A Brief Tangent On Politics

I've indicated before that I harbor monarchist sympathies. Not that I harbor any kind of romantic idealism that they're perfect or anything. I just don't understand why so many are allergic and/or repulsed by the concept. Recent events here in the United States have served to solidify my views. Before I go any further, let me be clear that I also don't think there is any chance of the old monarchical systems being restored absent some kind of complete and total breakdown of the current order of things. Yes, I know about the Great Monarch. That's sort of my point. Anything permitting a leader like that is nothing short of a signpost directly to the End of Days.

Moving on.

As I look around, I see the United States, a republic, beset by a large number of problems. Ignoring the moral deterioration and social decay for a moment, the main issues contributing to the nation's instability are economic. In a nutshell, the country has developed an appetite for free stuff from our government and is now unavailable to pay for it. Lest anyone think I am talking solely of social safety net programs, I am including various aspects of our allegedly free market system that has encouraged the rise of monopolies and oligopolies (both public and private) and promoted the misallocation of resources (certain subsidies, for example). All of this has become painfully obvious in recent years with the collapse of 2008, the subsequent TARP bailout, the stimulus plan that has never materialized, and the more immediate conflict that erupted over the raising of the debt ceiling.

As with any republic, we citizens have elected legislators to deal with these problems. They have largely failed and in many ways have exacerbated our problems. The solution to all this, as a republic, would seem to be to elect new legislators more adept at solving the problems. Herein is the problem.

Looking around, it seems painfully obvious that the large majority of Americans have absolutely no idea what any of these problems mean. They don't know what cause the 2008 collapse. They probably don't even know what the debt ceiling is. Our populace has become well-versed in sound bites but without any clue of whether or not what they are saying is true. We have allowed our population to become so dumbed-down that the basic duties of a citizen are now truly beyond the reach of many. This is the real problem.

If the resolution to our problems rests with the choices of our voters, what happens when the voters are unable to grasp the nature of the problems, much less the plans for any remedies? It appears that we evolve into a constituency that really only knows and understands the immediate and personal effects of a given politician's actions. For example, if we receive some form of government aid or are engaged in an industry protected by the governmental aegis, we recognize harm if that assistance is taken away. On the flip side, we would welcome additional financial/legal goodies if they were promulgated in our favor. This is where the terminal short-sidedness comes from. It is worthless to hear debates about issues, as the only issue that remains is self-interest. This is why we hear so much complaining that Americans want spending cuts but are unwilling to pay more taxes or face reduced government benefits and services. Fewer and fewer people comprehend exactly what lies outside themselves in this very large and complicated picture.

Given all this, it seems to me that we've just about ceased to be a republic, since the whole mechanism for allocation of power has broken down. These days, the USA more resembles an aristocracy or oligarchy in which a few power brokers hold sway and no matter the name of who sits in the seat of authority, the same powers prevail. To be clear, there are people who don't know jack about what's going on electing similar people to office who are then easily controlled by other people (whether they are elected officials or not) who do know what's going on and manipulate things to their advantage. Moreover, I don't see any way out of this status quo. It will take decades to re-engage the population on a meaningful level. It's entirely possible that I'm being ignorant and naive by suggesting that it was ever possible and that we've always been this way. If so, let me then simply suggest that the current state of affairs makes it more difficult than ever to extricate ourselves from the very deep hole we're in.

My point in all this is that at least with a monarch you'd have someone who would most likely have spent their whole life being educated on the finer points of all these problems and various ways of dealing with them. Their whole childhood would be an exercise geared towards preparing them for the day when they would assume the throne. One would hope this would spare us from having powerful people concerned over such matters as whether or not Guam might capsize. Again, not saying that monarchy is a silver bullet, but should it really get the bad rap that it does?

As we've seen more and more centralization of power, both economically and politically, perhaps it's not monarchy that people have a problem with. Maybe it's monarchy without the illusion of self-determination that people don't like. As long as the perception remains that there is some level of popular check against "The Man," the citizenry will keep the existing system going. It's too bad that the perception seems to be what gave rise to the oligarchy and is what will allow it to remain. Whatever form of government you have, at least be honest about who is running the show.

America's New God

This is the title of a recent article by Michael Youssef, and Egyptian-born Protestant who is kind of well-known these days due to his being from the Middle East and all. It makes for good reading for no other reason than it shows a guy who is interested in the Truth and real Charity. Sure, Mr. Youssef and I are going to disagree on a lot of stuff, but at least he seems like a guy who would be honest about there being differences instead of wanting to play make-believe with the most important subject in the universe, namely, God.

