Defending Jesus

Archbishop Nienstedt of Minneapolis-St. Paul denied the Eucharist to a bunch of heretics and schismatics, per the Star Tribune. That's not how they worded it, but it's what actually happened.

About 25 college students and community members at St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, Minn., were denied communion by Twin Cities Roman Catholic Archbishop John C. Nienstedt because they were displaying rainbow buttons and sashes in protest of the church's stand on gay relationships.

The conflict between the archbishop and the group, mostly students from the Catholic St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict, occurred during evening mass Sept. 26...

The St. John's action was coordinated by students, including members of People Representing the Sexual Minority (PRiSM), which represents gay and lesbian students and their friends and allies. That Sunday, according to those at the mass, about two dozen worshipers positioned themselves to receive communion from Nienstedt, who was saying his first student mass at the abbey. Some reached for the communion wafer but were denied it. Rather, the archbishop raised his hand in blessing.

Nice.

Let's take a look at the reactions to all this.

St. Benedict theology junior Elizabeth Gleich, PRiSM vice president, said, "We were making a statement during the eucharist, and many have disagreed with that. But when we have no other way of dialoguing with our church, no other way of telling him how we feel, how else to do it than in liturgy?"

She said their complaint is with church hierarchy, not with the colleges...

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which describes itself as the nation's largest civil rights organization on behalf of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people, expressed outrage at Nienstedt's actions.

"Jesus didn't play politics with communion," Harry Knox, the HRC's religion and faith program director, said Tuesday in a statement. "He offered his body and blood for everyone."

Not a whole lot of effort by the paper to explain His Excellency's position. Just a bunch of whiny brats who have an inflated opinion of their own competency in this matter. The comments by Mr. Knox are especially stupid. He should be thanking Archbishop Nienstedt for preserving these poor shmoes from committing sacrilege (which maybe they kind of already did anyway by bringing this protest to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

Since we're already talking about him, I also wanted to reproduce this bit from InsideCatholic. It's part of an interview with Archbishop Nienstedt where the subject of divorce comes up. This, my friends, is why the media cannot engage in any real discourse with the Church.

Crann: If same-sex marriage is a 'dangerous risk,' as you put it, in society, wouldn't also divorce, as well, be such a risk?

Nienstedt: Obviously. That's obvious. And it has been a dangerous risk and it is a dangerous risk to our society today.

Crann: And yet there has been no effort from the Catholic Church over the years to outlaw divorce.

Nienstedt: No, the church doesn't permit divorce. I don't know - the use of your word 'outlaw.'

Crann: In a civic sense.

Nienstedt: But divorce is not acceptable. Divorce is not part of our teaching, no.

Crann: No, but in a civil sense. And I suppose what I'm saying is there has been a difference historically in the secular and civil world with marriage and divorce and in the context of the Catholic Church and other churches, too. And I'm wondering if there always will be that difference or do you want to see the civil definition of marriage be more aligned with your church's definition.

Nienstedt: There is no difference between the civil and the religious definition of marriage because marriage comes to us by virtue of creation and our creator. And so the state does not establish marriage. Marriage came long before there was any government.

And so this is a natural reality, and it's defined by the natural law, what we call the natural law. And so it precedes any government. And government is meant to support marriage between a husband and a wife in order to give it a context for the raising of children and the protection of children.

Basically, the media tends to be ignorant and, when confronted with their ignorance, they run away. You can read the rest of the interview here.

Real Catholics

With all the stuff about Anglicans flying around lately, I almost missed this bit from The Baltimore Sun via Rorate:

Mount Calvary Episcopal Church in Baltimore on Sunday became the first congregation in Maryland to vote to break ties with the Episcopal Church and take steps to join the Roman Catholic Church.

The small Anglo Catholic parish at Madison Avenue and Eutaw Street was feeling increasingly alienated from the Episcopal Church as it accepted priests who did not believe in what most of the congregation saw as the foundations of the faith, according to Warren Tanghe, a former Episcopal priest who is now attending St. Mary's Seminary in Roland Park and preparing for ordination in the Catholic church. Tanghe knows members of the parish, where he has assisted in the past, and said they also were uncomfortable when the church began ordaining women, gays and lesbians.

The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland issued a statement Monday about the vote, but both the bishop and the rector, the Rev. Jason Catania, declined to be interviewed. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Sean Caine, said the Catholic Church would welcome the congregation.

However, the process is not easy and the members will have to negotiate with the Episcopal Diocese to keep its building. Under Episcopal canons, the property is held in trust for the diocese and national church. However, the deed of the property is held in the name of the parish.

The small congregation has 45 members who were eligible to vote, and 28 voted on Sunday in an election that was overseen by Episcopal Diocesan officials. The vote was 24 in favor of leaving the church, two against and two abstentions. Mount Calvary would like to be an Anglican parish within the Roman Catholic Church.

The interesting bit comes from the Rorate comments and is something I've been wondering for a while now.

1.) How will these traditional Anglicans, especially the soon-to-be priests, feel when they begin to mix and mingle with the typical Novus Ordo priest, many of whom, at least in terms of liturgy and orthodoxy, are more entrenched in Protestantism than the Protestants? [this shunning of traditional priests already happens with many FSSP priests, so no need to pretend it's not a problem]

Hell, you don't even have to go that far. Traditionally minded Novus Ordo priests get shunned all the time.

2.) What does it say about the state of the Roman Catholic Church when Protestants have a Catholic identity tenfold greater than the average Novus Ordo "Catholic community"?

It says a lot. None of it's good, but it says a lot. My hope is that these Tiber-swimmers will have a net positive effect on the ostensibly Catholic Protestants that are trying to destroy the Church. It could happen. These Anglicans have lived through the auto-demolition of Anglicanism. I'm betting they fight like crazy to keep their new home from suffering the fate of the old one. That will mean being able to tell a lot of stories that may awaken the dissenters to the reality of what they are trying to do.

Remember That Middle Eastern Synod?

If you do, then you probably thought I'd forgotten about it. Well, you were right. It wasn't until the new apostolic exhortation came out that I was reminded. Anyways, here are the propositions that came out of it.

I wonder sometimes what the point of these things is supposed to be. If you read through the propositions, there's nothing extraordinary in there. Banal, I think, is a good description. Whatever problems there are in the Middle East, I'm not sure how this stuff is supposed to do them any good. Such meetings do provide prelates a chance to get together and swap ideas about what they are personally doing that's yielding progress. I suppose there's merit in that. Occasionally, you also get some good interventions on various topics, like this one Rorate provided from Bishop Raboula Antoine Beylouni:

Sometimes dialogue occurs here and there, in the Arab countries, such as in Qatar, where the Emir himself invites, at his expense, personalities from different countries and from the three religions: Christian, Muslim and Jewish. In Lebanon the Télélumiere and Noursat networks, and other television networks, sometimes broadcast programs on Islamic-Christian dialogue. Often a topic is chosen, and each side explains or interprets according to their religion. These programs are usually very instructive.

