain our finances, our souls, and our entire livelihood. The recent iPad is "cool," I'll admit, but absolutely and totally unnecessary (along with 90% of Apple's other products).

So what's the latest "epic fail" concerning Apple?

Maybe it's that an entire country has banned the deified iPad from its borders.

"The entire nation of Israel has banned the iPad because of problems the country has with the Wi-Fi connection it uses. Visitors bringing an iPad to the country must impound the device for a daily fee until they leave or pay to send it back home."

Evidently, the iPad's wireless connection is such that it sucks the life-force out of normal wireless items, like laptops, Blackberry phones, and other similar things. You would think that the omniscient corporation named after a fruit would have done some research to make sure that you can safely use the iPad when around, say, other living people with internet connections. But no - they opted not to descend from their lofty thrones of liberal, tutti-fruitti, fabulosity.

I own one Apple product, an iPod classic. It has served me well, and I would definitely get one again presuming this will die eventually. However, I don't know why anyone would actually want an iPad. It's a screen the size of a piece of paper. One of the "aps" you can buy (for $9.99) lets you "paint" on the screen. You know what? For about $1.00 you can do the real thing. Yeah, I know. Astounding, isn't it?

And so, if you value your immortal soul, you will stay away from Apple excess. An iPod? Sure. An iPhone? Okay, but that's kind of pushing it. An iPad? You might as well be a God-hating atheist.

Follow the example of Israel, Princeton, and George Washington University, and ban iPads from your life. This is one clear instance of "WWJD." What would Jesus do? He wouldn't buy an Apple product, that's for sure.

That raving lunatic from Chicago - Father Pfleger

New Poll at Right

Everyone is probably acquainted with the poll we have running perpetually at right. I know often times people vote jokingly, but I would humbly ask that you answer the poll genuinely. I think it would be very interesting to get a look into our own experiences of liturgical abuse, where we are, what we've done, whom we've written and so on. You are encouraged to select any options that suit you and your experience.

Please note, this does not count as filling out your 2010 Census. You should have sent that in already - if not, you will be visited by the SS US Census Bureau.

Voice of the Faithful - STA Parishioners Speak Out

A nod of the miter goes to the parishioners of St. Thomas the Apostle, for their charitable and unrelenting defense of their parish from enemies inside and outside of the establishment. I have never seen a parish wanting so much to be kept alive, yet languishing under a seditious administration whose goals aren't the preservation of the Church, but the preservation of one church. And guess what - it's not St. Thomas the Apostle.

The following was distributed over the weekend by the concerned parishioners, after word got out about Fr. Tanck's less-than-pastoral approach to dealing with the anger and hurt.

Please click the image to see it larger, for ease of reading.

Who would be vicious enough to spread lies and rumors about the people of St. Thomas? We've already seen a blind hatred of the parish from liberals in our midst, saying that the people there are cold, unwelcoming, etc. ad infinitem. Is it not ecclesial treason to betray the very people entrusted to you by God?

All I can say is that most parishes would have just withered away and permitted themselves to be bullied by the forces at work. However, the people of STA have organized into an impressive body, one which definitely shows that the parish is not dying, not apathetic, not bitter or cold. The only bitterness seen in the entire STA affair is the judgmental and irrational approach of certain diocesan employees (yes, I do mean Fr. Tanck), who would rather exclude the faithful from the sacraments than to offer one kind word of comfort.

What's his reaction going to be to this? No Masses at STA this weekend? Only communion services until Pentecost? I wouldn't be surprised.

The New Racism - Obama and Abortion

This cartoon is certainly thought-provoking, friends. It's from the blog Veritatis: The Cartoon, and comes at a very appropriate time. Liberals are saying that racism is dead because we have an African-American president. But when you look at this, and consider other relevant things, it's quite obvious that racism has simply evolved.

So what is this "evolved racism" that I mentioned? Let's just examine the First Lady, Mrs. Michelle Obama. I am certain that she is a very lovely person, and I cringe to think that anyone would call her "monkey," "ape-woman," or "the msising link." That's just inappropriate. Whenever someone gets thrust into the news for such hate-filled language, they are pretty much labeled as racist, intolerant, reactionary, etc. However, what about the innumerable jokes about how George Bush looked like an ape? No one was ever arrested for hate-speech like that. What about the people who said his mother looked like a bloated whale? Mrs. Bush just carried on in her usual way, not getting her husband (George H.W. Bush) to censor or prosecute the people. 

If we're really a post-racial nation, shouldn't our first ladies act the same when attacked? God forbid anyone makes fun of the Obamas - but the Bushes, they're just country hicks! Mock them and label them as morons, and no one lifts a finger. 

And please, do not get me started on Affirmative Action. For the handful of times that it actually works, it actually stifles the success of the genuinely qualified. I am clueless as how we all want to end racism, and yet we put up these bumpers around sensitive issues so that this group can get ahead, and that group doesn't get offended, and these people can say this, and those people can do that. If we're all equal, we should be treated as equals, and not given different starting positions.

I pray that President Obama realizes the gross injustices and contradictions in his presidency. How can he defend the ideals of the nation when things such as what is mentioned in the above cartoon are true? Is it post-racial for Planned Parenthood to erect its largest buildings in so-called "Black Ghettos"? The African American community is suffering because the politicians have declared racism to be over when, in fact, it is becoming more and more entrenched, but stealthily so. We are all equal in the sight of God, and for some people to be separated and exalted while others are held back due to feel-good politicking is to be part of a great injustice, one whose effects will be long-lasting and devastating for our brothers and sisters in faith.

But I digress . . .