On June 26th, the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.was the latest church to be used for the promotion of syncretism—the attempted union of different religions. The idea was that “Christian” ministers, Jewish Rabbis, and Muslim Imams would co-lead a service in “Christian” churches around America using a multi-faith liturgy.

Sadly, 70 other churches across America signed on to do the same thing. The event was organized by a group called “Faith Shared.” It comes as no shock that the service was designed to promote “religious tolerance.” This is indeed a major step forward in promoting what I believe to be America’s new god of tolerance.

The major problem with this false god of tolerance is that it is not marked by the true love that genuine Christians believe in and are called upon to exercise. Love of others, regardless of their background, religion, or complexion, should be expressed in offering hospitality, and even service, but not at the expense of the truth. Loving people and selling out on the truth of one’s faith are two different things altogether.

These liberal “apostate” denominations are not only naïve and ignorant of the truth of the Christian faith, they are acting on emotional impulse in a way that ultimately endangers our nation. They are seeking to engender personal acceptance from others, rather than imploring others to accept Christ as the Savior.

I haven't heard a Protestant drop the word "apostate" in over 25 years. It's a rare thing to hear from Catholics. This is sad. It ignores the absolute tragedy associated with someone falling away from the Faith. Even if we received some kind of special revelation that this person would be saved at the 11th hour, how can we be Ok with their lost time during their life? St. Augustine lamented at how late he was to accept the call of God. If he felt that way, maybe we should as well and not take our time (or that of others) in grace for granted.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 8

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

I see this section quoted a lot. Up to the semicolon, at least. The first clause is often used to justify liturgical abuse in the name of pushing back against "rigid uniformity." They conveniently leave out the qualifier about this being related to evangelization. This is not about legitimizing disco liturgy. Please see our previous post here for more on Vatican II and liturgy in the mission field.

Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

Notice that even in these mission situations, that bit about the substantial unity of the Roman Rite is to be preserved. Too bad none of us know what that means. The more relevant consideration here is that, if the Council was so concerned about preserving the unity of the Roman Rite for the missions, why was there any kind of effort at all to develop a new Mass?

Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

Again, the national conferences appear. Once more, though, we see that they aren't as powerful as is sometimes claim. Naturally, they are supposed to be subservient to the Holy See. Here, we also see that they are superseded by the norms of the Constitution. In other words, stuff like that preserving Latin business. I really wonder how many priests and bishops are even aware of this these days.

In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

Ugh. Talk about opening the door. Why even bring up that "radical adaptation" is even possible?

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

So some things have to go to the Apostolic See. If anyone knows of some examples of the things the Vatican has approved, I'm curious to see them. The stuff I've looked up has conflicting accounts as to what is Vatican-approved and what was strictly introduced by the local authority. Or what the criteria is for distinguishing radical, useful, necessary, and so forth from what doesn't qualify.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

Experiments?

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

If we've learned anything from the Vatican II event, it's that empowering experts is typically a bad idea.

E) Promotion of Liturgical Life in Diocese and Parish

The bishop is to be considered as the high priest of his flock, from whom the life in Christ of his faithful is in some way derived and dependent.

Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation of all God's holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers [35].

Admirable statements. And, if I might add, the only footnote for this entire part, which is to the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

But because it is impossible for the bishop always and everywhere to preside over the whole flock in his Church, he cannot do other than establish lesser groupings of the faithful. Among these the parishes, set up locally under a pastor who takes the place of the bishop, are the most important: for in some manner they represent the visible Church constituted throughout the world.

And therefore the liturgical life of the parish and its relationship to the bishop must be fostered theoretically and practically among the faithful and clergy; efforts also must be made to encourage a sense of community within the parish, above all in the common celebration of the Sunday Mass.

Remember all this the next time someone suggests that Vatican II is why lay folk can consecrate the Eucharist or preach homilies or read the Gospel. The parishes are set up below both the bishop and pastor. It goes without saying that community bears no indication of equality in roles.

F) The Promotion of Pastoral-Liturgical Action

Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church. It is today a distinguishing mark of the Church's life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action.

So that this pastoral-liturgical action may become even more vigorous in the Church, the sacred Council decrees:

It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.

Again with the national conferences and experts. And experiments. But also again, the novelties are to be regulated by Rome.

For the same reason every diocese is to have a commission on the sacred liturgy under the direction of the bishop, for promoting the liturgical apostolate.

