Thursday, March 31, 2011
Viva Cristo Rey!
This film could be good. To be honest, I never would have thought that there would ever be a movie made about the Cristeros War. I'm impressed that someone was willing to give it a try.
Monday, March 28, 2011
What Detraction Is and Isn't
There seems to be a lot of confusion among neo-con and novus ordo, mainstream Catholics in regards to detraction. Traditional Catholics are often accused of detraction when they criticize the known faults of mainstream, novus ordo Catholics. This has particularly been the case regarding the recent scandal involving Fr. John Corapi, and an article recently printed by The Remnant about the editorial staff's reservations regarding the upcoming beatification of Pope John Paul II.
In both cases, traditional Catholics have been accused of detraction. In no way can criticisms of either Pope John Paul II or Fr. John Corapi be characterized as detraction. These accusations reveal an erroneous understanding of what detraction is.
Detraction consists in disclosing what one honestly knows is the fault committed by another without necessity in order to lessen or damage the reputation of one’s neighbor. The object of detraction is to harm the reputation of someone else unjustly. The defamation of one’s neighbor is the intention and direct result of detraction.
It is still detraction even if the defamation is a secondary intention in revealing the fault. For example, when one is accused of wrongdoing, it would be detraction to reveal the faults of the accuser in the public forum in order to harm the accuser’s credibility. Even though in this case the accused person's primary intention is self-defense, the defamation of the accuser is the direct result of the secondary intention.
There are times that one may make known the offenses or supposed faults of others without committing detraction. One such case is if the offense or supposed fault is already widely known or notorious. Thus if one’s neighbor makes his fault public knowledge on his own volition, or if competent authority passes a public judgment on the fault or offense committed, detraction is not committed by publicly discussing what has already been revealed.
Not that long ago Fr. Benedict Groeschel wrongly accused internet bloggers of detraction when these internet bloggers discussed on their blogs the public scandal of Fr. Francis Mary Stone (Dave Stone) who left the priesthood to pursue an illicit sexual relationship. Fr. Groeschel was wrong to call the public discussion of this case detraction because Fr. Francis Mary Stone had already publicly revealed his offense by having it announced on national television.
Likewise, it is not detraction to reveal the offense or faults of others if doing so is for the sake of the common good, the good of the narrator, the good of the listeners, or the good of the person who has made offense. One must discern, however, the motives in making known the offenses of others for these reasons. It must first be determined that no passion arising from envy, anger or selfishness plays a part in the revealing. The damage apprehended to be avoided must be equal to or greater than the damage that will be caused to the culprit’s reputation. Lastly, no more public exposure should be given to the offense committed than is absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of the good sought.
For example, a lawyer may call into question the credibility of a witness or accuser in a court of law by exposing the faults of the witness or accuser in the courtroom. However, it would go beyond the common good, the good of the defendant, and the good of the witness or accuser if the lawyer should then reveal these faults to the wider public, such as the news media.
Journalism is another example. The public has a right to know, and journalists have an obligation to reveal, facts about public figures, especially candidates for public office, that reveal fitness for public office. Journalists also have an obligation to reveal the offenses of even priests and bishops in order to safe guard the common good. This was particularly the case in the recent child molestation and priest sex scandals. Journalists in revealing the perpetrators and in revealing the institutional shortcomings of the Catholic Church rendered a service to Catholics and ultimately a service to the Church. However, it is important for journalists to likewise discern their motives, and this is especially more so the case when they are called upon to investigate the wrongdoing of ordained ministers because there is in this area a potential danger to souls.
Detraction is not to be confused with slander or calumny, which consists in attributing to one’s neighbor faults which he is not guilty. When done publicly, this is called libel.
Detraction is not to be confused with suspicion, which consists in supposing evil of one’s neighbor without reasonable grounds.
It is clear, therefore, that the mere public discussion of what is already publicly known is not detraction. Nor is it detraction to reasonably criticize public figures for their public actions, or even private actions if publicly known. This would include, of course, the public actions of even a pope, whose actions, speeches or writings are not impeccable or above reasonable and good intentioned criticism. Nor does detraction include criticisms of public statements of a priest or bishop who has committed or has been accused of wrongdoing.
______________
Sources:
In both cases, traditional Catholics have been accused of detraction. In no way can criticisms of either Pope John Paul II or Fr. John Corapi be characterized as detraction. These accusations reveal an erroneous understanding of what detraction is.