I'm sure you're wondering by now why, exactly, Gen is going off into racial politics and that whole politically-incorrect morass. Well, it's especially apt considering my upcoming trip to Gettysburg and Washington, and the Governor of Virginia's declaration of "Confederate History Month." Come the end of the week, you'll see some history-related posts of Catholic interest: Col. Patrick O'Rourke, Fr. William Corby, the Catholic parish in Gettysburg, the impact of St. Elizabeth Anne Seton, and more. The reason I'm looking forward to this trip is that in the events of history is reflected the hand of God. We can see that His will is always achieved in the end. We were punished with civil war for four long years, losing over 600,000 men killed and wounded. However, because of this, 4,000,000 slaves were freed, and given liberty.

It is truly a shame that leaders like Obama seem to drift above the sacrifices of ages past, living only in their glorious "now," a "now" which excludes so much of what we are as a people. It's amazingly naive to presume that a mere 150 years past the Civil War, the last vestiges of racism are erased permanently. We can see racism in our own realm of interest: the annual Chrism Mass features an African-American dancing around the altar. Our African-American brethren are separated, officially, and given their own parish set aside from the others. Is not the Mass a place to come together, united and not focused on race?

If I wanted to, I could go on and on and on about the whole issue about race and the Catholic identity (or race and the American identity), but I know that there are a few die-hard Democrats who read this blog, and whose blood is probably boiling by this point. Mea culpa for contributing to your high blood pressure, dear blue-staters.

Pope Benedict on Liturgy

VATICAN CITY, 15 APRIL 2010 (VIS) - Today the Holy Father received the prelates of the North II Region of the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops on the conclusion of their ad limina visit.

  Speaking of the Eucharist, the Pope recalled that it constitutes "the centre and permanent source of the Petrine ministry, the heart of the Christian life, source and summit of the Church's mission of evangelization. You can thus understand the concern of the Successor of Peter for all that can obfuscate this most essential point of the Catholic faith: that today, Jesus Christ continues alive and truly present in the consecrated host and the chalice."

  "Paying less attention at times to the rite of the Most Holy Sacrament constitutes," he said, "a sign and a cause of the darkening of the Christian sense of mystery, such as when Jesus is not the centre of the Mass, but rather a community preoccupied with other things instead of being taken up and drawn to the only one necessary: their Lord."

  Benedict XVI emphasized that "if the figure of Christ does not emerge from the liturgy ... it is not a Christian liturgy". This is why, he added, "we find those who, in the name of enculturation, fall into syncretism, introducing rites taken from other religions or cultural particularities into the celebration of the Mass."

  As Venerable John Paul II wrote, "the mystery of the Eucharist is 'too great a gift' to admit of ambiguities or reductions, above all when, 'stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet'."
  The Pope highlighted that "behind many alleged motives, there exists a mentality that is incapable of accepting the real possibility of divine intervention in this world to assist human beings. ... Admitting God's redeeming intervention to change our situation of alienation and sin is seen as fundamentalism by those who share a deist vision  and the same can be said about the sacramental sign that makes the salvific sacrifice present. For such persons, the celebration of a sign that corresponds to a vague sentiment of community would be more acceptable."

  "Worship, however," he continued, "cannot come from our imagination: that would be a cry in the darkness or mere self-affirmation. True liturgy supposes that God responds and shows us how we can adore Him. ... The Church lives in His presence and its reason for being and existing is to expand His presence in the world."

  The Holy Father concluded, recalling that within a month the 16th National Eucharistic Congress will be celebrated in Brazil. In this context he asked that Jesus in the Eucharist "truly be the heart of Brazil, from which comes the strength for all Brazilian men and women to recognize themselves and help one another as brothers and sisters and as members of Christ. Whoever wishes to live, has a place to live, has something to live for. Let them draw near, create and begin to form part of the Body of Christ and they will be given life."

What Is Sacred?

The question of what truly is "sacred" is one which, unfortunately, goes answered only in the hollow ruminations of the liberals or the presumption of religious formation in the minds of the orthodox. Very seldom is it actually palpably set forth for the faithful, and when it is, it is scoffed at, rejected, and blatantly denied. The nature of sanctity is not open for debate.

The sacred must give glory to God, not to those created by him. Far too often, the music and rhetoric at Mass focuses on the congregation, not the sacred mysteries. Why is this? Why do many priests and administrators place over-emphasis on the created in lieu of the Creator? It stems from a basic misunderstanding of the faith. This is not to say that these individuals have no faith - they do, but it is often deformed. The sacred is something about God, not us. It must not focus on our culture, but on the culture of the Church, i.e. timeless and Roman. When we put ourselves into the liturgy, that is, our ideas of music, our ideas of reverence, we push out the dignity of the unadulterated Liturgy, whether we intend to or not.

Whether we like it or not, Gregorian Chant is specific and unique to Roman Liturgy. It belong there just as cars belong on roads and ships belong at sea. We wouldn't say "I like ships, so let's put them on our streets." No, that's ludicrous. We may like boats, but their places are at sea, not in city thoroughfares. So too does secular, folk music, rock music, belong outside of the Liturgy. It may be very good in the eyes of the faithful, but this not mean that it has a "right" to be introduced into Mass simply to make things "more appealing" to us as a congregation.