Sometimes it may be expedient that several dioceses should form between them one single commission which will be able to promote the liturgy by common consultation.

Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.

These three commissions must work in closest collaboration; indeed it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission.

If our diocese has any of this stuff, I've never heard of it. Does yours? The thing that bothers me about all this is that the Church seemed to be fine without it. We know from earlier in the Constitution that innovations are prohibited unless "genuinely and certainly" needed. That seems to set a pretty high standard. So why is so much here dedicated to creating machinery that appears aimed at facilitating innovations?

I just don't get it.

Auxiliary Bishop Chris Coyne: I'm pretty sure it was still a valid Mass

Read this bit from Bishop Coyne. To summarize, he was worried enough about how the Mass was offered that he didn't ask the priest celebrant to hear his confession. His conclusion is interesting.

Every time people ask my why some in the Church have a desire for the "extraordinary rite," the traditional Latin Mass, I guess I can give them at least one good reason. Masses like this. When one attends the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite, you know what you are going to get. There is no one being 'creative,' no one making up their own prayers or rite, and no question of validity. I am a chid of Vatican II. From the time I was old enough to understand what was happening at Mass, it has been the Mass of Pope Paul VI. I have been formed in it. I have studied it. I love it. Out of it, I have been ordained a deacon, a priest, and a bishop to celebrate it for the people of God. I have no desire to celebrate the Tridentine Rite but any time I hear people criticize those who want the "traditional" Mass, I am more inclined to understand why they want this form of the Mass. Perhaps if each priest were committed to the correct celebration of the present Mass of Paul VI - the Church's rites and not the rite of Fr. X - then maybe there would be less clamor for the "traditional" rite. Just a thought.

It's a good theory. It should go without saying that many folks were driven to "traditional" Catholicism by disco liturgy. Whether or not things would shift if the Pauline Mass was treated with more respect by its ersatz defenders is a difficult question. I doubt very much you'd see the clamorers asking to go back to the OF. Would it slow down the number of folks hastening to the TLM? Perhaps.

More likely, a reverent OF would thin out a lot of disco parishes after the mass exodus of DJ Deacon-Rock and the Funky Bunch to the nearest parish that would let them get away with it. If that wasn't an option, I can see them leaving the Church altogether or setting up a schismatic alternative. That's the weird thing about this kind of liturgy. It's like a drug. People get addicted to their own self-importance in concocting and participating in these abominations. Once they are asked to decrease so that He may increase, it isn't fun anymore, and they seek out somewhere that will let worship be all about them again.

"I Can't Understand A Word He Says."

Most of us have probably heard this at some point. We've had a priest from Africa or Asia or somewhere beyond the English-speaking pale, and the guy happens to have a very thick accent. This almost inevitably leads to people griping that they can't understand him.

Such people should be beaten.

First of all, they should be happy they have a priest around at all.

Second, these complaints are usually always related to the homily which, objectively speaking, is probably the least important part of the Mass. I can't recall hearing anyone worried about whether or not they comprehended the Eucharistic Prayer.

Third, I've noticed these are often the same folks who will go to charismatic gatherings, conferences, etc. and sit completely enrapt while someone babbles utterly incoherent gibberish. Let me add that whether this sort of gift is authentic or not, the fact that it's usually done with total disregard for St. Paul's directives should tell you something.

Fourth, if someone doesn't like hearing a priest with a foreign accent, maybe they should take a long look in the mirror. Have they done anything to encourage vocations? The reason we have so many foreign priests is because we aren't taking care of business in our own country. We should thank God that He has blessed some nations with an abundance of priests so that we can mooch off of them. Instead, we complain that we might have to listen a little more closely to make out what our pastor says.

It's just plain weird to hear people make this such a big deal. Of all the things going on in the Church today, we actually have the inclination to air grievances about a priest's manner of speech. Thank God we didn't have to make it through the times of Nero or Diocletian.

A Recent Question

We recently received the following query regarding our prior post on Cardinal Ottaviani:

«The Curia would eventually develop allies as the other Council Fathers began to note the Rhine group's concerted actions. This would eventually lead to the formation of the "International Group of Fathers," composed mostly of bishops from Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Latin America.»

Can you elaborate some more on this?

Basically, the coordinated activity of the Rhine bishops to re-direct the conciliar proceedings was either unnoticed or insufficient to raise any real concerns. In other words, nobody really did anything about it. We have the benefit now of knowing about all the meetings and strategery that culminated in Cardinal Leinart's first session demands that all the commissions be scrapped and that the preparatory efforts be restarted essentially at ground zero.