Detraction consists in disclosing what one honestly knows is the fault committed by another without necessity in order to lessen or damage the reputation of one’s neighbor. The object of detraction is to harm the reputation of someone else unjustly. The defamation of one’s neighbor is the intention and direct result of detraction.
It is still detraction even if the defamation is a secondary intention in revealing the fault. For example, when one is accused of wrongdoing, it would be detraction to reveal the faults of the accuser in the public forum in order to harm the accuser’s credibility. Even though in this case the accused person's primary intention is self-defense, the defamation of the accuser is the direct result of the secondary intention.
There are times that one may make known the offenses or supposed faults of others without committing detraction. One such case is if the offense or supposed fault is already widely known or notorious. Thus if one’s neighbor makes his fault public knowledge on his own volition, or if competent authority passes a public judgment on the fault or offense committed, detraction is not committed by publicly discussing what has already been revealed.
Not that long ago Fr. Benedict Groeschel wrongly accused internet bloggers of detraction when these internet bloggers discussed on their blogs the public scandal of Fr. Francis Mary Stone (Dave Stone) who left the priesthood to pursue an illicit sexual relationship. Fr. Groeschel was wrong to call the public discussion of this case detraction because Fr. Francis Mary Stone had already publicly revealed his offense by having it announced on national television.
Likewise, it is not detraction to reveal the offense or faults of others if doing so is for the sake of the common good, the good of the narrator, the good of the listeners, or the good of the person who has made offense. One must discern, however, the motives in making known the offenses of others for these reasons. It must first be determined that no passion arising from envy, anger or selfishness plays a part in the revealing. The damage apprehended to be avoided must be equal to or greater than the damage that will be caused to the culprit’s reputation. Lastly, no more public exposure should be given to the offense committed than is absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of the good sought.
For example, a lawyer may call into question the credibility of a witness or accuser in a court of law by exposing the faults of the witness or accuser in the courtroom. However, it would go beyond the common good, the good of the defendant, and the good of the witness or accuser if the lawyer should then reveal these faults to the wider public, such as the news media.
Journalism is another example. The public has a right to know, and journalists have an obligation to reveal, facts about public figures, especially candidates for public office, that reveal fitness for public office. Journalists also have an obligation to reveal the offenses of even priests and bishops in order to safe guard the common good. This was particularly the case in the recent child molestation and priest sex scandals. Journalists in revealing the perpetrators and in revealing the institutional shortcomings of the Catholic Church rendered a service to Catholics and ultimately a service to the Church. However, it is important for journalists to likewise discern their motives, and this is especially more so the case when they are called upon to investigate the wrongdoing of ordained ministers because there is in this area a potential danger to souls.
Detraction is not to be confused with slander or calumny, which consists in attributing to one’s neighbor faults which he is not guilty. When done publicly, this is called libel.
Detraction is not to be confused with suspicion, which consists in supposing evil of one’s neighbor without reasonable grounds.
It is clear, therefore, that the mere public discussion of what is already publicly known is not detraction. Nor is it detraction to reasonably criticize public figures for their public actions, or even private actions if publicly known. This would include, of course, the public actions of even a pope, whose actions, speeches or writings are not impeccable or above reasonable and good intentioned criticism. Nor does detraction include criticisms of public statements of a priest or bishop who has committed or has been accused of wrongdoing.
______________
Sources:
- The Catholic Encyclopedia.
- Sirago-Clarke. The Catechism Explained: An Exhaustive Explanation of the Catholic Religion. Reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc. Rockford, Illinois. 1993.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Statement from Santa Cruz Media About the Fr. Corapi Fiasco
Below is the statement from Santa Cruz Media with my red letter comments.
First of all, it should be noted that Santa Cruz Media isn't an unbiased party in this matter. As will be seen from this statement, Santa Cruz Media stands to lose a lot of revenue in the short term if Fr. Corapi's administrative leave and suspension of priestly faculties is a long one, and in the long run if it's permanent. This doesn't mean that I believe Ruffatto is being willfully dishonest or otherwise, but I definitely think he's got his eye firmly fixed on the bottom line. Fr. Corapi merchandise is the only product that Santa Cruz Media sells.
I'm primarily concerned here by the continued attack on Fr. Corapi's superior, and especially the bishop of Corpus Christi, Mulvey. There's a lack of both humility and obedience on the part of Fr. Corapi for publicly lashing out at his superiors, which I've already mentioned on this blog. Making the claim that a bishop acted illicitly, but then not following that up with a reasonable argument as to why they believe the bishop's action was illicit, is intellectually dishonest, and I think it's manipulative.