Just as Gregorian Chant is specific and unique to the Liturgy, so too is the use of Latin and Greek. The Second Vatican Council never said that the Mass must be said wholly in the vernacular, with the purposeful and willful exclusion of Latin. Each and every document regarding the Mass stresses that the absolute and definite role of the Latin language in the Roman Rite. It is the Roman Rite. When we begin to see the use of the timeless language of the Church as a barrier to faithfulness, there is something deeply wrong. Indeed, the use of Latin is sacred, and the use of the vernacular, when utilized for an agenda (such as "inclusivity") is profane. I have mentioned it before that all "profane" means is "outside of the shrine," "outside of the sacred" in other words.

While a congregation must be mindful of its culture, it must not let that same culture subvert the meaning of the Mass. By making the Mass "our Mass" we remove the timelessness of heaven from it. For everything that we can do is merely human - the Mass is something divine. For this reason, it must be approached by reverent faithful, not presuming their equality with God, and it must be celebrated by dignified and pious priests. Sacred Liturgy is not a show - it is a sampling of the celestial liturgy, in which Christ Jesus is the High Priest. Our pastors must reflect Christly virtues in that they know what is sacred and what is profane. Just because something happens in church does not mean it is blessed by God. Remember the moneychangers in the temple, those who profaned the sacred. They were physically assaulted by God in a showing of divine wrath. There is no difference between the moneychangers of 30 AD and the perpetrators or liturgy abuse in the sanctuaries of 2010 AD.

To understand the sacred is to elevate our mind-frame from "here and now" to "forever." The Mass is not just a one-hour show on Sundays. It is the time at which God comes to us and we to Him. He deigns it beneficial to us to make Himself present in the Blessed Sacrament. That is sacred. That is timeless. This timelessness dictates, undeniably, the use of a timeless medium. I ask you - what is more timeless: Marty Haugen's Gather Us In, or the Kyrie from the Missa de Agelis? The former is a manifestation of the congregation-oriented prayer so unfortunately common in our parishes. The Missa de Angelis is an ancient setting of the Mass, never changing and untouched by centuries of religious debate and controversy.

The Mass is timeless. We are not. To respect the sacred, to be a sacred people, means that we cannot take it upon ourselves to make the Mass what we think it ought to be. If we do, we have turned our eyes from God and fixed them upon ourselves at His expense. What tyranny, that the faithful turn worship of God to worship of self.

Some Sisters Get It - Others Don't

This past weekend, a copy of the Our Lady of Victory bulletin was passed to the cloistered Carmelite sisters on Jefferson Road. They were so thrilled with Fr. Antinarelli's defense of Pope Benedict, that they wrote him a warm letter of thanks, and sent a book of the pope's prayers and writings as a sign of gratitude.

I wonder if the SSJ's of the diocese were so kind.

Thirty Pieces

From Cleveland:

(Please note - this isn't a commentary on this parish's apparently dubious liturgical practices. It's a commentary on church closures. We can discuss the liturgical and theological problems in the comment box if you want.)

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The twelve final words on the back of St. Peter Catholic Church's Easter Sunday program said it most plainly.

A timeline spanning 156 years ended this way: "Parish suppressed and church building closed April 2010 by Bishop Richard Lennon."(I don't know the political situation in Cleveland, but I have a suspicion that the bishop does not bear as much blame as one, say, in Rochester, New York.)

But before the Rev. Robert Marrone kicked out the wooden blocks and locked the massive arched doors -- that had remained open to worshipers from all walks of life since 1859 -- he served up a forceful sermon.

His words were the last orated in the church thanks to an agreement with the Cleveland diocese to cancel a final Mass set for next week at which Lennon was to desanctify the church.(All that's really needed to desanctify a church is a lay preacher in an alb, incompetent altar servers, and whordes of "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion.)

Marrone took aim at two audiences.

To church leaders, he warned that the closing of the downtown church and suppression of the parish would come to be seen as, "one of the most egregious mistakes ever made by this diocese."(Sound familiar?)

He summoned history itself to make his point recalling early church leaders traveling on horseback, begging for money to build. All the pancake breakfasts, spaghetti dinners and rummage sales manned by parishioners to keep the church alive, afloat, during rough times. Members who carted in wheel barrels of concrete to pave a new floor on one of the hottest days of 1989 and, a few years later, the parishioner who carved their beloved altar in the courtyard.

And the last battle fought and won to restore the historic towers and edifice in the face of a city dwindling around it, just five years ago. Marrone said the decision would come not only to symbolize the abandoning of what he called the most historic church in the city and the dispersing its vital congregations but also "tragic and even sometimes sinful decisions" by church leaders -- leaders who were leaving the promises of Vatican II unfulfilled and leading instead with fear.(Again, I'm not sure how one should take this statement, due to our removal from Cleveland. I tend to doubt they're in the same "reform of the reform" mindframe we are, but who knows?)

The closing of St. Peter - a part of what he called the church closing epidemic - was not because of economics, or lack of clergy or parishioners, Marrone said.

Instead it was a "steadfast refusal and or inability to imagine things in a different way."(Again - sound familiar?)
To Marrone's flock, whom he sits among (uh oh) -- not above (God forbid the priest actually "presides")-- during Mass, the priest urged that they extricate themselves from their connection to the building where they worshipped.

As the hundreds there to celebrate their belief that Jesus Christ rose to give them new life, dabbed their eyes or sobbed as if they were attending a funeral for a beloved friend, Morrone prodded them forward.

"This community has always respected and honored its past but it has steadfastly refused to live in it," he said.