With my intervention, I wished to draw attention on the points that make these encounters difficult and often ineffective. It should be clear that we are not discussing dogma. But even the subjects of a practical and social order are difficult to discuss when the Koran or the Sunna discusses them. Here are some difficulties which we have faced:

- The Koran inculcates in the Muslim pride in being the only true and complete religion, taught by the greatest prophet, because he was the last one. The Muslim is part of the privileged nation, and speaks the language of God, the language of Paradise, the Arabic language. This is why, he comes to dialogue with a sense of superiority, and with the certitude of being victorious.

The Koran, supposedly written by God Himself, from beginning to end, gives the same value to all that is written: dogma that supercedes all law or practice.

In the Koran, men and women are not equal, not even in marriage itself where the man takes several wives and can divorce at his pleasure; nor in the heritage where man takes double; nor in the testifying before judges where the voice of one man is equal to the voice of two women, etc...

The Koran allows the Muslim to hide the truth from the Christian, and to speak and act contrary to how he thinks and believes.

In the Koran, there are contradictory verses which annul others, which gives the Muslim the possibility of using one or the other to his advantage, and therefore he can tell the Christian that he is humble and pious and believes in God, just as he can treat him as impious, apostate and idolatrous.

The Koran gives the Muslim the right to judge Christians and to kill them for the Jihad (the holy war). It commands the imposition of religion through force, with the sword. The history of invasions bears witness to this. This is why the Muslims do not recognize religious freedom, for themselves or for others. And it isn’t surprising to see all the Arab countries and Muslims refusing the whole of the “Human Rights” instituted by the United Nations.

Faced with all these interdictions and other similar attitudes should one suppress dialogue? Of course not. But the themes that can be discussed should be chosen carefully, and capable and well-trained Christians chosen as well, as well as those who are courageous and pious, wise and prudent... who tell the truth with clarity and conviction...

We sometimes deplore certain dialogues on TV, where the Christian speaker isn’t up to the task, and does not give the Christian religion all its beauty and spirituality, which scandalizes the viewers. Worse yet, when sometimes there are clergyman speakers who, in dialogue to win over Muslims call Mohammed the prophet and add the Muslim invocation, known and constantly repeated: “Salla lahou alayhi was sallam”.

Powerful, powerful stuff. Especially in light of the recent massacre in Iraq. Not content with merely pointing out the problems, His Excellency all provided a potential solution:

Finally I would like to suggest the following:

Like the Koran spoke well of the Virgin Mary, insisting on her perpetual virginity and miraculous and unique conception in giving us Christ; just as Muslims take her greatly into consideration and ask for her intercession, we should turn to her for all dialogue and all encounters with the Muslims. Being the Mother of us all, she will guide us in our relations with the Muslims to show them the true face of Her Son Jesus, the Redeemer of mankind.

If it pleased God that the Feast of the Annunciation was declared a national feast day in Lebanon for Christians and Muslims, may it also become a national feast day in other Arab countries.

Of course, this being a good idea, none of it is reflected in the synod propositions, which outright ignore the problems he brought up in the first place. Consider:

Propositio 40
Interreligious dialogue

Christians in the Middle East are called upon to pursue dialogue with the followers of other religions, bringing hearts and minds closer together. For this to happen, they, along with their partners, are invited to work to fortify interreligious dialogue, to strive for the purification of memory through the forgiveness for the events of the past, and to seek a better future together.

In their daily lives, they are to endeavour to accept one another in spite of their differences, working to build a new society in which fanaticism and extremism have no place.

The synod fathers would like to see drawn up a formation plan which helps people to be more open, for use in teaching establishments as well as in seminaries and novitiates. This will help build a culture of dialogue based on human and religious solidarity.

Propositio 42
Islam

The Declaration of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Nostra aetate, alongside the pastoral letters of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, serves as the basis for the Catholic Church's relations with Muslims. As Pope Benedict XVI has said: "Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends" (Pope Benedict XVI, "Meeting with representatives of Muslim Communities", Cologne, 20 August 2005).

In the Middle East, Christians share a common life and a common destiny with Muslims. Together they build up society. It is important to promote the notion of citizenship, the dignity of the human person, equal rights and duties and religious freedom, including both freedom of worship and freedom of conscience.

Christians in the Middle East are called to pursue a fruitful dialogue of life with Muslims. They are to take care to show an attitude of esteem and love, leaving aside every negative prejudice. Together, Christians and Muslims, they are called upon to discover their respective religious values. They are to offer the world an image of a positive encounter and a fruitful collaboration between believers of the two religions, combating together every sort of fundamentalism and violence in the name of religion.

Perfectly revolting fluff.

What makes this even worse is that at least half a dozen of the other propositions all focus on the problems related to migration of people. Gee, I wonder why all these people are migrating. Maybe it's because of that whole issue of being murdered if they stick around. Instead of discussing the substance of the matter, it turns into a social justice lecture.

Oh, and let's not forget the item from our prior report:

Propositio 39
Liturgy

The biblical and theological wealth of the Eastern liturgies is at the spiritual service of the universal Church. Nonetheless, it would be useful and important to renew the liturgical texts and celebrations, where necessary, so as to answer better the needs and expectations of the faithful. This renewal must be based on an ever deeper knowledge of tradition and be adapted to contemporary language and categories.

Just freaking great. It's ironic that the theme of the synod was "Communion and Witness," given this proposed course of action that has such potential to destroy their communion and water down their witness.

Shouldn't we have learned the dangers of liturgical experimentation by now?

Another Anglican "Bishop" Resigns

But it's probably not what you think. If you figured this to be another post about some Anglican prelate heading for Rome, you're wrong. Way, way wrong.

From CNA:

Citing the toll that worldwide publicity has taken on his “marriage” and on New Hampshire Episcopalians, Gene Robinson – the first openly homosexual man to become a bishop of the Episcopal Church – announced on Nov. 6 that he will begin a two-year process of resigning from his diocese.

Robinson, 63, received approval from the Episcopal Church's General Convention to become a bishop in 2003, after the faithful and clergy of the New Hampshire diocese selected him for the position. His appointment sparked outrage among traditional Anglicans, many of whom considered it an official affront to Biblical standards of sexual conduct on the part of the Episcopal Church.

You remember Gene, right? Gene was the guy claiming that Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality have nothing to do with homosexuals. On that same note, he claimed that logical contradictions were basically a path to religious enlightenment. Apparently, though, this whole being a fake bishop thing wasn't exactly all it was cracked up to be.

“The fact is,” he wrote in a letter to Episcopalians in his diocese, “the last seven years have taken their toll on me, my family, and you.” Robinson has two children from his marriage to a woman during the 1970s and 80s. He entered into a civil union with his current partner, Mark Andrew, in 2008.

“Death threats, and the now-worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as Bishop, have been a constant strain,” he continued, “not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark … and in some ways, (upon) you.”

Yeah. Maybe I'm a bad person, but it's real tough for me to be all that sympathetic. Check out Iraq sometime, Gene. Try taking a stand for orthodox Christianity at some point and see what that gets you. Perhaps you should be thanking God that you haven't gone through that kind of persecution.