Secondly, I'm disgusted by Ruffatto's naked marketing scheme to capitalize on this tragedy by insinuating that the sales of Corapi merchandise is the only source of financial assistance for Fr. Corapi. In fact, Fr. Corapi is independently wealthy, or at least should be, after his multi-million dollar award for being a whistleblower in a medical false claims suit.
Thirdly, while I certainly wouldn't want to hang my hat on the accuser's coat peg, I definitely think Ruffatto's statement is insincere and even duplicitous. There's more going on here than the public knows, and I think this something more that we don't know is the real reason why Fr. Corapi has been placed on administrative leave and why his priestly faculties have been suspended. I'm not saying Fr. Corapi has necessarily done anything wrong, and I still think this will be resolved in Fr. Corapi's favor. However, perhaps he has gotten involved with not a few crooked people looking to make a quick buck on the backs of sincere Catholics starving for the truth.
Which brings me to my last point, which is apropos to this blog. Neo-cons lack, due to the shallow and spiritually arid nature of the novus ordo liturgy and the rampant Modernism and liberalism in the Church, any significant spiritual depth. As a result, neo-cons have a tendency to latch on to anything that seems to provide a greater degree of spiritual depth than they typically find in the novus ordo establishment parish. This searching for depth explains things like the Medugorje fraud. It also explains why so many mainstream Catholics seem to need celebrity priests like Fr. Corapi. One of Fr. Corapi's supporters had this to say on Facebook: "Fr. Corapi is the truth."
Truth is a Man, but He isn't Fr. Corapi. For a Catholic to identify the incarnate truth as someone other than Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, speaks volumes about all that is wrong in the Church today, and speaks more against Fr. Corapi and his ministry than any sex scandal could.
First of all, it should be noted that Santa Cruz Media isn't an unbiased party in this matter. As will be seen from this statement, Santa Cruz Media stands to lose a lot of revenue in the short term if Fr. Corapi's administrative leave and suspension of priestly faculties is a long one, and in the long run if it's permanent. This doesn't mean that I believe Ruffatto is being willfully dishonest or otherwise, but I definitely think he's got his eye firmly fixed on the bottom line. Fr. Corapi merchandise is the only product that Santa Cruz Media sells.
Santa Cruz Media, Inc. is the owner of all of Fr. John Corapi’s intellectual property and the DVDs, CDs, and books that flow from it. [Which means they stand to lose everything.] We are a secular corporation and not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way. As such, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop or other official in the Catholic Church, although we have the utmost respect for Church authority. [What is being said without saying it is they will continue to sell Fr. Corapi merchandise, which, admittedly, is their business entirely. EWTN has come to a different conclusion for much more virtuous and prudent reasons.]
We fully support Rev. John Corapi in this terrible trial, not surprisingly having begun on Ash Wednesday. Through the sacrifice and struggle of the desert and all of the dark moments that this entails, we are confident that the glory of the risen Lord will shine forth from the power of the Resurrection and Easter. [I think this is a good reflection, and one that everyone, not just Fr. Corapi, should benefit from. However, it should be noted that not everyone in the Bible was happy with the events of Easter morning, and used duplicity and rumors to explain away the Resurrection.]
We have consulted with a number of canon lawyers. They have assured us that the actions of the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas are, on several points of canon law, illicit. [OK. So who were these canon lawyers, and what were their arguments? We aren't told. No arguments are presented. Why should I trust Santa Cruz Media's word about canon law?] It is our fervent hope that The Dallas Charter will be changed because of false accusations like this. [Hold on! How do we know they are false without any investigation having been done? Are we to conclude that they are false just because Fr. Corapi and Santa Cruz Media say they are? This is rather incredible. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the Dallas Charter, a religious superior or bishop has the right and duty to suspend priestly faculties for the good of the faithful. Of course, the priest has a right to appeal, but that doesn't mean individual priests have the ability to litigate with their superiors, especially when the salvation of souls is in question. They have the obligation to be reasonably obedient to their superiors. Given what the Church has had to endure for the last 10 years, it is perfectly reasonable to place a priest on administrative leave while the investigation proceeds.] There is no evidence at this time that Fr. Corapi did anything wrong, only the unsubstantiated rant of a former employee, who, after losing her job with this office, physically assaulted me and another employee and promised to “destroy” Father Corapi. We all continue to pray for this person, and we ask you to do the same. [I think this is saying too much to the general public. I heard this exact same rumor in a message sent to me on Facebook. It was nearly verbatim with Ruffatto's account, which makes me wonder if it was from the same source. The short of it, I deleted that message, and refused to share its contents because in my opinion it would be detraction to do so. Of course, Ruffatto is free to reveal whatever he wants, but I think he should take care when attacking another person's character publicly. This is something he should definitely reveal to those investigating this matter, but not something he should have thrown out to the general public. It makes me suspect that he is trying to manipulate public opinion, which in turn will influence the investigation.]
