Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Bart Stupak makes schmucks out of pro-lifers who for a few fleeting weeks thought there was reason in the Democratic Party. There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.
*Promised executive order does not ban federal monies for abortion, and the new health "care" law will funnel more money to Planned Parenthood. Just an FYI, Judas Stupak.
*As liberals everywhere shout "victory", the question is: Victory against who? With 1/3 of Americans opposed to this Health "Care" overhaul, was it victory over the American people? Bishops say the new Health "Care" law is deeply flawed.
*Is this Berlusconi's version of penance?
*Maybe Cardinal Simonis also failed to notice the rest of the decay in his local Church?
*Numbers don't lie. At the center of the priest sex abuse scandal is homosexuality.
*Archbishop Vincent Nichols: "It is not a cover-up; it is clear and total disclosure".
*The way things ought to be.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Of course, there will be the usual quibble about there being abusive priests before VCII. We know, though, that there have always been profligates among the presbyters, but there's no denying that the problem became widespread after the Council, not to mention the inability of the bishops to effectively and charitably handle this aspect of the "Second Vatican Catastrophe" (I love that! Great line, Mr. Warner!).
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
One such situation has arisen in the pope's Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, intended to address the failure of the Church's leadership in Ireland to address the sexual abuse of minors by priests and religious in that country. Contained in this pastoral letter is the following paragraph:
The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.
After reading this, I nearly screamed: "WHAT? A tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations?? Where was the tendency to avoid a penal approach in 1988??"
I spent six years in the seminary watching good friend after good friend kicked out for one trumped up charge after another. There was no tendency to avoid a penal approach in our seminaries. Michael Rose's book, Goodbye, Good Men, chronicles numerous cases wherein vocation directors and seminary administrators were not hesitant in the least to use a rather draconian penal approach. The Holy Father's comments in this paragraph seem grossly naive, if not ignorant of the real situation in our seminaries and chanceries.
My personal experience, and the experience of countless others, not to mention the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, who, along with Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, were excommunicated in 1988, is that there has been no tendency in the Church since the Second Vatican Council to avoid any kind of penal approach. Indeed, there has been plenty of penalties dispensed these past forty years, their sole intent to silence the voices of conservative and traditional Catholics, and when ecclesiastical penalties could not be found, other more cruel and oppressive methods were employed.
No, Holy Father, we traditional Catholics who have been in the fray during this long sojourn in the desert of Vatican II must respectfully disagree. The tragic destruction of so many priestly vocations is like a river of blood flowing right through the heart of the Church Militant. Why, Holy Father, are you so bent on ignoring this gaping wound?
No. The problem has not been an avoidance of the penal approach, but a selective approach in application. Those who were penalized were those who did not share the progressive, liberal, morally permissive and pro-homosexual ideology of those who were in control of the Church's institutions. These people didn't come to power at the time of implementation. These people didn't come to power AFTER the Council, but DURING the Council.
Unfortunately the Holy Father isn't doing much here but avoiding the real problem, which is the modernistic, liberal and morally permissive ideology of the Church's leadership since the very first session of the Second Vatican Council. I suspect the problem of abusive priests will continue until the Church's leadership stops talking about how the Church is to blame, and starts addressing that it is they, the leaders, and their corrosive ideology that are to blame.
Friday, March 19, 2010
*Blind guides, blind fools. With goofballs like this in charge...
*Request for Anglican Usage Ordinariate in Canada.
*Vatican officially announces a commission has been formed to investigate the Medjugorje phenomenon, confirming rumors of the same.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
David Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, a group representing many haredi factions, offered the moderate view. “A broad consensus has emerged in the last few years,” he said, “that many of these issues are beyond the ability of the community to handle internally.”
But he added that prosecutors should recognize “religious sensitivities” by seeking alternatives to prison, to avoid depriving a family of its breadwinner, or by finding appropriate Orthodox homes for children removed from abusive families.
“The district attorney should be careful not to be seen as making a power grab from rabbinic authority,” Mr. Zwiebel said.
Can you imagine the indignation that would be aroused if a bishop were to suggest that the civil authorities should not overstep their bounds in investigating child abuse by a priest. Why should rabbinic authority be respected, but not ecclesiastical? Does Abe Foxman have the answer?
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
The Spirit of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the Democratic Party of the United States.
Friday, March 12, 2010
*Cardinal Levada: "Union with the Catholic Church is the goal of ecumenism."
*Archbishop Caput addresses row over not allowing admission of lesbian couple's child to a Catholic grade school. The “idea that Catholic schools should require support for Catholic teaching for admission, and a serious effort from school families to live their Catholic identity faithfully, is reasonable and just."
*New American article, Hero in the Unmaking, well worth reading.
*Muslims killing Christians. The world: "No comment."
*Another Traditional Latin Mass association is born. Schola Veritatis embraces the Extraordinary Form.
*Planned Parenthood and NARAL run up against the truth in Virginia.