And, again, what of Rowan? The Archlayman has got to be urinated off beyond comprehension. Let's face it. Gene pretty much pushed this whole issue to the breaking point. Now, after having made his big splash on the world stage and effectively shoving the Anglican Communion over a cliff, he's decided to pick up his toys and go home. I keep thinking that Rowan has to eventually take a long look in the mirror and realize that it's over. The man can't have much pride left. I sure as hell wouldn't after all this.

Abjure your heresies, Rowan. The Barque of Peter awaits.

Meanwhile, we have this great photo of the Barque of Elizabeth:

Good News From AnglicanLand

First, the headline in the Telegraph:

Church of England in crisis as five bishops defect to Rome

Does anybody else think that the word "crisis" has completely lost meaning for the Anglican Communion? Ever since we started reporting on the Canterburyan Death March, I think every single article referencing Lambeth has cast the situation, no matter what it is at the time, as a crisis.

"Gay Bishops! Crisis!"

"African Bishops Threaten Schism! Crisis!"

"Women Bishops! Crisis!"

"Rowan Lacks Milk For Morning Bowl Of Raisin Bran! Crisis!"

The bottom line is that the Anglican Communion is now merely a shell of an institution, much less a religion. The crisis on this was initiated decades, if not centuries, ago. Everything else has just been window dressing.

Back to the topic of the article. Basically, you've got five Anglican bishops who have finally awakened to the realization that there's no way in heaven, hell, or anywhere else that the entity they've been serving could be the Church established by God Himself.

From the Catholic Herald:

The Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Rt Rev Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough and Rt Rev John Broadhurst Bishop of Fulham as well as the Rt Rev Edwin Barnes the emeritus Bishop of Richborough and the Rt Rev David Silk, an emeritus assistant bishop of Exeter released a statement announcing their resignations.

They said: “As bishops, we have even-handedly cared for those who have shared our understanding and those who have taken a different view. We have now reached the point, however, where we must formally declare our position and invite others who share it to join us on our journey. We shall be ceasing, therefore, from public episcopal ministry forthwith, resigning from our pastoral responsibilities in the Church of England with effect from 31st December 2010, and seeking to join an Ordinariate once one is created.”

That all sounds pretty cool, right? Here's the coolest part, though:

With the Ordinariates, canonical structures are being established through which we will bring our own experience of Christian discipleship into full communion with the Catholic Church throughout the world and throughout the ages. This is both a generous response to various approaches to the Holy See for help and a bold, new ecumenical instrument in the search for the unity of Christians, the unity for which Christ himself prayed before his Passion and Death. It is a unity, we believe, which is possible only in eucharistic communion with the successor of St. Peter.

Did you catch that last bit? Notice that these guys aren't ditching the Barque of Elizabeth I because it's convenient or because they see it as something utilitarian. They explicitly state that the unity prayed for by Jesus Christ is only possible in union with the Pope. This is not the Kasperian language of ecumenism. This is the same sentiment expressed by the Formula of Hormisdas. Since I haven't really seen it pulled as a quote from any of the sources I've seen reporting this story, I'm not sure folks realize how significant this is.

Not to mention the significance of this whole developing scenario. We are quite possibly witnessing the extinction of a world religion that has, in many ways, shaped the history of the world. Has this made CNN, FoxNews, etc.? Not that I've noticed.

And what of Rowan in all this?

Dr Williams said: “I have today with regret accepted the resignations of Bishops Andrew Burnham and Keith Newton who have decided that their future in Christian ministry lies in the new structures proposed by the Vatican. We wish them well in this next stage of their service to the Church and I am grateful to them for their faithful and devoted pastoral labours in the Church of England over many years.”

Not with a bang. But a whimper.

When Dissenters Attack

I had just mentioned in the prior post re: Bishop Morlino what I figured would happen if a group of folks wanting a TLM took the same course of action against their own ordinary.

This bit from CalCatholic isn't quite the same thing, but it's illustrative of our problem, I think.

A High Latin Mass of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite at San Jose’s historic Five Wounds Portuguese National Church has been cancelled following a dispute among parishioners over Mass times.

The well-attended Sunday High Mass at 9:15 a.m. had been celebrated since September 2009 by Fr. Jean-Marie Moreau of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, an international society of priests founded in 1990 dedicated to preserving the traditional Latin Mass.

Over the year, attendance at Five Wounds’ traditional Latin Mass grew from around 90 to between 150 and 200 each Sunday. But on Sunday, Sept. 26, the last such Mass was celebrated. One observer told California Catholic Daily that the church was “filled to the rafters,” and that “by the recessional, many were in tears.”

So the Mass had basically doubled in size and was nourishing the souls of a couple of hundred people. And it got axed.

Why?

Several Portuguese members of the parish wanted to use the 9:15 a.m. time slot for a Mass in Portuguese, said Fr. Moreau, but the alternative replacement time offered for the traditional Latin Mass made it impossible for him to travel to San Jose to celebrate it.

And, while Fr. Morgan had gone to the trouble to learn how to celebrate the traditional Mass in Latin and was agreeable to celebrate it at the designated new time, “the diocese was not supportive – preferred to step back,” said Fr. Moreau.

One reason for the diocese’s reluctance could be the level of strife generated at the parish over the dispute. Sources close to the parish told California Catholic that a small but very vocal group of influential parish council members would disrupt meetings by yelling at Fr. Morgan, insisting on having their way. Apparently the chancery concluded the best means to bring peace to the parish was to eliminate the source of the controversy altogether – as Fr. Moreau said, “to step back.”

You stay classy, folks. Stay classy.

But notice what the source of the controversy is. It's not these folks being a-holes. It's the TLM. Think about it. The Mass that basically converted the Western World to the Faith is a source of controversy that must be eliminated. If I was these folks, I'd be on the horn to Ecclesia Dei right now.

So what of these faithful parishioners who seek to worship in the way of the Fathers?

An alternative for the 200 or so who regularly attended the traditional Latin Mass at Five Wounds is Our Lady of Perpetual Help, a small oratory of the Institute of Christ the King in Santa Clara where the traditional rite is celebrated four times on Sundays, said Fr. Moreau. “We may add five Masses,” he said, to meet the demand.

In December 2006, Bishop McGrath agreed to allow the Institute of Christ the King to take over Our Lady of Perpetual Help, a small chapel capable of seating about 25 people, noting in a letter, “For some time now, I have received requests for the use of the 1962 Missal on a more regular basis -- on Sundays -- so that those individuals and families who are attached to the rituals in use in 1962 would be able to participate in the celebration of the Mass and the sacraments more frequently.”

But the small chapel – even with four Masses – is typically filled to capacity and unlikely to be able to accommodate all those who once attended the traditional Latin Mass at Five Wounds. Before the Latin Mass was offered at Five Wounds, reported one distraught parishioner in an email to California Catholic Daily, “Sunday after Sunday, various faithful and their families could be seen standing on the sidewalk, outside of the tiny chapel, due to the fact that there simply was no room.”