As it progressed and the Rhine alliance was exposed, a separate block (that had really already begun to emerge) organized to back the efforts of guys like Cardinal Ottaviani. They became known as the Coetus Internationalis Patrum (the International Group of Fathers). While they served to blunt many of the Rhine initiatives, they were late to the game and pretty much played from behind the whole time.

Hope that helps.

Man's Potential For Blasphemy Knows No Bounds

This isn't really about the Church. I just realized that there are re-makes being done for Fright Night and John Carpenter's The Thing.

What wretched jerks thought these were good ideas? What's next? A "re-imagining" of the Mona Lisa? Perhaps a re-make of Beethoven's 9th Symphony or Mozart's Missa Solemnis?

Geez, some folks have no shame.

Remembering Cardinal Ottaviani

Rorate has a wonderful tribute up dedicated to this faithful servant of God on this 32nd anniversary of his death. Take a look and reflect upon what kind of suffering he must have endured in the latter years of his life.

Also, if you want to know more about the events of the Council that the above posting mentions, you can find a good overview in one of our prior Vatican II posts here.

Requiescat in pace, Your Eminence.

The Chinese Situation

I'm not really sure how the canon law situation got to be such a big deal. I've seen several articles focusing on that issue. Regardless, it sounds pretty settled now.

The Vatican is reiterating that Canon Law stipulates excommunication for bishops ordained without papal approval, but is also calling the whole Church to value the fidelity of those bishops who resist participation in these ordinations.

A Vatican statement Saturday responded to last Thursday's episcopal ordination of Reverend Joseph Huang Bingzhang in the Diocese of Shantou, China.

It stated that the priest incurred the sanction of Canon 1382, latae sententiae excommunication.

"Consequently, the Holy See does not recognize him as bishop of the Diocese of Shantou, and he lacks authority to govern the Catholic community of the diocese," the Vatican declared.

The statement added that the priest "had been informed some time ago that he could not be approved by the Holy See as an episcopal candidate, inasmuch as the Diocese of Shantou already has a legitimate bishop; Reverend Huang had been asked on numerous occasions not to accept episcopal ordination."

Hopefully, this man will repent. Who knows? He might have been threatened with martyrdom or the murder of his family if he didn't go through with this.

First Ireland, Now Australia

This story came from The Courier Mail via Fr. Zuhlsdorf:

The federal government is being urged to follow the lead of Ireland and force priests to report confessions of child abuse to the authorities.

Ireland has announced it will change the law so that Catholic clerics will be prosecuted if they don't report crimes disclosed during confession.

It follows outrage there over the long-running cover-up of child sex abuse cases within the Church.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon said Australia should legislate accordingly, and argued it was unacceptable for priests to hide behind religious practice.

"There is no contest when it comes to protecting the innocence of a child or maintaining a religious practice," he told reporters in Canberra today.

While we talked about this before, I admit that I didn't expect to see it spread this fast. Note again that there is no suggestion as to how they are going to manage the respective legal burdens in these cases. The only way to make it work is simply to take the word of the penitent in question. Which basically leaves the priests open to accusations from anyone with no real evidence required. Neat how that works out.

Unlike Ireland, this new effort seems specifically focused on the Church, with no other professions/vocations included.

On a side note, Mr. Xenophon (ironic name, yes?) even presented himself as a theologian:

"Why should someone be absolved of their sins ... when it comes to child abuse because they've got a pat on the back from their priest?"

I guess he probably wouldn't find "because God is merciful" a satisfactory answer. I wonder what his own answer is for how someone is absolved of a sin. Or what his definition of "sin" is in the first place. Or if he realizes that he'd fit in well as a flunky of the Anti-Christ.

Archbishop Chaput To Philadelphia?

Rocco Palma thinks so. It makes sense. The mess in Philadelphia isn't going to clean up itself. Probably comes with a red hat, too, which is great. I'll take +Chaput's vote in a conclave any day. This is a pretty big move for Denver, too. Hopefully, the follow-up guy there will be cast in the same mold.

Dr. Warren Carroll Has Died

Just got the story from Boniface at Unum Sanctam.

He was an extraordinary man. I would consider it an honor if I could send any of my kids to Christendom College, which he founded. His works of history have been a wonderful asset in my education and instrumental in helping people all over the world better understand the Church's role in the world's destiny.