*Pope's brother admits to slapping children in the 1960s, leads to new attacks against Pope Benedict. The controversy in Germany is understandingly heating up, and, of course, the media uses it to the advantage of their left-wing agenda against the Church, irrationally linking the scandal to the Church's teaching against artificial contraception. You see, ladies and gentleman, the use of condoms is proven to reduce child abuse. It's got something to do with the calming affect of latex.
*"We have cardinals who don't believe in Christ, bishops connected with demons. Then we have these stories of paedophilia. You can see the rot when we speak of Satan's smoke in the holy rooms."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Archbishop Fulton Sheen and I aren’t batting in the same league. While he played in the majors, I’m still sitting the bench in little league.
That being said…
A few days ago a friend of mine pointed out something that was written by Archbishop Fulton Sheen that is opposed to my emphasis on the spiritual fruits of the methods of hearing the Mass. Here is what the good Archbishop wrote in his short book, These are the Sacraments (1962):
The expression, sometimes used by Catholics "to hear Mass," is an indication of how little is understood of their active participation, not only with Christ, but also with all of the saints and members of the Church until the end of time.
I think this remark is unfortunate, and it is an indication of how prevalent the 20th Century Liturgical Movement’s notion of liturgical piety had become by the early 1960s. By this time, the Liturgical Movement had ingrained in the minds of most prelates that the old methods of hearing Mass were passive and not proper liturgical piety for the laity. This pernicious brand of clericalism is treated in depth here.
However, in light of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s attack on the expression “to hear the Mass”, an apology is in order. Archbishop Fulton Sheen and the movers of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement were wrong about the expression “to hear Mass.”
To say that the verb “to hear” is passive is etymologically incorrect. The word “hear” originated from the Anglian word heran, meaning “to notice” or “to observe”. The adjectival form in Old English is heirsum, which means “ready to hear”, or more precisely, “obedient.” The word carries a connotation of receptivity, but not a passive receptivity, like an empty glass waiting to be filled. The more correct connotation is a willingness to receive. Thus, etymologically, “to hear” is an act. It is something that is done, and requires effort. Therefore, to hear is not to remain passive. Rather, the passive equivalent would be the exact opposite of “to hear“; it would be “to ignore” or “disregard”.
Therefore, when we speak of “hearing the Mass”, we are referring to the human act of noticing and observing, of preparing ourselves to receive, and receiving in obedience the graces, fruits and benefits of the Mass. If hearing the Mass were passive, then speaking about methods of hearing the Mass would be an oxymoron. How can something that is passive, requiring no effort or activity, be achieved by a method, which means to pursue or to follow after?
The expression, "to hear the Mass", is biblical. To hear the Mass is to embody the words of the Psalmist:
To thee have I lifted up my eyes, who dwellest in heaven. Behold as the eyes of the servants are on the hands of their masters, As the eyes of the handmaid are on the hands of her mistress: so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy on us. (Ps 122:1-2)
To hear the Mass is to fix our eyes on the hands of our Master, to fix our eyes on Christ. This requires effort, primarily interior effort, and, as such, indicates an active participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Likewise, to hear the Mass is to be obedient to the Father when at the Transfiguration, a foreshadowing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, He announced of Our Blessed Lord: “This is my beloved Son; hear him” (Lk 9:35).
The clericalism of the 20th Century Liturgical Movement, which insisted on a liturgical piety reduced to emulating the priest and the ministers at the altar, had by 1962 managed to besmirch and redefine the expression “to hear the Mass.” From our perspective today, the fruits of the Movement are plainly evident for what they are. We look at this from a different vantage point than Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
What is needed today, therefore, is a better understanding of the Father’s command given on the mountain of the Transfiguration:
Actuosa participatio does not mean “actual participation”. It means “active participation.” There has been a tendency among neo-conservatives and traditionalists to change the meaning of the Latin word actuosus, -a, -um. This Latin adjective derives from the word actus, which means a deed that is done. It carries with it the connotation of movement, either physical, mental or spiritual.
When Pope St. Pius X used the term “actuosa… participatio” in his motu proprio, Tra le sollecitudini, he did not mean “actual” as in real or authentic. If he had meant that he would have used the adjective verus, -a, -um or something similar. Why? Because he wasn’t referring to participation that was real, but participation that was active. He understood that in the context of the Church’s liturgy, the laity should not be passive, but active.
When traditionalists redefine words because they serve an ideology opposed to the traditionalist position, the traditionalist does nothing of merit for the traditionalist position. In fact, such etymological blunders make traditionalists look stupid. So, please, don't try to pass off to progressives and Modernists this feeble attempt to redefine a Latin word. As Catholic traditionalists we ought to have more respect for the Latin language.
The real issue isn't how "actuosa participatio" is translated. The real issue is what "active" means and what it entails.