We sincerely believe that the work Fr. Corapi has done is of greatest value to the Church, hence hated by the devil. [There are also things he said that the devil likes; for example, Fr. Corapi riled against the Traditional Latin Mass on more than one occasion.] We fully intend to make Fr. Corapi’s material available as a service to the Church and the world for as long as we possibly can. [A more explicit admission than what they offered above about the continued sale of Corapi merchandise. If the investigation ends and Fr. Corapi remains suspended, what then? I have this suspicion that they will keep on selling it.]
The Church provides no financial support to Fr. Corapi. He has to pay for his own legal representation, medical costs, food, housing, etc. We have never accepted donations or charitable contributions of any kind. We are supporting Father’s efforts to defend himself. Your purchase of products from Santa Cruz Media helps provide the funding for Father’s continued work as well as the legal expenses he continues to incur as a result of these malicious allegations. [I think it is probably one of the most disingenuous marketing pitches I've heard in a long time. "Fr. Corapi has no other financial support than what he gets from us selling these products, so come on and buy them!" What?? Talk about capitalizing on a tragedy! I'm very disappointed by this statement from Ruffatto. I would call it stupid if I didn't think that right now hundreds of Corapi fans are clicking away on their Santa Cruz Media shopping carts.
By the way, isn't Fr. Corapi well off financially? Didn't he recently win a multi-million dollar law suit? Oh yes! He did. He was awarded $2,712,281 for his role as a whistleblower in a false claims lawsuit against Redding Medical Center in 2007, and was awarded another $500,000 in an insurance case. No, Mr. Ruffatto, I think Fr. Corapi should be able to meet his expenses just fine.]
Father Corapi and all of us here at Santa Cruz Media, Inc. greatly appreciate your kindness, support, and prayers. Please continue to pray for Father Corapi and his accuser, as well as all priests who find themselves in this unfortunate situation.
Sincerely [hmm] yours in Christ,
Bobbi Ruffatto
Vice President of Operations [Full disclosure, because you won't get it from Ruffatto: Fr. John Corapi is the founder and President of Operations for Santa Cruz Media, Inc.]
Santa Cruz Media, Inc.
I'm primarily concerned here by the continued attack on Fr. Corapi's superior, and especially the bishop of Corpus Christi, Mulvey. There's a lack of both humility and obedience on the part of Fr. Corapi for publicly lashing out at his superiors, which I've already mentioned on this blog. Making the claim that a bishop acted illicitly, but then not following that up with a reasonable argument as to why they believe the bishop's action was illicit, is intellectually dishonest, and I think it's manipulative.
Secondly, I'm disgusted by Ruffatto's naked marketing scheme to capitalize on this tragedy by insinuating that the sales of Corapi merchandise is the only source of financial assistance for Fr. Corapi. In fact, Fr. Corapi is independently wealthy, or at least should be, after his multi-million dollar award for being a whistleblower in a medical false claims suit.
Thirdly, while I certainly wouldn't want to hang my hat on the accuser's coat peg, I definitely think Ruffatto's statement is insincere and even duplicitous. There's more going on here than the public knows, and I think this something more that we don't know is the real reason why Fr. Corapi has been placed on administrative leave and why his priestly faculties have been suspended. I'm not saying Fr. Corapi has necessarily done anything wrong, and I still think this will be resolved in Fr. Corapi's favor. However, perhaps he has gotten involved with not a few crooked people looking to make a quick buck on the backs of sincere Catholics starving for the truth.
Which brings me to my last point, which is apropos to this blog. Neo-cons lack, due to the shallow and spiritually arid nature of the novus ordo liturgy and the rampant Modernism and liberalism in the Church, any significant spiritual depth. As a result, neo-cons have a tendency to latch on to anything that seems to provide a greater degree of spiritual depth than they typically find in the novus ordo establishment parish. This searching for depth explains things like the Medugorje fraud. It also explains why so many mainstream Catholics seem to need celebrity priests like Fr. Corapi. One of Fr. Corapi's supporters had this to say on Facebook: "Fr. Corapi is the truth."