He said they would leave the white-washed walls and brilliant stained glass windows, "as an empty tomb" which, going forward, will represent only the "incredible lack of faith, hope and love in our church."(I'm not entirely certain who's to blame, specifically, for this parish closing. Maybe their bishop, maybe some council that "suggests" things to him. Details would be nice if anyone has any.)
But he urged the diverse (oh?) group of church members, some who drive in from suburbs, some who walk from nearby shelters, to refuse to play it safe and keep their mouths shut. Rather, he said, they should be brave like Jesus' disciples.(Kind of like those kooks who drive into the heart of downtown Rochester to Our Lady of Victory or St. Stanislaus - nut jobs, all of them.)

And he cautioned them not to "mistakenly confuse blind obedience with faithfulness" and "allow more churches to become tombs to the living dead." Marrone warned that the collective silence of church faithful in the face of church officials' actions could make them equally culpable. (Whether this man is liberal or conservative, this ought to ring true to many of us.)
"The power of fear which has caused this injustice is not the last word, must not be the last word and will not be the last word," Marrone said.
"I know it seems unbearable but we can bear it. Go forth into the world and be living stones," Marrone said. "God will tent with us wherever he go."
And with that, the parishioners took with them, their light -- symbolized by thin white candles -- and left the church in a procession which took them sobbing into the street.
As they gathered in the sunshine, many parishioners vowed to move forward, each heading their beloved priest's advice in their own ways.
The Wienceks, a family of five that drives in from Medina County, didn't know where they would end up. Tom and Anka Wiencek have been members of St. Peter for 20 years.
"I'm thinking that many people will support the new community," Tom Wiencek said, referring to the non-profit Community of St. Peter to be housed in a building on Euclid Avenue.
He hoped it might even become a model.
"The people will become the stones," said Brenda Pestak, who met her husband at St. Peter on Good Friday in 1981, a day he carried the cross into the church.
"This is not the end," she said. "This is the beginning."
An end with one last message left inside the "tomb" for the man leading the charge to close more than 50 churches in the eight-county diocese.
At the foot of the altar, in a plastic baggie, coins glimmered and a note read: "A gift for Bishop Lennon. 30 pieces of silver for the one who has betrayed us."

 The question of whether this parish is a loyal one or a dissenting one is not relevant, at least for the point I'm trying to make. We cannot be silent when our churches are closed or threatened with closure. To be silent is to be complicit in the stripping of Christ before His crucifixion, just as we watch our altars stripped one last time, the relics removed from their resting place.

Not all of the closings here in Rochester are the fault of Bishop Clark. Many are, legitimately, due to shifting demographics. However, for the few parishes that are being targeted, such as St. Thomas, there is such blatant political maneuvering as to be sacrilegious. When we are presented with true injustice, we must be vocal and cry out, addressing the problem. Yes, pray, but pray and act together. Let your efforts to save your parishes be a perpetual prayer to God. Words are clumsy instruments contrived by humanity - actions are mirrors of divinity. Words are necessary, but so too are actions. Do not abandon yourselves to despair, but take heart. Any parish that has been closed, be it liberal, indifferent, or solid, has gone through unimaginable sufferings. To sit back and twiddle your thumbs is to be a living example of a Christian who has lost his sense of charity.

 

Answering Brother Ray

The following is taken from The Cross Reference, and answers Ray Grosswirth's 40 feces theses with clarity and precision. A major nod of the miter to The Cross Reference for doing something I had been planing on, but hadn't quite gotten around to.

This post is a response to Ray Grosswirth's "40 Theses on Mandated Clerical Celibacy" from his Toward a Progressive Catholic Church blog. (Note: this blog is not something I regularly read, but it was brought to my attention today, and this post in particular caught my eye.)

The numbers preceding my comments relate to his individual theses.  I'm not repeating his theses, and I try to make my responses self-contained, but you may need to read his post for mine to make sense.

1. In Luke 18:29, Jesus says that some of them have left even their wives to follow Him.  So while He did not require them to do so, it seems clear that some of them did.  (This should not be interpreted to mean that married men should separate from their wives to seek ordination, but that the demands of discipleship sometimes require us to make great personal sacrifices.)

2. What "natural law" does mandated celibacy violate? See Matt. 19:8-12 and 1 Cor. 7:32-34.

3. The argument that clerical celibacy "celebrates a male hierarchy and diminishes the role of women" is baseless, because you have provided no evidence for it.  In addition, this argument would fail immediately if celibate women could be ordained:  no longer would male hierarchy be celebrated and the role of women be diminished.

4. Celibacy is a gift from God and requires co-operation with His grace.  It can lead to other graces and good things; it is meant to be a spiritual help. (cf. Catechism 915)  On the other hand, celibacy can have disastrous results if the person attempting it is not disposed to practice it.  But just because something (e.g. celibacy) can lead to a negative result (e.g. sexual frustration and even abuse) among other positive results, that does not mean the thing is negative or bad or evil in and of itself.  Take free will as a more general example.

5. I'm not sure what you mean by the "primary beneficiary of mandated celibacy" being the hierarchy.

6. Not everyone is called to the ordained priesthood (cf. Catechism 1599); put another way, there are more vocations than simply the ordained priesthood.  Although these vocations differ, and some vocations are "higher" than others, a layman does not have less dignity (spiritual or otherwise) than a priest simply because one is a priest and the other is not.  Indeed, some laymen have more dignity than priests.

7. Celibacy is a higher calling than the married life, it is true.  Vatican II said as much:  "[Seminary students] ought rightly to acknowledge the duties and dignity of Christian matrimony, which is a sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Let them recognize, however, the surpassing excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ, so that with a maturely deliberate and generous choice they may consecrate themselves to the Lord by a complete gift of body and soul." (Optatam Totius 10)  But what does it mean for marriage to have a "secondary status"?  Is there something wrong with marriage, then, because it is not the most excellent?