Clearly, nobody cares that these people are being deprived, which in my opinion, should be considered a violation of the norms put forth in Summorum Pontificum.

But the dissenters are coddled. And the faithful are cast out.

Bishop Morlino Beset By Dissenters

We've covered his problems before. Even as he rose into the ranks of our favorite shepherds, he was ticking people off.

It's pretty much the same thing as our prior report. Bishop Morlino brought in some Catholic priests that the people didn't like. Why were they not liked? Let's look at an inventory of the horrific activities that have led to the recent conflict:

They reserve the altar server role to boys to encourage more seminarians. They eliminate participation by laypeople in the distribution of communion. And they preach homilies that supporters find refreshingly forthright in stressing Catholic teaching but critics find short on compassion.

Yeah, I can see how people would get all up in arms over this. How up in arms?

St. Mary's Catholic Church in Platteville, stung by a plunge in donations following the arrival of three controversial priests, has issued an urgent plea for money to keep its parochial school open.

The 75-year-old St. Mary's Catholic School is subsidized by the church, which has seen weekly donations fall more than 50 percent in four months, said Myron Tranel, chairman of the church's finance council.

The school, with 106 K-8 students, has enough money to operate until at least January but needs an additional $200,000 to keep the facility open through the end of the school year, he said.

The financial crisis coincides with Madison Bishop Robert Morlino's decision in June to bring in three priests from the Society of Jesus Christ the Priest to lead the parish. The group is based in Spain and known for traditionalist liturgy and devotion to orthodox Catholic teaching.

Changes the priests have made, including barring girls from being altar servers, led to a petition last month signed by 469 of the church's approximately 1,200 members asking Morlino to immediately remove the priests. In a response letter to the parish last week, Morlino said the priests have his full support and will stay. He chastised parishioners for conduct he called "gravely sinful."

Let me get this straight. With Catholic schools closing all over the country and folks at those places scrambling and doing all they can to save them, these folks appear to be cutting off donations to their school to try and teach His Excellency a lesson about who is really in charge.

Can you imagine what would happen if a group of laity who desired a Traditional Latin Mass in their parish did this contrary to the wishes of a bishop acting in defiance of the Holy Father's express wishes?

My guess is that they would be labeled as ignorant schismatics and denounced by powers both religious and secular. But that's just a guess.

Back to the folks in Madison, though.

The priests do retain considerable support in the church.

"They're teaching morals, and that's what we need," said Barbara Splinter, a 45-year member. "They are following what I've read the pope is for, and he's our leader, so I don't know why people have a problem with it."

The priests are "being treated very terribly," she added.

Mike Worachek said he's disappointed that his fellow parishioners aren't giving the priests a chance. "I think people should grow up and face the reality that people are different and you have to accept them for what they are," he said.

Such charity by these dissenters. The best part is that these rabble-rousers are probably accusing Bishop Morlino and these good and holy priests of being intolerant. What a bunch of hypocritical a-holes.

Being a good shepherd, Bishop Morlino has come to the defense of God's priests:

It grieves me to acknowledge that the reputation of three happy, holy, and hardworking priests has been seriously tarnished by rumor, gossip, and calumny (lying with the intent to damage another’s good name) by some within the parish community. Such conduct is gravely sinful, since some parishioners have been driven by fear, anger, or both, to distance themselves from their priests and even the Sacraments. This situation must cease, and charity must prevail on the part of all.

In an interesting conclusion, His Excellency adds:

Furthermore, activities such as protest-letter-writing seminars, leafleting of motor vehicles, door-to-door canvassing for signatures on a petition, etc (that is, exerting organized political pressure on people, where the end justifies any means) is an appropriate tactic in a political campaign, but not in the communion of faith which is the Catholic Church. Groups such as “Call to Action” and “Voice of the Faithful” regularly employ such tactics against legitimate authority in the Church. Because these groups dissent from basic tenets of Catholic Doctrine and Discipline, they are not recognized as Catholic in the Diocese of Madison, much less are they able to exercise legitimate authority. It is my hope that these clarifications will prove helpful.

I wonder if Bishop Morlino has reason to believe that these heretical groups he mentions are behind some of this, hence his decision to mention them by name. He also reminds everyone that these groups aren't Catholic. Maybe I'm reading too much into, but that strikes me as a veiled threat of being excommed.

Pray for Bishop Morlino. Send him encouraging letters. If you have the means, send the diocese some money to make up for the jerks giving him a hard time. And remember, pray for the dissenters. They are being deceived. At the root of all this is their pride. Pray that God delivers them from themselves.

Good Article About A Good Bishop?

In a mainstream publication? Shocking, to say the least.

Thanks to Haskovec for this entry. I think Bishop Farrell was one of the bishops who joined in the criticism of the Obama invitation at ND, so he's got that going for him.

On a side note, I was in Dallas recently and attended Mass at Mater Dei, the local FSSP church, shown here being blessed by His Excellency. It was marvelous, and Frs. Longua and Wolfe are a credit to the Church. If you have the chance, go. Go to confession, too. Best advice I've had in probably 20+ years.

Speaking Of Cardinal Mahony, Et Al

Everybody should take a look at this recent bit from Boniface over at Unam Sanctam. If you've ever read Malachi Martin's Windswept House (which I'm doing now and is a topic for another discussion) you'll see how scary this all is.

To try and nutshell things, he starts with the obvious, namely, that there are a lot of Church teachings that people would like to get rid of. Stuff like hell, for example. These teachings obviously aren't going anywhere, which frustrates many in the hierarchy who want people to think they're just nice old men who love inclusivity and tolerance. Boniface takes up the strategy being used by these guys to try and get around dogma:

Yet, though these declarations will not go away, there is a way that the hierarchy has found to get around this problem. I have noticed that, in areas where the modern hierarchy takes vastly different positions than the traditional Church, novel positions are not given to the faithful by means of encyclicals or dogmatic statements, but are found throughout lower-level pronouncements, such as speeches, letters, addresses, bishops' statements etc. By repeating these novel positions again and again in very low-level pronouncements, the faithful get accustomed to hearing certain novelties "from the Church" and over time come to accept them as "Church teaching."

He uses the death penalty as a good example, which it is. Contraception would be another pretty blatant one.

Thus the strategy for "changing" Church teaching seems to be this: If you want to teach something contrary to what the Church has always taught, just do it at low enough levels of authority and eventually people will start to accept your low-level declarations as "Church teaching" if they are trumpeted about long enough.

But this is just one example. My point is that theologians, bishops, cardinals and even popes regularly teach novelties in unofficial organs with such frequency that the faithful mistake these pronouncements for the teaching of the Church. The main reason for this is a confusion between a Church official and official teaching. When an official of the Church speaks, it is taken for granted that what he is speaking is official Church teaching. . .