God bless him and his family.

From Satanist To Sainthood

We have expressed our admiration of Blessed Bartolo Longo in the past. If there's a chance to plug this wonderful example of God's mercy, we take it. Hence this article in the Catholic Herald getting a place here. Please read it. In a nutshell, he was a high priest of Satan. He converted to the Faith and was a huge promoter of the Rosary and devotion to Our Lady. Blessed Bartolo is a wonderful friend to have.

Blessed Bartolo, pray for us.

To Quell The Terror

On this day 217 years ago, sixteen Carmelite nuns were martyred by the French Revolutionaries. I highly recommend the book To Quell The Terror by William Bush.

Thanks to campuszoo and wetbird over at NDNation, I was introduced to Poulenc's opera on the subject, and the powerful finale depicting the nuns' sacrifice.

On a side note, as you reflect on this, keep in mind the modern sentiment that politics is poisoned by religion. The Revolution showed us exactly what a government based on Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, but bereft of God, would look like.

Speaking Of Schisms, Pt. 2

Rorate has posted a story with the above picture about the Secretary of the Brazilian Episcopal Conference welcoming the delegation of the Chinese Administration for Religious Affairs. How little shame is involved in being able to smile and shake hands with the people who arrest, torture, and murder your fellow bishops? Please note that these people were invited to Brazil by Protestants, so it's not like the bishop even had to acknowledge their presence, much less give them a photo op.

Speaking Of Schisms

Please keep praying for the Church in China. Support the Cardinal Kung Foundation. Your brethren are being persecuted. Rocco Palma has a good account of the recent developments. Things are not good there. Given recent tensions, let hope that things stay domestically stable there. I'm very much afraid that any kind of unrest will create the need for a scapegoat. Our brothers and sisters would be very convenient.

Think Nero after the fire.

Our Lady of She-Shan, watch over them.

Schism Is In The Air

Everywhere I look around.

Eponymous Flower broke the story not long ago about a parish in Freiburg that had decided to go its own way, choosing instead to be an "ecumenical parish" that is "formerly Catholic."

As if that wasn't bad enough, Fr. Z tells the tale of a group of 300 Austrian priests to initiate a "Call to Disobedience." That's 7% of the priests in the whole country.

Priests who support the document pledge

to pray for Church reform at every liturgy, since “in the presence of God there is freedom of speech”

not to deny the Holy Eucharist to “believers of good will,” including non-Catholic Christians and those who have remarried outside the Church

to avoid offering Mass more than once on Sundays and holy days and to avoid making use of visiting priests--instead holding a “self-designed” Liturgy of the Word

to describe such a Liturgy of the Word with the distribution of Holy Communion as a “priestless Eucharistic celebration”; “thus we fulfill the Sunday obligation in a time of priest shortage”

to “ignore” canonical norms that restrict the preaching of the homily to clergy

to oppose parish mergers, insisting instead that each parish have its own individual leader, “whether man or woman”

to “use every opportunity to speak out openly in favor of the admission of the married and of women to the priesthood”

While this is tragic and horrible, perhaps there is some good that can come out of it. Since the hierarchy hasn't taken any action to affirm that heretics and schismatics are not part of the Church, the heretics/schismatics are doing it for us. Consider Cardinal Schonborn's response to the latter incident:

“The open call to disobedience shocked me,” Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna said in a July 7 letter, noting that many professionals would have “long since lost their jobs” if they had called for disobedience.

Yeah, we know that. So why hasn't it happened yet?

Child Protection Policies

I just wanted to reproduce this item from Bishop Taylor of Little Rock. In brief, the diocese got a report that a guy was threatening a priest because he thought the priest had molested his child. From the looks of things, the accused priest is innocent. Yes, world, sometimes the priest is innocent.

However, there are multiple complications since now the child is missing and the parent doing the threatening can't be found even though they are apparently still coming after the priest. Now, the priest has been sent away for his protection, and nobody knows if the child is safe or not.

Two things here. First, the accused priest is public knowledge. This is bad because it will taint him in some people's eyes forever. I've been involved in investigating allegations like this. No matter how much evidence exonerates the accused, the claim never really goes away. Second, no policies are perfect. When people start clamoring about a failure of policy to keep something from happening or make reporting easier, they need to recall that every policy will fail at some point. Just because a policy fails doesn't make it a bad one.

Priests And Bishops Going To Jail

The Chinese continue their persecution of the Church. First, as everyone is aware, they continue to consecrate bishops for their schismatic national church. Second, those bishops who are loyal to the True Church are kidnapped.