8. It is true that during the first millennium of the Church there were married priests; there were also married bishops.  But the whole Church eventually moved away from married bishops (seen in both the East and the West) and the Western Church eventually moved away from married priests as well.  I would not call this "obscur[ing]" the past.  Could it be that the Church is closer to attaining something now than it was in its first millennium?

9. The commandment to "love one another" does not take on a "love only thy self" dimension in the midst of celibacy; this is another baseless claim.  Can you only love a person to whom you are married?  Can you only love another person well if you are married?

10. It is true that with less priests, the Eucharist is offered less frequently (both to God as a sacrifice and to the people as Holy Communion), and this is a very sad thing. But the solution is not necessarily to increase the number of people who can be priests; perhaps we are not nurturing those whom God is calling to the priesthood.

11. How is clerical celibacy a "state of subjective pacifism" for priests? How is a life of celibacy opposed to "active participation"?

12. Mandated celibacy could, I suppose, create an unhealthy fear of women; I don't have the statistics. I bet it does create a healthy fear of sexual temptation, though.

13. What about the married-and-divorced-and-remarried Catholics who are "on the sidelines" because of their decisions? Should the "policy" on remarriage be changed to accommodate them?

14. Same as #13. It should be pointed out that the Church has, to my knowledge, never permitted men ALREADY ordained to then marry. Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) priests were married before they were ordained. The men who enter the priesthood should have been informed of the life they were entering and its demands; if they were not, shame on those in charge of their formation.

15. What evidence can you supply to support your claim that the "leadership roles" of women in the first four centuries were "distort[ed]" by the 5th century Church Fathers, let alone for the purpose of allowing a future mandate of celibacy?

16. Luckily, celibate priests need not be the "primary source" for marriage counseling. We have other married couples (include permanent deacons and their wives) to turn to. But still, a celibate priest could have some wisdom to share with those who are married. St. Paul did. (cf. Eph. 5)

17. Whatever St. Thomas Aquinas (or any other Church theologian -- Father or Doctor or whatever!) said about women being "misbegotten males", or other such nonsense, patently ignores the fact that God made man male and female in the beginning before there was sin at all. While the discipline of celibacy may have led to this conclusion, it does not strictly follow from it.

18. I do not know how well the "Fishers of Men" campaign succeeded (or how badly it failed). If it was "a dismal failure", there could be any number of reasons. Again, just because celibacy is counter-cultural or hard (to fathom or to live!) does not mean it is bad and should be done away with as an obligation of the priesthood.

19. Through the "pastoral provision" of Pope John Paul II, some married ministers from Protestant denominations who, upon entering the Catholic Church, discern that their ministry in their prior community was a response to a true priestly vocation, may request ordination in the Catholic Church. Some, not all, who request this receive it. I do not consider this "hypocrisy" any more than the fact that the Eastern Churches have married priests "hypocrisy".

20. It is not merely by the pope's authority that clerical celibacy is an obligation for priests in the Western Church; centuries of tradition, Scriptural admonitions, and experience also come into play. I personally think that the avenue of allowing individual bishops to permit married men to the priesthood is a poor one; maybe allowing individual bishops' conferences is better, but still, I am wary of it.

21. Women's ordination is completely out of the question, and advocates of a change in the discipline of clerical celibacy would do well to detach themselves from advocacy of women's ordination.

22. Scripture seems to say that Jesus was dining with "the twelve disciples" (i.e. the Apostles), not with His whole retinue. (Matt. 26:20; cf. Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14,30) These men were (by virtue of His words) priests. Married priests can confect the Eucharist too.

23. The miracle of turning water into wine at Cana was interpreted by the Church Fathers as a "blessing" of marriage (as a sacrament) by Jesus. Apart from His disciples who were present, I do not think the wedding guests recognized it as "a witnessing event" to "go out and preach the good news as an inclusive discipleship." This event has absolutely nothing to do (as far as I can see) with celibacy or the priesthood.

24. The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes has a Eucharistic character to it. Nevertheless, it itself was not the Eucharist. The feeding of the spiritually hungry is not solely the task of priests; celibacy is not a prerequisite for it.

25. The Holy Spirit descends upon the bread and wine when a validly ordained priest prays the epiclesis.

26. Again, women's ordination is out of the question.

27. Why did men stop feeling called to the priesthood? What caused the drop in vocations?

28. Some seminaries are experiencing growth. And men who are entering the seminary should be made aware early on (if they are not aware already) of the celibate life expected of a priest. (cf. Catechism 915)

29. Priests are not selected "on the sole basis of promised obedience to a bishop and a promise to live a celibate life." Seminary formation is far more comprehensive in breadth and depth than that.

30. No one says that mandated celibacy "give[s] a priest a special status" in God's Kingdom.

31. You can frame your desire for a policy of optional celibacy however you wish.

32. Not all priests are "victims of burn-out", and a married priest is not immune to burn-out either.

33. The Vatican's answer to the parish-closing situation is to challenge all of us to foster priestly vocations in our young men all the more fervently.

34. Clerical celibacy does have to do with theology, as any balanced reading on the topic would reveal. See Vatican II's documents for a start: Lumen Gentium 42; Optatam Totius 10; Perfectae Caritatis 12; Presbyterorum Ordinis 16.

35. Not being based on the Bible alone, the Catholic Church's tradition has taught us that Jesus was celibate; I would not expect He is a homosexual. But priestly celibacy is based not only on Jesus' example but on His teaching (see Matt. 19:8-12) and on that of St. Paul (see 1 Cor. 7:32-34).