Truth is a Man, but He isn't Fr. Corapi. For a Catholic to identify the incarnate truth as someone other than Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, speaks volumes about all that is wrong in the Church today, and speaks more against Fr. Corapi and his ministry than any sex scandal could.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Fr. Corapi Lashes Out at the Church for Unfair Treatment
Fr. Corapi has been accused of drug use and sexual assault by an adult woman who had formerly been employed by him. As a result, Fr. Corapi has been put on administrative leave until the accusations can be sorted out.
Fr. Corapi posted this on the home page of his website:
I don't think the accusations are credible, given what I've heard about the character of the woman making them, and from what I know about Fr. Corapi. By the way, this isn't the first time a "crazy" woman has made incredible accusations of this nature against Fr. Corapi. Fr. Corapi is a target. More on that in a moment.
This kind of treatment certainly isn't akin to American jurisprudence, and it may not be fair. However, I'll leave that question up to the canon lawyers and Fr. Corapi's civil lawyers. What I find interesting is Fr. Corapi's expression of angst directed toward church leaders and current policies set in place as a response to the priest-sex abuse scandal. This brings up two questions for me:
1. Why doesn't Fr. Corapi direct some this righteous anger toward his brother priests and bishops whose actions and inaction, respectively, necessitated the current state of affairs?
Speaking as a parent, and given recent history and what we now know about the extent of the problem, I would prefer that priests and other church workers accused of ANY deviancy be removed from ministry until the allegations can be determined credible or not. This may not seem fair to those falsely accused, but it is more than fair to our children. No, I don't like it, but nor do I like the fact that known perverts were ordained by liberal bishops at the bidding of liberal vocation directors and seminary establishments. That is the reason why Fr. Corapi was given this cross, and I would ask and hope he offers this suffering up in reparation for the sacrilege of the priest-sex abuse scandal.
2. I wonder if the same neo-cons who lament the Church being attacked when a traditionalist criticizes the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, will cry fowl now that Fr. Corapi is lashing out at the current Church establishment?
This may be risking pettiness, but it seems that the Fr. Corapi's of the world are free to criticize policies that have been endorsed by the current pontiff, while traditionalists aren't. There's an obvious double standard in the neo-con camp, but the neo-cons at this time are the most visible and vociferous camp in the modern Church, so it is doubtful that they will notice their double dealing.
This leads me to my last opinion regarding this unhappy situation. Thanks to EWTN and popular internet websites and blogs, the neo-cons are the most visible and vociferous camp in the modern Church, and, despite the liberal If-I-be-nice-they-will-be-nice-back mentality, the Church has real and vicious enemies who will take any and all opportunities to attack and discredit. This isn't the first time in recent history that a darling of the neo-cons has been put to the rack, and it will not be the last.
The problem is, are the neo-cons properly equipped to withstand these attacks? Don't get me wrong, traditionalists aren't impeccable or incapable of being discredited. However, traditionalists at least can fathom a world that is populated by a substantial portion of reprobate enemies of Christ and the Church.
Neo-cons seem bent on hugging the evil out of others, a program that has failed time after time. After a half century of "hating the sin but loving the sinner", the only thing that seems to have been accomplished is that there are now a lot more sinners running around to love. No, that program is just as flawed as the expression "hate the sin but love the sinner", which is a misinterpretation of what St. Augustine wrote.
At the very least, traditional Catholics have enough sense to have a vehement aversion and abhorrence of the unrepentant and manifest sinner, heretic or schismatic, which in turn indicates to them who they can and cannot trust. It also gives the traditionalist a realistic expectation of what they face, and what they face, the same enemies that are attacking the neo-cons in force, is a pretty terrible force of evil in our world, capable of destroying reputations and careers. No battle can be won, if one doesn't know who or what they are fighting.
I'm confident that Fr. Corapi will come out of this as unscathed as is reasonably possible. I think he is a victim of a false accusation, his liberal brother priests and bishops who allowed the Church to be infested by perverts, and the neo-cons who have painted a way-too-rosy-picture of human nature. However, I disagree with him that he is a victim of the Church or current Church policy.
Nevertheless, you can be sure I'll be praying for him, especially that this episode will lead him toward traditional Catholicism and the Traditional Latin Mass. God bless Fr. Corapi!
Fr. Corapi posted this on the home page of his website:
I’ll certainly cooperate with the process, but personally believe that it is seriously flawed, and is tantamount to treating the priest as guilty “just in case”, then through the process determining if he is innocent. The resultant damage to the accused is immediate, irreparable, and serious, especially for someone like myself, since I am so well known. I am not alone in this assessment, as multiple canon lawyers and civil and criminal attorneys have stated publicly that the procedure does grave damage to the accused from the outset, regardless of rhetoric denying this, and has little regard for any form of meaningful due process.