Thus, I fear, we have come to a place where instead of taking our bearings by teachings given ex cathedra we are now accustomed to assimilating teaching "ex voce," from statements repeated over and over again in low-level pronouncements. Novelties are put forward as teaching, absurd hypotheses are given credence and things abhorrent to the Christian faith are stated as matter of fact (a great example is Kasper's sloppy Reflections on Covenant and Mission regarding Judaism). Basically, I see a working out of the old dictum that anything repeated long enough is believed. It is really quite disingenuous, because everybody knows that lay people expect to hear official Church teaching from members of the hierarchy - the hierarchy also knows that, if they are using means of communication that are considered "low-level" in their authority, they have much more leeway to introduce their own opinions.

This is very similar to the Windswept House plot regarding the "common mind of the bishops." What I'm left wondering (and did so way before I started the book) is how much of this is (a) coordinated, (b) personally malicious, or (c) both.

Pope Benedict On Immigration

From an address on the World Day of Migrants and Refugees (I didn't even know such a thing existed):

Venerable John Paul II, on the occasion of this same Day celebrated in 2001, emphasized that "[the universal common good] includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life" (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. "The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life" (World Day of Peace 2001, 13).

I'm throwing this out there so that anyone who runs into a +Mahonyite will have something a bit more authoritative (and sane) to counter with. Cardinal Mahony's comparison of folks seeking immigration reform with the Nazis is actually taken seriously by some.

No, really. It is. Usually, I admit, by whackjobs who want to assert "Church teaching" in the name of His Eminence of LA.

Addendum To The Below

I just got emailed this article from the LA Times giving details of the massacre in Iraq. Not for the squeamish, but necessary for understanding what may be asked of us due to our love for God.

Catholics Massacred In Iraq

Speaking of souls of the faithful departed:

Grieving Catholics in Baghdad marked All Saints Day in mourning on Monday for 46 Christians killed during a hostage drama with Al-Qaeda gunmen that ended in an assault by Iraqi forces backed by US troops.

Throughout the day mourners were seen carrying coffins out of the church and loading them onto vehicles for transfer to the mortuary. Most of the victims were to be buried on Tuesday.

The rescue drama on Sunday night, two months after US forces formally concluded combat operations in Iraq, ended with two priests among at least 46 slain worshippers.

"It was carnage," said Monsignor Pius Kasha, whose Syriac Catholic church was targeted by the militants. Witnesses said the assailants were armed with automatic rifles and suicide belts.

"There were less than 80 people inside the church, and only 10 to 12 escaped unhurt," Kasha said, adding that two priests were among the dead and that 25 worshippers were wounded. One priest was shot in the kidney.

An interior ministry official said 46 worshippers were killed and 60 wounded. He said more than 100 people were inside the church at the time of the attack.

Seven security members also died, the official said, adding that five attackers were killed.

Not that anybody around here cares. Not that the elections aren't big news, but spilling ink over Sarah Palin's stumping record sounds a bit ridiculous in light of the ongoing genocide of Catholics in the region.

May The Souls Of The Faithful Departed, Through The Mercy Of God

Rest In Peace




Indulgences are available. Take advantage. Somebody needs them. You'd want someone to do it for you.

Current regulations in force by Pope Benedict XVI

I On All Souls’ Day (Nov. 2) a plenary indulgence, applicable only to the Poor Souls, is granted to those who visit any parish church or public oratory and there recite one Our Father and one Credo.

II On all the days from November I though November 8 inclusive, a plenary indulgence, applicable only to the Poor Souls, is granted to those who visit a cemetery and pray even if only mentally for the departed.

Conditions for both indulgences:

1. Only one plenary indulgence can be granted per day.
2. It is necessary to be in the state of grace, at least by completion of the work.

3. Freedom from attachment to sin, even venial sin, is necessary; otherwise the indulgence is only partial. (By this is meant attachment to a particular sin, not sin in general.)

4. Holy Communion must be received each time the indulgence is sought.

5. Prayers must he recited for the intentions of the Holy Father on each day the indulgence is sought. (No particular prayers are prescribed. One Our Father and one Hail Mary suffice, or other suitable prayers.

6. A sacramental concession must he made within a week of completion of the prescribed work. (One confession made during the week, made with the intention of gaining all the indulgences, suffices.)

Benedictus Deus In Angelis Suis Et In Sanctis Suis

Spiritual discernment? Or just restlessness?

Having recently lost two friends from my parish to another church, I can't help but wondering whether the attempt to pray, to determine what God is calling you to do, might not hide within it a great danger, the seduction of wanting God to call you away from where you are.

Let me give an example. Say I am an ordinary believer in a church. To go about the ordinary business of being a Christian is often very dry, requiring one to maintain faith even when it doesn't seem as if there are any concrete results. This is the usual state of life for most of us. But when confronted with the slow martyrdom of an ordinary life, we get bored. We lose heart. Here is where the temptation comes: What if God is calling me to change? To find a better church? Now I become important, someone who matters. Maybe God is not calling me to change, but to endure. But enduring is boring! It is seductive to consider oneself part of a grand plan that will bear visible earthly results.

The still small voice of God might be saying "Stay right where you are."

The Real Horror Of October 31

When most folks think of today, they probably come up with an image of this guy:

Nothing wrong with that. He's way better than Freddy or Jason or the fake that got served up to us post-Halloween 6. Plus, Dr. Sam Loomis rules.

That being said, the guy folks should be thinking of is:

In case you didn't recognize him, that's Martin Luther, who was probably just a couple of steps more sane than Michael Myers. Or maybe even less sane, considering that you never really thought of Myers as crazy, just really freaking evil.

What does Luther have to do with Halloween? It was on this day 493 years ago that he allegedly nailed the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg. The rest is history. The consequences that flowed from Luther's arrogance are way scarier than any horror movie. The shattering of Christendom, multiple wars, the eventual rise of the "Enlightenment" (yeah, I know; it would have happened anyway), not to mention the millions of souls that were jeopardized by his heresy and schism, along with the continued deterioration of Christianity as more and more schisms and heresies are born every day and new ecclesial groups started to manifest them.

You want terror? Try turning on your TV and seeing this:

In the beginning, there was Luther. A few centuries of theological begats later, we have this.

Thanks, Martin. Thanks a lot.

You can find some of Luther's documented flights from sanity in this old post. It's not Daphne du Maurier, but it can chill the spine a bit.

Sleep tight.

The En Banc Ninth Circuit Upholds Condemnation Of Catholicism

We've talked about this before. The issue is this resolution passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It was a reaction to Cardinal Levada and the CDF voicing opposition to homosexual adoptions based on *gasp* Catholic teaching.

The resolution described the CDF's elucidation of Catholic teaching as everything from "ignorant" to "callous" to "insulting."

I wonder if they would say such things about Jewish or Muslim teachings.

A majority of the Ninth Circuit has decided that this kind of attack on religion is ok. Granted, it's for a variety of reasons. A few said that the Supervisors were perfectly within their rights to do what they did. A few more said that the Catholic League didn't have the standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Add them up and you get the majority opinion on the Court.

The CalCatholic Daily article is a good recap of things. For any masochists, you can read the full opinion here.