36. I do not know how many priests are secretly living double lives of clandestine relationships, but they shall answer to God for it, whether or not their situation is revealed to the Church. Perhaps the question should be: why do some priests have such great difficulty with celibacy? Could there be some cultural or societal pressures or defects which cause or worsen this problem?

37. St. John the beloved Apostle was also at the foot of the cross. Jesus did not make St. Mary of Magdala, nor His Mother, a priest. Was Jesus committing acts of "injustice" thereby? Why is it necessarily injustice for the priesthood to be instituted for men only? Is it an injustice for motherhood to be instituted for women only, or fatherhood for men only?

38. Clerical celibacy is a discipline (or, as you put it, a "policy"), not a doctrine nor a dogma. Nevertheless, it is a discipline which demands our adherence to it. It is not forbidden to discuss the matter of celibacy, but that discussion cannot be carried out by/in disobedience. I agree that open and honest dialogue on this topic should be encouraged; but that dialogue requires honest education and catechesis.

39. "We want change, and we want it now!" is quite a revealing battle cry. It is certainly not one which sounds ready for "open and honest dialogue" which requires one to listen and learn. The Church could change its stance toward clerical celibacy, but it seems as though "those of [you] committed to reform" in the issues of clerical celibacy are completely unwilling to change your stance.

40. I do not believe that "mandatory celibacy is a hindrance" to the Gospel. I think that society (modern or not) is a hindrance far more than Church disciplines are or could be.

"End The Church Culture That Led to Abuse"

Today's Demagogue and Barnacle features an article penned by the would-be-theologian Mark Hare, whose musings on anything dealing with the Holy Catholic Church can be summarized as "Bishop Clark is divine" and "the old ways must die." His article is below, with my commentary.

A lot of Catholics are angry. (Good deduction, Sherlock.)
Some are incensed at what they see as a media attack on Pope Benedict XVI and other high-level Vatican officials for protecting pedophile priests.("They" as in "a lot of Catholics"? Shouldn't you include yourself, Mr. Hare, unless you are either not "incensed" or not Catholic"?)
Others, myself included, (Ah, here comes the "Me-Show" we can all expect from Mr. Hare) are far more disturbed by a pattern of paranoia and obfuscation by some in the pope's inner circle. (Paranoia? It's not paranoia when people really are out to get you, Mr. Hare. Just look at the news and tell me this isn't the case.)
The official preacher of the papal household delivered a Good Friday reflection comparing the media criticism of the pope to anti-Semitism. The church's chief exorcist charged that the devil "prompted" New York Times stories suggesting that the pope, as archbishop of Munich in 1980, may not have been sufficiently vigilant in preventing a pedophile priest from returning to parish ministry. (So now it comes to Mr. Hare to critique the Pope. Oh, rest assured, his credentials enable him to do just that - "columnist for Rochester, NY paper." Let us kneel before his awesome presence.)
Circling the wagons is the worst response; the pope and the hierarchy of the church are not the victims. (They are victims, Mr. Hare. How many innocent priests are labeled as pedophiles because a few idiots couldn't control themselves? How many bishops are now being slandered for doing the right thing, even though the media says they didn't? How many young men are being mocked and derided for their faith which prompts them to enter seminary or religious life? I can tell you, sir, it is vastly more than the children who have been abused. No one is saying "forget the kids," yet people seem all too willing to put words like this into the mouth of the Church. People like you, sir.)
It is painfully clear that the abuse was not an isolated American phenomenon. The criminal circle has widened to Europe, and I suspect that hundreds of allegations will become thousands.(I wonder how many of these cases hinge on a middle aged man who sees an opportunity to cash in on the contrived abuses of his past? Many of those who have come forward have not been abused - they have been goaded into action by the media and by gold-digging parents and spouses. This kind of behavior slanders the Church and wounds the true victims even more.)
Of course, the vast majority of priests and bishops (and certainly nuns) have given their lives to loving service. ("And certainly nuns"? What is this supposed to mean? Nuns are more pure than the priests and bishops? I tend to doubt that very much, Mr. Hare. How many nuns covered up abuses for the scandalous pastors? How many nuns physically attacked children in the classroom? Oh, you should not single out the nuns, sir. If anything, single out the new young people, men entering the priesthood, and women entering religious life, who are of the "new breed," the solid, God-fearing, and pure young people that you implicitly lump in with all the trash the Church must clear out.)
It is also true, as John Allen Jr., senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, ( "senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter". . . "Thou woulds't have no power against me, had it not been given to thee from above.") has written, that if Pope Benedict is "part of the problem ... He's also a major chapter in the solution." While he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was assigned responsibility for reviewing all cases of alleged abuse by priests. He is probably more familiar with the horrific details than anyone, Allen writes, and "he and his team approved direct administrative action in roughly 60 percent of the cases," Allen wrote in a New York Times (aka "Treason Times") op-ed piece. (Pope Benedict did not handle every single case that came through that office. That would have been impossible. When he did handle a case, personally, it was dealt with according to ecclesiastic and civil norms.)
As pope, Benedict has disciplined priests, met with victims and apologized for the harm done to them.
This damage, however, cannot be repaired with a new policy or an apology, or 20 apologies, or 100 apologies. Church culture protected criminal priests and silenced their young victims to avoid bringing shame and scandal to the institution; the result was both shame and scandal. (If you know the answer, why don't you go over to Rome and sort the Pope out individually? Oh, that's right, because your only venue is a liberal rag in an Upstate New York City.) Victims were twice victimized, and millions of Catholics have lost faith in the moral authority of the hierarchy. The "zero tolerance" policy of the U.S. Catholic bishops is a huge step forward, but there is no statute of limitations on contrition.
I do not believe that leaders of our church are indifferent to this tragedy. (Then why write this vociferous rubbish?) But every time a church official blames the media or anti-Catholicism or "petty gossip" for the crisis, I cringe. (Kind of like how I cringe every time I see that Mark Hare has written another piece attacking the institutions of Holy Mother Church.) The insular culture that so distorted the Gospel values remains intact.
As Timothy Shriver eloquently said in a Washington Post (can you cite any reputable pro-Church source, or are you only able to find what you want to in the liberal and anti-Catholic press? Convenient, isn't it?) op-ed piece last week, the only answer is conversion — a total change of heart, with God's help. The church teaches us that God's Spirit speaks to and through all of us, not just the hierarchy. (Right, but we aren't the ones who have intimate knowledge of the workings of God or the Church. Why consult a janitor when applying for college? It's the same thing. Lay people are generally not qualified for the kind of work required by things like this. We don't have the experience, the education, or the know-how.) I fear for the future of my church if its leaders do not listen to the many men and women (Don't you hate it when people use awkward language to make a political point?) whose lives, experience, and faithfulness could help them build a more welcoming, sensitive and accountable (accountable to whom, Mr. Hare? As of now, it's accountable to God, the Creator, not Bob the Created) church culture. That is what conversion requires.
Many of the Catholics I know struggle every day with our own sinfulness. We seek, as the church has taught us, contrite hearts. We expect no less from those who ask us to be faithful. (I guess the pity party's over, folks. And just when I was getting ready to pin the tail on the . . . donkey.)