I don't think the accusations are credible, given what I've heard about the character of the woman making them, and from what I know about Fr. Corapi. By the way, this isn't the first time a "crazy" woman has made incredible accusations of this nature against Fr. Corapi. Fr. Corapi is a target. More on that in a moment.
This kind of treatment certainly isn't akin to American jurisprudence, and it may not be fair. However, I'll leave that question up to the canon lawyers and Fr. Corapi's civil lawyers. What I find interesting is Fr. Corapi's expression of angst directed toward church leaders and current policies set in place as a response to the priest-sex abuse scandal. This brings up two questions for me:
1. Why doesn't Fr. Corapi direct some this righteous anger toward his brother priests and bishops whose actions and inaction, respectively, necessitated the current state of affairs?
Speaking as a parent, and given recent history and what we now know about the extent of the problem, I would prefer that priests and other church workers accused of ANY deviancy be removed from ministry until the allegations can be determined credible or not. This may not seem fair to those falsely accused, but it is more than fair to our children. No, I don't like it, but nor do I like the fact that known perverts were ordained by liberal bishops at the bidding of liberal vocation directors and seminary establishments. That is the reason why Fr. Corapi was given this cross, and I would ask and hope he offers this suffering up in reparation for the sacrilege of the priest-sex abuse scandal.
2. I wonder if the same neo-cons who lament the Church being attacked when a traditionalist criticizes the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI, will cry fowl now that Fr. Corapi is lashing out at the current Church establishment?
This may be risking pettiness, but it seems that the Fr. Corapi's of the world are free to criticize policies that have been endorsed by the current pontiff, while traditionalists aren't. There's an obvious double standard in the neo-con camp, but the neo-cons at this time are the most visible and vociferous camp in the modern Church, so it is doubtful that they will notice their double dealing.
This leads me to my last opinion regarding this unhappy situation. Thanks to EWTN and popular internet websites and blogs, the neo-cons are the most visible and vociferous camp in the modern Church, and, despite the liberal If-I-be-nice-they-will-be-nice-back mentality, the Church has real and vicious enemies who will take any and all opportunities to attack and discredit. This isn't the first time in recent history that a darling of the neo-cons has been put to the rack, and it will not be the last.
The problem is, are the neo-cons properly equipped to withstand these attacks? Don't get me wrong, traditionalists aren't impeccable or incapable of being discredited. However, traditionalists at least can fathom a world that is populated by a substantial portion of reprobate enemies of Christ and the Church.
Neo-cons seem bent on hugging the evil out of others, a program that has failed time after time. After a half century of "hating the sin but loving the sinner", the only thing that seems to have been accomplished is that there are now a lot more sinners running around to love. No, that program is just as flawed as the expression "hate the sin but love the sinner", which is a misinterpretation of what St. Augustine wrote.
At the very least, traditional Catholics have enough sense to have a vehement aversion and abhorrence of the unrepentant and manifest sinner, heretic or schismatic, which in turn indicates to them who they can and cannot trust. It also gives the traditionalist a realistic expectation of what they face, and what they face, the same enemies that are attacking the neo-cons in force, is a pretty terrible force of evil in our world, capable of destroying reputations and careers. No battle can be won, if one doesn't know who or what they are fighting.
I'm confident that Fr. Corapi will come out of this as unscathed as is reasonably possible. I think he is a victim of a false accusation, his liberal brother priests and bishops who allowed the Church to be infested by perverts, and the neo-cons who have painted a way-too-rosy-picture of human nature. However, I disagree with him that he is a victim of the Church or current Church policy.
Nevertheless, you can be sure I'll be praying for him, especially that this episode will lead him toward traditional Catholicism and the Traditional Latin Mass. God bless Fr. Corapi!
Saturday, March 19, 2011
DICI Reports Early April Release of SP Instruction
DICI is reporting that Andrea Tornielli is indicating an early April release of the Ecclesia Dei instruction document concerning the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. DICI also offers some insight on the rumored restrictions regarding ordination according to the 1962 missal:
Allow me to comment on the parenthetical from the DICI article. I seriously doubt any meaningful restriction would be placed on the use of the traditional ordination rites for Ecclesia Dei institutes of diocesan right or otherwise. The suggestion of restrictions for Ecclesia Dei institutes, which I haven't heard in any of the rumors thus far, seems to have been inserted by the author of the DICI article. I can only speculate that the reason for is the sometimes harsh criticisms of Ecclesia Dei institutes by the SSPX.