This would be, I think, another indication of the "long defeat" that Atticus mentioned in one of our prior entries. More than that, it shows the envelope getting pushed a little bit further. Is it really that big a leap from this to the Elizabethan oaths against transubstantiation? One of the judges in the case specifically mentions such a point as where the line would be drawn, but you'll have to excuse me if I take little solace in that. At one point, abortion and contraception could be prohibited as well, and nobody foresaw their ever being permissible in civilized society. We got "enlightened" enough to change that.

What will happen when we reach such a level of sophistication that we'll be able to say that Catholic morality is a danger to the state and must be suppressed?

Bishop Soto Contra Contraception

Bishop Soto of Sacramento has been a topic here before, mostly for being courageous enough to explain the Church's teaching on homosexuality to homosexuals. His latest foray is in the Catholic Herald by way of the California Catholic Daily. Basically, he says that contraceptionhas become the norm and that the norm is bad. This strikes me as a big deal for a guy from California.

“In the heated, partisan passions wrestling for political advantage in the trench warfare of abortion, we have to change hearts; as well as change laws,” wrote Bishop Soto. “Creating that culture of life is more than a political agenda. The gospel of life has the power to transform hearts and habits as well as laws when the Christian follows Newman’s counsel and performs ‘the ordinary duties of the day well.’”

Bishop Soto says we can “round our days” by observing routines in our lives that serve to sanctify us and evangelize others. Wearing one’s wedding ring or conversations around the dinner table with family are simple examples of this practice, he wrote, but they also include participation in the political process and more reflection and the cultivation of new habits “in the sexual practice of marriage.”

“One habit that has taken hold of many marriages is the use of artificial means of contraception,” wrote Bishop Soto. “The prevalence of the practice in and outside of the Catholic community has made contraception the unquestioned default mode of marriage. As a consequence, sexuality and relationships are misunderstood and misused; and their true purpose is misplaced.”

This all dovetails well with the prior item from Mrs. Fulwiler. It's not just the individual sinful act that causes damage. It's the habituation to sin and the regularization of such behavior screwing up people's mindsets and damaging their consciences that is even worse, as it leads to the propagation of still more and worse sin.

“These comments are not just about the ‘pill’ or other forms of contraceptives,” the bishop continued. “This is more about the habit of using artificial means. The habit has shaped the hearts and minds of many, especially the young. Marriage is no longer understood as the covenant of love between a man and a woman that creates life, because procreation is no longer associated with sexual intercourse. In this new social situation, many shrug their shoulders and wonder why a sexual relationship between any two people who care for each other cannot be called a marriage.”

“The church’s teaching against the use of artificial contraceptives comes from a reverential awe for the ‘round’ of the marriage covenant, where the human family finds life, grace and goodness revealed in the ordinary rituals of the home,” said Bishop Soto. “The sexual ritual should not be discounted or dismissed from this sacramental view.”

"The President's Nun"

That's the title of a recent article in the American Spectator. I suppose that it's only fitting that the Vatican II president should have his own nun.

Let me try to summarize the background here as much as possible. Some Catholic hospitals in Scranton, PA are going to be sold to some non-Catholic health systems. The CEO of Mercy Health Systems (Catholic group) initially said that the passage of the Obama health care legislation played a role in the decision to make the sale.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, immediately attacked this and every other report that tried to tie Obamacare to the hospital sales.

Why such a reaction, the Spectator asks. The answers are kind of depressing.

Let's go back to that presidential signing of the health care reform law. There were 21 very powerful people in that little group who received signing pens from the President. As mentioned that included the Vice President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy's widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy. And someone else.

That would be Sister Carol Keehan.

Impressive, no? The Catholic News Agency thought so, and prominently noted the story here. It also noted that Sister Carol was receiving her presidential pen from the President himself because she had been "supporting health care despite bishops' objections." The story even pictured the pen itself alongside the presidential seal on the box in which it came, with "Barack Obama" clearly visible scrawled along the side. Meaning, Sister Carol had enough clout to take on the Catholic Bishops on the President's behalf -- and win.

Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell? The much ballyhooed pro-life Democrat Congressman from Michigan? The Catholic Congressman Bart Stupak who was said to be such a sturdy obstacle to passage of ObamaCare because it would allow abortions? In the aftermath of the ObamaCare passage, Slate came forward to note that a letter signed by "representatives" of Catholic nuns finally swayed Stupak to break his staunch anti-abortion pledge and sign on for ObamaCare with a simple promise of an executive order on abortion, executive orders being overturned by successor presidents with the rapidity of rabbits doing the breeding thing. Wait! Stupak was persuaded by Catholic nuns? Isn't Sister Carol a …nun? How about that? What a coincidence? Yes indeed, the letter in question was signed -- solo -- by Sister Carol.

In other words, pay no attention to the dead babies.

I wonder what Bishop Martino would say if he was still around. Something profoundly and necessarily harsh, I think. One would hope something like this:



Combine all this with election-year jockeying by pro-Obamacare Democrats in a Catholic district who now have to deal with the issue of Catholic hospitals being delivered into the hands of facilities with no moral qualms about the slaughter of innocents, and it all turns into a horrible example of the disasterous downstream consequences of not punishing dissidents. I know all about the wheat and tares. I also know that, historically speaking, it seems like the anathema has a much better track record of fixing things than dialogue or just ignoring stuff.

Spiritual Revolutions

I've had to reflect much lately on the subjectof conversion. It's not just because of stuff like the recent Newman beatification either. In a more personal sense, I've been seeing a lot of people moving in and out of the Church. It's been a lesson in how fragile a thing one's beliefs can be. For example, you encounter cradle Catholics who have come up under the tutelage of very orthodox priests and caring parents abandoning the Faith in favor of milquetoast indifferentism.

On the other hand, you've got committed atheists or various varieties of heretics shedding their errors to take up the Cross instead.

What all this goes to show us is that we should never presume the fidelity anyone, nor should we consider anyone to be beyond God's grace.

As an exhibit of this latter thing, here is a wonderful article from America Magazine (yeah, I know; go figure). Mrs. Fulwiler gives a fantastic look into the mind of an atheist and how much of an obstacle pride can be to a potential convert. This makes the subsequent revolution for Christ all the more inspiring. We probably don't adequately appreciate the work of grace in reforming these kinds of folks.

Read the whole thing, but here are what I would hold out as the highlights.

One night I was discussing the topic with my husband, who was re-examining his own pro-choice stance. He made a passing remark that startled me into reconsidering this issue: “It just occurred to me that being pro-life is being pro-other-people’s-life,” he quipped. “Everyone is pro-their-own-life.”

His remark made me realize that my pro-choice viewpoints had put me in the position of deciding whose lives were worth living, and even who was human. Along with doctors, the government and other abortion advocates, I decided where to draw this crucial line. When I would come across Catholic Web sites or books that asserted “Life begins at conception,” I would scoff, as was my habit, yet I found myself increasingly uncomfortable with my defense. I realized that my criteria for determining when human life begins were distressingly vague. I was putting the burden of proof on the fetuses to demonstrate to me that they were human, and I was a tough judge. I found myself looking the other way when I heard about things like the 3-D ultrasounds that showed fetuses touching their faces, smiling and opening their eyes at ages at which I still considered abortion acceptable. As modern technology revealed more and more evidence that fetuses were humans too, I would simply move the bar for what I considered human.