And so, Mr. Hare tells us to "end the Church culture that led to abuse." I say "change the Church culture that led to liberal nut-jobs and Church-attacking 'Catholics' like Mark Hare."

Not One Shred of Evidence

The following comes from the EWTN blog, written by Raymond Arroyo, and posted in our circle of orthodoxy by Kelly. Nod of the miter at both of them.

The attacks leveled against Pope Benedict XVI get curiouser and curiouser.
Just so everyone is on the same page: first Benedict was accused of stopping a Church trial against a priest in Wisconsin. When that fizzled (because the priest died and the trial was apparently still ongoing) there were charges that he didn't act quickly enough to laicize priests (never mind the fact that the priests were indeed removed from ministry).
This past weekend, the AP thought they had found the smoking gun: a 1985 letter bearing Ratzinger's signature purportedly stalling the laicization of a priest. The AP got the story all wrong. Turns out the facts of the case exonerate Ratzinger entirely. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger did not have authority over sex abuse cases until 2001. This case occurred in the late 80's. The rule of thumb on all these stories is that the local bishop is the first person responsible for punishing priestly offenders and the one charged with protecting his flock from these menaces. To imagine that the Pope has the ability or the manpower to oversee and police the actions of every cleric around the globe is an infantile delusion. He is not Santa Claus. If the Pontiff had such powers, do you actually think there would be so many teaching and liturgical lapses throughout the Church?
It should be said that mistakes were most certainly made in dealing with priestly offenders and that the process of laicization was absurdly poky. But why is the media attacking the man in the Vatican principally responsible for streamlining the laicization process? Why go after Ratzinger--one of the few high-ranking Vatican officials who vociferously pursued these sex offenders?

He goes on to explain how noted atheist is planning on arresting the Pope. I'm sure we've all heard the name "Richard Dawkins" at one point or another, so we all should all summarily know how he's one of these atheists who declares that all people should be tolerant . . . unless we're talking about Catholics. Then it's free admission day at the freak show. It truly is amazing how people get away with things that are this hate-filled. If the current scandal were with the Baptists, you would have massive demonstrations of our African-American brethren, all protesting the stereotypes that "blacks are Baptists" and (in this scenario) "Baptists are child rapers." It's ludicrous to think people would get away with that kind of slander! And yet, when it concerns the Roman Catholic Church, they do. They say these things, oppress us in society, and yet, when we lift a finger to defend ourselves, we are construed as belligerent.

Kind of makes you yearn for the days of the Inquisition, doesn't it?

 The entirety of the article is definitely worth a read, and can be accessed here.

Novena of Prayer for Pope Benedict XVI

I think we can rest assured that this prayer won't be used too much in the Diocese of Rochester, so I have decided to post it here for your use and dissemination.

The initiative comes from the Knights of Columbus, and is as follows:

Lord, source of eternal life and truth,
give to your shepherd, Benedict, a spirit
of courage and right judgment, a spirit
of knowledge and love. By governing
with fidelity those entrusted to his care,
may he, as successor to the Apostle
Peter and Vicar of Christ, build your
Church into a sacrament of unity, love
and peace for all the world. Amen.
V/ Let us pray for Benedict, the pope.
R/ May the Lord preserve him,
give him a long life,
make him blessed upon the earth,
and not hand him over
to the power of his enemies.
V/ May your hand
be upon your holy servant.
R/ And upon your son,
whom you have anointed.
Our Father… Hail Mary… Glory Be…

I would encourage any priest or deacon or pastoral administrator who may be reading this to include it as a prayer for the faithful to be said before Mass begins or after Mass ends. What good is our love for the Pope if we don't act on it in a public and undeniable way?

Something to Entice You, Dear Friends

I have spoken with some of you, regarding yet another project the administrators of this site have embarked upon. We hope to have this done by our 1 Year Anniversary, which is on June 10, 2010.

What exactly is this project?