Four bishops loyal to the Vatican have been "taken away" by Chinese police in recent days to take part in a state-sanctioned ordination, the Catholic news agency AsiaNews said on Monday.

"Nobody knows where the four pastors are being held," the report said, adding that local sources had told AsiaNews that one of the bishops "was sobbing last night as he was dragged away by government representatives."

I wonder if anyone at Notre Dame has noticed this. They recently stopped using Chinese-made products in the Book Store there because of the Chinese government's stance against workers' unions. Apparently, compulsory abortions and the arrest/torture/murder of fellow Catholics wasn't important enough to merit such action. But I digress...

Up next on the block are priests in Ireland. That's right. Ireland.

Priests will not be excused for withholding information about alleged child abuse even if it is given to them during the holy sacrament of confession, Justice Minster Alan Shatter has said.

In an unprecedented display of tough action against the Catholic Church in Ireland, new laws are to be brought in by autumn which could see clerics and others imprisoned for up to five years if they do not volunteer information about suspected paedophilia.

Note the language (which admittedly may or may not be accurate). This is an affirmative duty to report suspected behavior. In other words, a priest can be prosecuted for not coming forward about something that is not even actually true, but merely alleged or possible. And, of course, who is to say that the priest knew anything? Since the information is passed on the privacy of the confessional anyway, the only persons having knowledge of the communication will be the priest and the penitent. What evidence will be allowed to show the priest's "guilt"?

To be fair, the article says they are going after doctors for this as well. I guess that makes it ok, then.

Curtain

After many years of delay, I'm finally reading Curtain by Agatha Christie. Being a huge Hercule Poirot fan, I was never comfortable picking up the last of his adventures. I'm finding it a tad different from the others.

What is most intriguing is that Dame Agatha apparently wrote the book in the 40s. She wasn't old or in poor health that I can tell. However, euthanasia is a lot of the plot's context. As you may know, Poirot is in wretched health for this case. While he's not directly addressed as a case for extermination, that whole evil, mythical standard of "quality of life" rears its filthy head on a regular basis.

Of course, Dame Agatha was a devout Catholic. If you don't know the story of her support for the Traditional Mass, take a look here.

The most striking comments thus far:

To begin with, I don't hold life as sacred as all you people do. Unfit lives, useless lives- they should be got out of the way. There's so much mess about. Only people who make a decent contribution to the community ought to be allowed to live. The others ought to be put painlessly away.

There's a whole chapter that centers around this argument. I don't guess I really have a point here. It's just another example that there's nothing new under the sun. The roots of the eugenics movement are deep, and we've been dealing with them for a long time. Interesting, though, to see it being played out against the backdrop of an Hercule Poirot murder mystery from 70 years ago.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pt. 7

When we last left the Constitution on the Liturgy (which, yes, was a while back), we had just gotten to the bit about how Latin was to be preserved as the language of the liturgy. I wanted to carve out some discussion about this because the context seems very important to understanding what was going on and what more than a few bishops might have been thinking in going along with it. We know, for example, that the wholesale replacement of Latin by the vernacular was regarded as a joke. Literally. So what was the discussion about?

Mostly, it seems to have been focused on the mission fields. For example, as Fr. Wiltgen relates in The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber:

Archbishop D'Souza [of Nagpur, India] . . . added: "The use of the vernacular in the administration of the sacraments is a must, for the simple reason that the beautiful rites are completely lost on our people if they are in Latin." If local languages and customs were not introduced into the liturgy, the Church would "never make the impact it should on our country. . . "

This is all very interesting coming from a Indian bishop. First off, I'm not sure how significant the whole Latin issue would be for someone in his situation. Aren't most Catholics in India of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara persuasion? I'm having trouble finding information on this, but all indications are that the Indian liturgies wouldn't have been in Latin anyway. Second, it's kind of weird to hear these kinds of comments given that one of the primary proponents of the TLM is Cardinal Ranjith of Sri Lanka. Third, I have to wonder how legitimate these concerns are. The major evangelical global evangelical pushes were from the Latin Church. This would mean the TLM as the primary liturgical expression. Was the culture of the indigenous folks in South America really so different from Southeast Asia that entirely new liturgical practices were necessary? To my knowledge, the vernacular wasn't introduced to make it any easier. Saying that one group of people is just way too unique to be open to something carries an air of hubris.