Making these kinds of calls is naturally the province of God alone. And so we return (again) to the original lie that deceived our First Parents:

You shall be as gods.

Genesis 3:5

Continuing:

I recognized that I too had probably told myself lies in order to maintain my support for abortion. Yet there was some tremendous pressure that kept me from objectively looking at the issue. Something deep within me screamed that not to allow women to have abortions, at least in the first trimester, would be unfair in the direst sense of the word. Even as I became religious, I mentally pushed aside thoughts that all humans might have God-given eternal souls worthy of dignity and respect. It became too tricky to figure out when we receive those souls, the most obvious answer being “at conception,” as opposed to some arbitrary point during gestation. It was not until I re-evaluated the societal views of sex that had permeated the consciousness of my peer group that I was able to release that internal pressure I felt and take an unflinching look at abortion...

My pro-choice views (and I imagine those of many others) were motivated by loving concern: I just did not want women to have to suffer, to have to devalue themselves by dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Since it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with “hang-ups” eventually has sex, and that sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I was lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history: the enemy is not human. Babies had become the enemy because of their tendency to pop up and ruin everything; and just as societies are tempted to dehumanize their fellow human beings on the other side of the line in wartime, so had I, and we as a society, dehumanized what we saw as the enemy of sex.

Ideally I would have taken an objective look at when human life begins and based my views on that alone, but the lie was just too tempting. I did not want to hear too much about heartbeats or souls or brain activity. Terminating pregnancies simply had to be acceptable, because carrying a baby to term and becoming a parent is a huge deal, and society had made it very clear that sex was not a huge deal. As long as I accepted the premise that engaging in sex with a contraceptive mentality was morally acceptable, I could not bring myself to consider that abortion might not be acceptable. It seemed inhumane to make women deal with life-altering consequences for an act that was not supposed to have life-altering consequences.

Given my background, the Catholic idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential, was a revolutionary message. Being able to consider honestly when life begins, to open my heart and mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible for me until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.

The entry ends with a comparison between our own societal mentality and that of the ancients who saw no problem with leaving their children to die of exposure simply because they didn't want to put up with raising a child who might be less than fit.

Returning to the point, though, we should never despair about the conversion of others. Mrs. Fulwiler is a good example of how even the most reluctant or recalcitrant can be taken by grace into the Church. We are called to help them with our own prayers and fasting. However, just because we don't see the results doesn't mean that things aren't happening.

The Trip To England

I said I'd get around to it, so I am.

Before getting around to the specific events of the trip, I'm going to throw out an example of contrasting leadership styles so that we can have an adequate contrast.

Consider this entry by Fr. Z regarding Archlayman Rowan's steadfast commitment to nothing.

In an article in The Times published today, the contents of an interview with Archbp. Williams are exposed in advance of next month’s publication of a book entitled Shadow Gospel: Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis. The Times provided some of an interview of Williams by Ginny Dougary.

Inter alia, Williams says (for the first time) that he has “no problem” with homosexuals being bishops, but gay clergy must be celibate. I think the writer meant “chaste”, since celibate means unmarried. When will people get this right?

Williams indicated his personal support for the consecration of homosexual bishops in the Church of England, but that he will never endorse homosexual clergy in active relationships because tradition and historical “standards” dictate that homosexual clergy must remain chaste. He won’t endorse priests and bishops in active homosexual relationship because “the cost to the Church overall was too great to be borne at that point”.

The moral dimension of such a controversy is completely bypassed. Rowan's best rationale for his view is talk of tradition and standards. This makes the episcopacy something along the lines of your average game of pick-up basketball. It's done that way just because it's worked for a while, and it's currently convenient to continue doing so. This isn't really leadership, so much as an attempt to straddle a rather significant fence by passing the buck for the status quo to dead people. Rowan, per usual, avoids reason and accountability and teachable moments.

I have to wonder what this "cost" to the Anglican Communion is that is so great. The Communion itself is basically already shattered, in large part due to this issue. Come on, Rowan. Could it really get any worse?

On to Pope Benedict. As we know, this visit was not without controversy. For example:

Police said some 125,000 people lined the streets to cheer the pope. Around 150 protesters also turned out, waving gay rainbow flags and banners saying "Pope opposition to condoms kills people" and "Stop protecting pedophile priests."

He told reporters it was not the mission of the Catholic Church to change with the times "to try to be more attractive," but to declare what it believed to be fundamental truths.

Note the difference. When faced with conflict, Rowan appeals to the some kind of weird historical Robert's Rules of Order. The Pope doesn't go there. Instead, we hear about truth and the inalterable nature of such truth, regardless of convenience.

On the subject of such truths, the Pope would later talk about how such truth is the foundation of ecumenism, per his address at Westminster:

Our commitment to Christian unity is born of nothing less than our faith in Christ, in this Christ, risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father, who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. It is the reality of Christ’s person, his saving work and above all the historical fact of his resurrection, which is the content of the apostolic kerygma and those credal formulas which, beginning in the New Testament itself, have guaranteed the integrity of its transmission. The Church’s unity, in a word, can never be other than a unity in the apostolic faith, in the faith entrusted to each new member of the Body of Christ during the rite of Baptism. It is this faith which unites us to the Lord, makes us sharers in his Holy Spirit, and thus, even now, sharers in the life of the Blessed Trinity, the model of the Church’s koinonia here below.

In otherwords, there is no unity without the Faith. The content of the Faith isn't what has become the standard of Anglicanism, which is basically the negation of dogma. It's what was handed down by the Apostles, and anybody who thinks that the Schori/Spong model of theology is apostolic should have their head examined.



And, of course, there's a further contrast between the Schori/Spong clan and that of Cardinal Newman, who was beatified by Pope Benedict himself during the trip:

Today’s Gospel tells us that no one can be the servant of two masters (cf. Lk 16:13), and Blessed John Henry’s teaching on prayer explains how the faithful Christian is definitively taken into the service of the one true Master, who alone has a claim to our unconditional devotion (cf. Mt 23:10). Newman helps us to understand what this means for our daily lives: he tells us that our divine Master has assigned a specific task to each one of us, a "definite service", committed uniquely to every single person: "I have my mission", he wrote, "I am a link in a chain, a bond of connexion between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good, I shall do his work; I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place … if I do but keep his commandments and serve him in my calling" (Meditations and Devotions, 301-2).

No two masters for Cardinal Newman. He had to go where the Truth was. The historical standards of Anglicanism and the costs that he had to bear were of secondary consequence. Heart indeed speaks to heart, and the heart of Christ spoke to that of Cardinal Newman. He followed where the Kindly Light led him and didn't shy away when the Cross got heavy. I take a lot of digs at Anglicanism here, but let's face facts. There aren't many Catholics who qualify for such courage these days.