The reason given for any restrictions, namely the suppression of the minor orders and the subdiaconate, seems perfectly acceptable in the case of diocesan priests and the present state of diocesan seminaries.
We certainly hope that in the near future, this unjust and unnecessary suppression of the minor orders, which has done so much harm in the modern Church, will be be undone. However, in the meantime it makes sense that the Commission wants to ensure that priestly ordinations, if done according to the traditional rites, are done in full, and not piecemeal. It would not be in keeping with Summorum Pontificum for someone to be ordained to the diaconate or the priesthood according to the traditional rites without having first been admitted to the minor orders and the subdiaconate.
It is apparent that nearly all diocesan seminaries are, at the very least, unequipped to provide all the minor orders necessary for ordinations according to the traditional rites. In addition, formation boards and bishops will probably be unwilling to provide a completely different formation program (one that includes reception of the minor orders and subdiaconate) for one set of seminarians over and above the usual formation program (that includes only the ministries of acolyte and lector) for seminarians at the same school. Such a situation seems untenable to me.
This whole discussion begs the question, which I'm sure isn't too far from the minds of those in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: If a young man wants to be ordained according to the traditional rites, why doesn't that young man seek ordination in one of the many Ecclesia Dei institutes?
It should also be remembered that being required to seek approval from the Commission does not constitute a suppression. The possibility of using older rites of ordination for diocesan priests, according to all the rumors that have surfaced so far, is not being ruled. Exceptions can and probably will be made. I can see this in the case of older vocations, men who have passed the maximum age for admission into an Ecclesia Dei institute.
To make a long story short: it still doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling. Will the document satisfy all traditional Catholics? No, it won't. However, there is no indication that the Vatican is starting to backpedal on the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or the rights and prerogatives contained in Summorum Pontificum.
In contrast, other rumors talk about notable restrictions. Thus ordination would remain outside the practical scope of the Motu Proprio, so that if a diocesan seminarian (or one from an Ecclesia Dei Institute of diocesan right) asked to be ordained according to the traditional rite, the diocesan bishop would now have to request permission from the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The reason for this regulation is the suppression by Paul VI of the minor orders and the subdiaconate, which were replaced by “ministries” but still remain in the traditional Pontifical.
Allow me to comment on the parenthetical from the DICI article. I seriously doubt any meaningful restriction would be placed on the use of the traditional ordination rites for Ecclesia Dei institutes of diocesan right or otherwise. The suggestion of restrictions for Ecclesia Dei institutes, which I haven't heard in any of the rumors thus far, seems to have been inserted by the author of the DICI article. I can only speculate that the reason for is the sometimes harsh criticisms of Ecclesia Dei institutes by the SSPX.
The reason given for any restrictions, namely the suppression of the minor orders and the subdiaconate, seems perfectly acceptable in the case of diocesan priests and the present state of diocesan seminaries.
We certainly hope that in the near future, this unjust and unnecessary suppression of the minor orders, which has done so much harm in the modern Church, will be be undone. However, in the meantime it makes sense that the Commission wants to ensure that priestly ordinations, if done according to the traditional rites, are done in full, and not piecemeal. It would not be in keeping with Summorum Pontificum for someone to be ordained to the diaconate or the priesthood according to the traditional rites without having first been admitted to the minor orders and the subdiaconate.
It is apparent that nearly all diocesan seminaries are, at the very least, unequipped to provide all the minor orders necessary for ordinations according to the traditional rites. In addition, formation boards and bishops will probably be unwilling to provide a completely different formation program (one that includes reception of the minor orders and subdiaconate) for one set of seminarians over and above the usual formation program (that includes only the ministries of acolyte and lector) for seminarians at the same school. Such a situation seems untenable to me.
This whole discussion begs the question, which I'm sure isn't too far from the minds of those in the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: If a young man wants to be ordained according to the traditional rites, why doesn't that young man seek ordination in one of the many Ecclesia Dei institutes?
It should also be remembered that being required to seek approval from the Commission does not constitute a suppression. The possibility of using older rites of ordination for diocesan priests, according to all the rumors that have surfaced so far, is not being ruled. Exceptions can and probably will be made. I can see this in the case of older vocations, men who have passed the maximum age for admission into an Ecclesia Dei institute.
To make a long story short: it still doesn't seem to me that the sky is falling. Will the document satisfy all traditional Catholics? No, it won't. However, there is no indication that the Vatican is starting to backpedal on the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite or the rights and prerogatives contained in Summorum Pontificum.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Muslim "logic"
Please pray for the Copts in Egypt that must suffer, often by losing their homes and lives, this Muslim "logic":
Will this "logic" be coming to a neighborhood near you?