There's no doubt, though, that the mission fields were heavily promoted in the conciliar debates about the liturgical reform. Was there perhaps a ulterior motive for eliminating Latin? Fr. Wiltgen, somewhat approvingly, seemed to think so:

As long as Latin texts and Latin rites were universally used in the Church, the Roman Curia would be competent to check and control them. But if hundreds and even thousands of local languages and customs were introduced into the liturgy, the Curia would automatically lose this prerogative. Episcopal conferences with knowledge of the local languages and understanding of local custom would then become the more competent judges in the matter. And this was precisely what the evolving majority was insisting upon.

We've been over the Curia-hate as a major force behind the conciliar reforms already. This looks to have been another manifestation somewhat clothed in the trappings of concerns for potential converts. However, we can't chalk the whole movement up to such motives. There were clearly some legit concerns over this, expressed by parties as conservative as Bishop Antonio Castro de Mayer who Fr. Wiltgen reports as being willing to permit a limited use of the vernacular in "certain cultural areas."

Let's be clear here that I'm discussing this because of the overall collapse of Latin in the liturgy. Whether or not local customs or rituals can be incorporated into the liturgy strikes me as a completely different topic. This has been done successfully in the past and without major incident (the Chinese Rites stuff being a notable exception). For the areas already accustomed to the Latin Rite, why was any accommodation needed? I'm not really finding any explanation for that, other than some comments by Bishop Zauner of Linz, Austria, who was a figure in the Rhine alliance of bishops.

He emphasized that the vernacular was a necessary condition for the active participation of the people. If that was the case, then why does the Council say otherwise both directly (in preserving Latin) and indirectly (by emphasizing the contemplative aspects of participation)? As we've been focusing on, how much stock can we put into the exaltation of participation in the Pauline Mass when the whole liturgy of the Church has been put in permanent workshop mode after its implementation?

The other thing I wanted to point out in all this is the popular "knowledge" of the Council's stand on language. MacAffee Brown, Blanshard, and MacEoin take it for granted that all liturgy will be in the vernacular after the Council. Why would they do this given the actual text of the Constitution and the positioning of Latin as primary and vernacular as an exception to the rule? Their own works don't explain. It's just how they reported on it, which is more proof that you can't trust secular sources for honest news about Catholic events.

Hopefully, my recovery will give me the chance to get back on track with my review of the Council. I know I'm not the kind of guy Msgr. Gherardini had in mind for conducting this kind of study, but I know some of you ask about it and enjoy, so I'm working on getting back into it again.

More to come...

Book Review: Interview With An Exorcist

This was a book that garnered some notice around the time that The Rite was getting big. It's written by Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea, who is introduced as an experienced exorcist from Spain and the author of several works on the subject.

I've been through a few books on the subject of exorcism, and they all tend to follow the pattern of starting with the author's experiences and then building in Church teaching based on those experiences. Interview With an Exorcist stands out by barely touching on experiences. It's almost a catechism of sorts, written in standard Q&A format. It's very short and stays away from dense language and concepts. For this reason, it's probably going to the top of my list to give to non-Catholics and unbelievers who perhaps have a more sensational interest in the subject.

This isn't to say that there aren't problems. I'm not an exorcist, but some of the stuff Fr. Fortea says seemed wrong. For example, he indicates that God's presence extends even to hell. While I've heard this sort of thing before, primarily from Eastern brethren, he presents it as fact, rather than speculative. He also claims that God still loves Satan and the demons, which doesn't seem to jive. Does God will any good for the demonic? He allows them to exist, so that's one thing, but the book seems to suggest that it's more than that.

There are a couple of other items, but I think they are minor points overall. The real bottom line is that exorcism is one of those things that Catholics get a lot of questions about, even if it's just because of a movie or TV show. Handing somebody a copy of Hostage to the Devil or An Exorcist Tells His Story right off the bat probably isn't a good idea. Even The Rite, which is a much more ideal introduction, might be tainted by the abominable movie. What you get in Interview With an Exorcist are basic and fundamental concepts, with all the fluff taken away. You give this to someone, then work them up to the other books.

Let me reiterate that I think all these books are valuable and should be read by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Milk before meat, though. Interview With an Exorcist is as close to milk as you're going to get with exorcisms

Pardon Any Mistakes

I'm writing a lot of this stuff in the midst of recovery. Needless to say, there will no doubt be an increase in errors. Please excuse my addled brain's sloppiness.

Priorities: Man Or Message?