Does "active" mean acting like the priest or ministers at the altar? Does "active" mean absently reading our missals at Mass? Does "active" mean tramping about the sanctuary was extraordinary buffoons?
Or... Does active mean knowing and mediating on the liturgical texts? Practicing lectio divina with the Propers? Does it mean joining oneself to the Sacrifice of the Mass by meditating upon the Passion of Christ? Does it mean preparing for the liturgy by prayer and study? Does it mean making the Lord's Day holy by extending the Church's liturgy into our homes and lives?
Traditionalists have nothing to fear from St. Pius X's actuosa participatio.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Admittedly, I have yet to hear the homily, though it's on the DVR. Once my wife shows me how to work that infernal device, I'll get around to listening to it. I have, however, read exerts on the web, and what I have read so far has made me roll my eyes. Was this really a time for an apologetic for maintaining two forms of the Roman Rite, or throwing out the tired canard of disobedience?
At a time when traditional Catholics were focused on the beauty and integrity of the traditional liturgy, when their minds were as far from politics as possible, Levada makes the occasion a negative political event. It seems strange to me, and gives credence to Athanasius' claim that Levada's presence at the consecration was insincere. If true, then the fact that Levada has been given command of the PCED and the talks with the SSPX is troubling at best.
Friday, March 5, 2010
*Merkel praises German efforts to clean up child abuse. Surprised? Well, put that together with this: Zollitsch, head of German bishop's council, contends that there is no connection between child abuse and homosexuality. Merkel and Zollitsch can agree on one thing, at least: protecting homosexuals at the expense of truth. I hope they enjoy each others company.
*Right. Because the way the novus ordo was imposed on the Church was done slowly and according to Church's "own sense of time, its own rythms"?? Sometimes it's hard to tell if these guys are actually being serious or if they are consummate satirists.
*Traditional Anglican Communion in America asks for an ordinariate under the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Fr. Zuhlsdorf re-posted the article found at CNA with his red-letter commentary. What caught my eye over at Fr. Z's blog was a comment left by a "Father Ignotus" (fourth comment down). No matter what you might think about the prospect of Satanists being entrenched in the Vatican, and indeed there are all kinds of legitimate reasons to disagree with Fr. Amorth's comments, I think this Fr. Ignotus' comment is both intriguing and disturbing. In his comment he claims to not know the veracity of the assertions, and he makes the claim that the veracity of the assertions doesn't matter. What he sees is an attack on the Church.
This is an interesting response because I remember the exact same rhetoric being batted around not that long ago in regards to another scandal. I find it disturbing, as a result, that this rhetoric still comes easy for our prelates.
So you can see what I'm talking about, I've taken the liberty of altering Fr. Ignotus' comment, replacing the references to Satanic occultism with another subject of interest. My alterations in red:
I have always wondered about the prudence of lay people, victims and victims' advocates speaking publicly in the way that Amorth (and a few others, recently) have done/do. So what, if there are some Cardinals, bishops and priests dabbling in child pornography, pedophilia and ephebophilia? Does the whole world need to know? Especially since no names are named? At best I think it is imprudent, for the fact that it could lead others to judge cardinals, bishops and priests, and form their own opinions about which ones might be involved in child abuse. At worst, I think it is imprudent, for the fact that it can also lead the curious into indulging their morose interests on a dangerous subject. There is no shortage of people who are “intrigued” by pornography and other forms of deviant sexual conduct, who really have no business studying the subject as much as they do.You see? The issue here isn't whether or not prelates in the Vatican are Satanists. The issue is the willingness of at least one more priest to sweep an uncomfortable subject under the rug. If priest sexual abuse is bad, priestly Satanic occultism is really, really bad. However, what matters for Fr. Ignotus, with no regard to whether or not the claims are true or false, is that no one finds out about it, and no one talks about it. The only safe road to take with an uncomfortable subject is to sweep it under the rug and pretend the problem, or at least the assertion that there is a problem, doesn't exist. How has that strategy worked out for the Church in regards to priestly sexual deviancy?
In the end, I am left wondering: Why did all these lay people, victims and victims' advocates think it necessary to comment publicly on this matter (regardless of whether what they say is true or not)? I can think of no good reason. Besides the reasons that I listed above, there is one more: By proclaiming so vaguely—with no apparent motive—“there are some Cardinals, bishops and priests who are involved in pornography, child pornography, ephebophilia and other forms of child sexual abuse, it only gives fodder to the enemies of the Church who already believe that the Catholic Church is the work of Satan.
There should be no doubt left in anyone's mind why the priest sexual abuse scandal just won't go away. It's because the culture of fear and cronyism won't. It's a lack of faith in the fact that God will not let the gates of hell prevail against His Church.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Consecration and Mass will begin at 10:00am CST, and according to the seminary website, it will be broadcast on EWTN. A live stream can be found here.
Please refer to the Seminary's web page for further information.
Please pray for the priests and seminarians of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, especially those of North America.