And let me add this, it is shameful that Cardinal Newman is still the subject of insults today. I expect it from Anglicans who consider him a traitor. I also expect it from liberal Catholics who basically think anyone who converts is somehow degrading themselves (*cough*Cardinal Kasper*cough*). What is ridiculous and embarrassing is to such commentary from Catholics who do take orthodoxy seriously and continue to cast aspersions on his character and faith. May God forgive such people for their calumny.

Anyways, maybe there are some Anglicans who are willing to take up that Cross and make the journey that Blessed John Henry Newman made.

Britain could have an Ordinariate by the end of the year, it emerged today.

Sources say that the Rt Rev Keith Newton, the flying Bishop of Richborough and the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, the flying Bishop of Ebbsfleet, will take up the special canonical structure, which allows groups of Anglicans to come into full Communion with Rome without losing their Anglican identity, before the end of the calendar year...

Traditionally-minded Anglican clergy from the South of England were gathering at a Sacred Synod in Westminster today to discuss the future direction of the Church of England. The meeting was called by the Rt Rev John Frank Ford, the Anglican Bishop of Plymouth. He invited the signatories of a 2008 open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, which expressed reservations over women bishops...

In a statement Bishop Burnham said that Anglicanorum coetibusoffered “Anglo-Catholics the way to full communion with the Catholic Church for which they worked and prayed for at least a century and it is a way in which they will be ‘united and not absorbed’.”

He said that discussions were under way about how the “vision of the Apostolic Constitution” could be implemented” and said the first people to take up the initiative would require vision and courage.

He quoted Pope Benedict’s speech to the bishops of England, Wales and Scotland, saying the Holy Father set his offer to Anglicans “firmly within the developing ecumenical dialogue” and said it was an “an exciting initiative for those for whom the vision of Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) of corporate union has shaped their thinking over recent years”.

The issue, he said, was “the ministry of the Pope himself, as the successor of St Peter. Anglicans who accept that ministry as it is presently exercised will want to respond warmly to the Apostolic Constitution”. He said: “Those who do not accept the ministry of the Pope or would want to see that ministry in different ways will not feel able to accept Anglicanorum Coetibus.”

Bishop Burnham added: “The decision to respond to the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution is not dependent on the decisions of the General Synod or on any particular issue of church order. The initiative should be judged on its own merit. It will require courage, and vision on the part of those who accept the invitation, particularly amongst the first to respond."

It will take all those things and more.

Blessed John Henry Newman, pray for them (and all the rest of us).

Weird.

Maybe it's Chrome that is the problem. I posted that last one in Firefox and it worked with the colored font and stuff.

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From Rorate:

Liturgical Reform: Coming Soon to the Eastern Churches?

Somebody make it stop!!!!!!

During the first General Congregation of the Special Assembly for the Middle East of the Synod of Bishops on October 11, 2010, the Reporter of the Synod, His Beatitude Antonios Naguib, Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church, gave a lengthy report before the discussions began. (See this.) In the course of his lengthy report, which touches upon numerous matters of great importance for the dwindling flock of Christians in the Middle East, the Patriarch said the following about liturgical reform:

A great many people are deeply desiring liturgical renewal, which, while remaining faithful to tradition, would take into account modern sensitivities as well as today’s spiritual and pastoral needs. The work of liturgical reform would require a commission of experts. Perhaps some usefulness might result from adapting liturgical texts to celebrations with children and youth, while remaining faithful to each Church’s heritage. This could be the work of an interdisciplinary group of experts. Some look for liturgical renewal in the area of devotional practices. Whatever the case, adaptation and reform must consider the ecumenical aspect. The particularly delicate question of communicatio in sacris requires special study.

What the hell is this? Have they lost their freaking minds????

It didn't stop there:

This openness to liturgical reform was immediately taken up in the next morning by Chaldean Archbishop Louis Sako (who said)

Liturgical reformation based upon sacred scripture, but also the patristics and pastoral demands of today. Otherwise our faithful will go looking for other churches as has already happened in some cases.

You know that comment about insanity being trying the same crap over and over whilst expecting a different result? That's what this is. It's the same bill of goods that was sold in the post-conciliar liturgical reform. Has Archbishop Sako been paying attention to Mass attendance since the advent of the Pauline Mass? Or does he just think that the Easterners can do it better?

Holy smokes. I never thought I'd see this kind of stuff. The only think this is guaranteed to do is drive the Eastern Catholics across the Bosporus to the Orthodox churches, who are pretty vocal about the liturgical wasteland of Catholicism being a big obstacle to ecumenism.

If they want reforms that are promoted to de-Latinize (which are also mentioned in the Rorate post), I'm all for it. Watching a Maronite liturgy that is basically the Ordinary Form is uncomfortable and awkward and all kinds of other bad things. For the love of God and His Church, though, let's not start screwing up the Eastern liturgy just when we seem to be getting a fix for what's wrong in the West.

And Persecution In France

Everyone here is going to start thinking I'm just turning into some sort of news service on the horrible. It's not the case, although there is a lot of horrible stuff happening right now. I've been out for a while and the news has piled up, so I'm trying to get it out there.

This is from the Eponymous Flower:

Since the 1st of January 2010 there have been 140 Catholic cemeteries and 183 Catholic churches and chapels desecrated.

Bruce Hortefeux (52), French Interior Minister, said this in a conference on the 22nd of September.

The reason for the Minister's explanation was the violation of almost twenty Catholic graves in teh 2,700 population community Frontenay-Rohan-Rohan in Western France.

Hotrefeux in his presentation explained, that such incidents are "insufferable".

Actually till now the French State has done almost nothing to raise the consciousness of the violence against Catholicism.

How nice that they are getting around to taking a look at this. A question raised on the blog that deserves some reflection, though, is where are the bishops in all this.

Some of the vandalism is described elsewhere in the article. It's enough to have gotten attention if the number of places involved is even close to being accurate. Hopefully, we'll be able to keep track of this to see what they really do to deal with the problem.

Persecution In Saudi Arabia

According to the Filipino Global Nation:

Saudi police raided a secret Catholic mass in Riyadh last week and arrested a dozen Filipinos and a Catholic priest, charging them with prosyletising, a local daily reported on Wednesday.

The raid took place as some 150 Filipinos were attending the mass in a Riyadh rest house on Friday, the second day of the weekend in Saudi Arabia, Arab News said.

The twelve Filipino men and the priest, whose nationality was not specified, were "charged with prosyletising," the daily quoted an official from the Philippine embassy in Riyadh as saying.

Apparently, their embassies got them released later. I didn't realize there were over a million Filipinos working in Saudi Arabia. That's a whole lot of (most likely) Catholics who live without the ability to openly attend Mass.

Interestingly enough, I haven't seen Ban Ki-Moon chiming in on this. I suppose the world's elite powers are far too busy worrying about random pastors in Florida burning the Koran to comment on nations like this throwing folks in jail for attending Mass.