I'm submitting this as part of the Fr. Corapi saga, again with the intent of making a point without discussing the issue directly. Others can talk about it better than I anyway. My only comment remains that we should pray for all parties involved, as well as for the priests, bishops, and religious all over the world.

As for my attempt at a point:

One of the things that is supposed to set Catholicism apart from false religions is that it is insulated from the moral short-comings of its leaders. We all know, for example, that there have been bad popes. Rather than being a weakness, we instead can look upon it as a sign of the Church's divine constitution. If the Church were a purely human construct, having so many incompetent and immoral leaders would have destroyed Her a long time ago. Based on The Master's promise in Matthew 16:18, we know that the message of the Gospel and the proclamation of the One Faith (Ephesians 4) is not subordinate to the whims of men. Quite the opposite, actually. The leaders safeguard and protect the Faith and are therefore subservient to it.

It is a very sad thing when Catholics (or anyone else, I suppose) forgets this. The fact that I really like a person isn't determinative on whether or not their words are true or their actions appropriate. A refusal to acknowledge this is especially dangerous in spiritual matters. We cannot allow a personality, no matter how strong or charismatic to blind us to the realities of their actions. Sometimes, this can be easy. Nobody is going to write any kind of glowing memoir of Benedict IX. Other times, it's more difficult. Consider Tertullian.

Tertullian is one of my favorite Church Fathers. He's a decent enough theologian, but his apologetic works are phenomenal. If you haven't read his Prescription Against Heretics, you are seriously missing out. He was one of the greatest defenders of the Faith for his time and faced down any and all threats that came around.

But he lost his way. Tertullian was seduced by the "new revelations" of the Montanist sect. He wrote works defending these teachings and was therefore likely to have led others astray as well. People would have followed him just because he was Tertullian and had always been trustworthy in matters of faith and had given Montanus & Co. his stamp of approval. In other words, he put people's souls in danger and might have contributed to someone's damnation, for no other reason than his pride got away with him.

I've heard some say that he reconciled with the Church before he died. I very much hope that is the case. It doesn't change the big issue. Affection for a person cannot be an excuse for submitting to sin of any kind. This might come up with public figures like Tertullian was. It could be the case with a parish priest accused of some crime. The response to such things should be to embrace the reality that the Church remains a hospital for sinners, rather than a hotel for saints. It will be so until the End of Days. Pray for these people. Understand their weakness and that it is the further weakness of pride that draws them away from Holy Mother Church or that inspires them to conflict instead of submission.

The Gospel is the Truth. It is the priority. It's messengers come and go, with some going by very wrong paths. Do not follow them there.

Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion

As I continue my recovery, I was finally able to read this. It's an excellent work written by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, a Canon of St. Peter's Basilica. The foreword is by Cardinal Ranjith. I mention these things so that folks don't jump to the usual conclusion that such works are the domain of schismatics or some other variety of whack-job.

Anyways, it's good stuff. Granted, it's dense at times, but I think a lot of that might have more to do with the translation than anything else. Essentially, Msgr. Gherardini is calling for a thorough analysis of the 16 conciliar documents (overkill, IMO) in order to properly establish them in the hermeneutic of continuity demanded by the Holy Father. This is all very reasonable, and as the Msgr. demonstrates, something that has been frustrated for decades by folks who are too busy trying to claim that VII said everything there was to be said and did so in a fashion so awesome that anyone denying it would have to be insane. He makes some points that were new for me and that I'll have to think about quite a bit, especially re: Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.

The tone is one that I think most here would appreciate. We're not talking about some kind of hyper-polemical screed here. The book is written with a lot of humility, which is especially needed given the topic. He skips over the procedural abnormalities and the hijackings that took place at VII and sticks almost exclusively to textual analysis. This reduces the potential for people to ignore his arguments as some kind of exaggeration. Granted, he does mention the theologians who made it their business to "re-interpret" the Council (Kung, Schillebeecx, Rahner, etc.) but he does so without ad hominem.

In the final analysis, Msgr. Gherardini asks the simple questions that have been answered many times, without anyone paying attention to the answer. What was VII and what was its measure of authority in light of prior Church teachings? This is all well and good, but he doesn't move past that and acknowledge that answering these questions means an exercise of authority. Until those denying the answers are made to pay attention and accept them, they will refuse to do so.

Check it out. It's worth your time. Also, if you own a Nook, the biography of St. Thomas More written by his son-in-law William Roper is free. It closes with letters between Thomas and his daughter Margaret. Wonderful stuff.