I'll summarize it without leading you to a full revelation. Let it suffice to say the following:

• At least 5 new authors, in addition to Dr. K, Choir Loft, and me
• A potential "DoR Wiki," with entries for parishes, personalities, and anything else pertinent to our mission
• We'll be an actual website now, not "just a blog"
• More coverage possibilities (i.e. in-depth reporting of the STA situation, special events, etc.)
• An events calendar, so you can keep up with when the next High Mass is at St. Stanislaus, or when things like the Sacred Music Colloquium will be going on

We are blessed by generosity and supprort in our endeavors, and we have all of you to thank for it. We will keep you informed as to when the transformation will take place.


Ray Grosswirth, here's your Third Vatican Council. Eat your heart out.

For Mary Rita and Sister Emily

I read your comments about the Tridentine Mass today and thought you might enjoy hearing the Agnus Dei that we did. It was borrowed from the motet by Tomas Luis Victoria named "O Magnum Mysterium". We took it down a whole step. The motet is most often sung at Christmas. Victoria is often referred to as the Spanish Palestrina. He used a lot of dissonance in his choral writing. Mysterious and melodic.

Under the Roman Sky

A new film will be coming out shortly which chronicles the truth about Pope Pius XII, the Jews of Rome, the efforts of the Church to save them, and the vicious anti-Catholic sentiments stirred up by the Nazi's and continued by our own faithless brothers and sisters. It is called "Under the Roman Sun," and shows Pope Pius XII as he really was, a man of highest virtue, who did more for the Jews in World War II than any other person. How dare people slander his name, and request (vainly) that he not be advanced into sainthood! How politically-warped are these people who would attack the man most responsible for the continued presence of Judaism in Rome?

Below is the trailer for the film. I would encourage you to watch it, and to spread word about this movie. The pope had a private screening of it two nights ago, so it definitely is worth watching once it comes out.

Tomorrow's "Vibrant Worship Service"

In conjunction with Divine Mercy Sunday, there will a Mass in the Extraordinary Form at Saint Stanislaus Church at 1:30 p.m., April 11th. The celebrant will be the Reverend Dennis Bonsignore. There will be two priests to hear confessions before Mass.

The ordinary parts of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Benedictus and Agnus Dei) will be from two Masses. Missa Phrygia by Cannicciari and Missa O Magnum Mysterium by Victoria. Propers will be in the Gregorian psalm tone.

Following the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Most Blessed Sacrament will be exposed with the hymn "O Salutaris Hostia" being sung. Next the congregation will sing the Divine Mercy Chaplet, followed by the Tantum Ergo, then we will pray the Divine Praises. The recessional hymn will be "Praise My Soul the King of Heaven".

Parking is across the street from the church or behind the church. There is a handicapped elevator in the rear of the church. Roaming security is provided.

Vibrant Worship Communities

I think we all know the liberal buzz-words for "strong parishes," words like "diverse," "vibrant," "inclusive," etc. Well, I have never seen true diversity at a liberal parish. Never. Sure, it looks diverse, but all we're really seeing is a group of hippies experiencing gender and race confusion.

However, if we take a look at the truly Catholic parishes, those overtly loyal to Rome, we see a different trend emerging, something called "genuine diversity," tempered with tangible strength. These parishes, St. Thomas the Apostle, Holy Spirit, Our Lady of Victory, St. Stanislaus/Latin Mass Community, attract vast amounts of people from different walks of life. While churches like Assumption may have thousands of people, how many have the devotion of those in the pews at OLV or STA? Not many, I am sad to say. The people at those wayward parishes have not been catechized properly - those at STA, for example, have.

So what does a vibrant worship community look like? Take a look at these photos from St. Thomas the Apostle this Good Friday:

This church is definitely not a dying community. To target a parish who can attract such large numbers, even for a cluster-celebration, is to have a very short-sighted notion of diocesan needs. If we're going to end up with a handful of super-churches, wouldn't it be wise to save the biggest church buildings? But no - we're saving the ones that are near and dear to the hearts of a handful of dottering old liberals.

Pray for the people of St. Thomas the Apostle, parishioners who are legitimately vibrant, legitimately diverse, and legitimately Catholic.

Anima Mea Liquefacta Est

My soul melted when my beloved spoke; I sought him, and found him not; I called, and he did not answer me. I adjure you, Oh daughters of Jesusalem, if you find my beloved, that you tell him that I languish with love. (Song of Songs, 5:6-8)

Our souls have melted when we heard His voice. When we take Him into our bodies at Holy Communion, when we hear His inspired word, we come to experience heaven, if only a minuscule and imperfect way. But when we seek Him, we do not always find Him. We go to Church to worship, and are confronted with pagan chicanery and liturgical abuse. The sacred is profaned, and the faith is diluted. We call out to Him in our adversity, and we cannot find Him, for His own have cast Him out, replacing His thrones on Earth, our tabernacles, with monuments to liberal ideology and felt banners. He is exiled to our closets and our darkest of corners. When we search for Him, we call out to each other, begging one another for help and relief. And yet we struggle to find Him. We yearn for Him, and in this yearning, experience an anguish that none but us may know or describe. We die for love of Him, and because of others' contempt for Him.

Is it right? Is it natural? That we, faithful Catholics, have found ourselves unwelcome in our own spiritual homes? That our leaders are publicly and joyfully disobeying Rome? That our efforts at sanctity are hindered by diocesan heterodoxy? Let us take our places with Our Lord, and stand by Him as the loving exiles that we are. He has been dethroned, and our hearts have been pillaged by those who take delight in causing fracture in His spouse, the Church.

When we hear Him speak, our souls melt out of the absolute joy and solace. Need we any more validation than this?