The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family’s honor, which led the woman’s brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians.
Will this "logic" be coming to a neighborhood near you?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Illinois has an immigration problem
This isn't a political blog, but...
There's an obvious language problem, since the recent immigrants from Wisconsin and Indiana only speak jiberish. But it's a good thing Rahm Emmanuel is there to interpret.
Also, it appears that these new immigrants refuse to work.
There's an obvious language problem, since the recent immigrants from Wisconsin and Indiana only speak jiberish. But it's a good thing Rahm Emmanuel is there to interpret.
Also, it appears that these new immigrants refuse to work.
Pope Benedict XVI on the Jews
AP article can be read here.
However, this article subtly misconstrues what Ratzinger wrote. Dr. Robert Moynihan writes in his email letter:
However, this article subtly misconstrues what Ratzinger wrote. Dr. Robert Moynihan writes in his email letter:
If one goes to Google now and types in "Pope on Jews" you will find that this article is now cited numerous times among the first items, suggesting that this "exoneration" by Benedict of "the Jews" for blame in the execution of Jesus is the central point of Benedict's teaching on Jews and Judaism.
But this is not an accurate presentation of what Benedict is saying.
Rather, what Benedict is saying, clearly, is that the blood of Christ will bring about the redemption of the Jews from their sins.
Here again is what the Pope writes: When in Matthew’s account the “whole people” say: “His blood be on us and on our children” (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus’ blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation... These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation.
The Pope certainly does not hold to a theory that all the Jewish people without exception were complicit in and guilty of the decision to execute Jesus (the theory of "deicide"). This is clear.
But, in fact, the teaching that the Jewish people, as a whole (corporately) committed "deicide" has always been a distortion of true Christian teaching, has never been the established doctrine of the Church, and this is why the teaching of Nostra Aetate (drafted and promulgated in 1965 at the close of the Second Vatican Council) — which makes clear this point unambiguouly — is not an innovation, as is sometimes alleged, not a "new" teaching of the Church, but a clarification of the Church's perennial teaching.
So Benedict does not "exonerate" the "Jews" for "Jesus' death"; nor is it in his thought to do so.
There is, in fact, a passage in these excerpts from the book where the Pope does address head on the question: "Who exactly were Jesus' accusers?"
The answer he gives is: not all the Jewish people, but the Temple aristocracy, the leaders of the Jewish people and faith at that time.
He writes:
Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus’ accusers? Who insisted that he be condemned to death? We must take note of the different answers that the Gospels give to this question. According to John it was simply “the Jews”. But John’s use of this expression does not in any way indicate — as the modern reader might suppose — the people of Israel in general, even less is it “racist” in character. After all, John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews. In John’s Gospel this word has a precise and clearly defined meaning: he is referring to the Temple aristocracy. So the circle of accusers who instigate Jesus’ death is precisely indicated in the Fourth Gospel and clearly limited: it is the Temple aristocracy — and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus (7:50-52) shows.
But again, even here, as Benedict notes, "it is the Temple aristocracy — and not without certain exceptions, as the reference to Nicodemus shows," who were Jesus' acccusers and sought his death.
So in these lines Benedict reaffirms the traditional Church teaching that much of the Jewish leadership of the time of Jesus, in fact, a preponderant part, did not see Jesus as Israel's messiah and king, but rejected him and sought his death for the crime of blasphemy.
But this is not remarkable.
What is remarkable about the Pope's interpretation of the cry "his blood be on our heads" is that Benedict makes explicit an argument, a truth, that I don't think any other Christian teacher has ever proposed so strongly in this way: not that this cry ("let his blood be upon us") was not uttered; not that the Jewish crowds did not say this; but that they did not have any comprehension, not the slightest inkling, of what they were actually crying out for: that they would have upon them or over them a protection of innocent, sacrificial blood, the blood of this sinless, rejected king, who, though rejected, would not, in the end, be a curse to them, but a blessing, not their condemnation, but their salvation.
This is a profound religious and mystical insight on the Pope's part, and, as far as I know, completely original.
What the Pope has discovered in his long meditation on Christ, and on the Jews, and on Christ's crucifixion, is not that the people of Israel were scattered, and the Temple was destroyed, because of any wrath against them on Christ's part, or God's part, but that all their loss and shame and sorrow were never in the will of God, who desires reconciliation in holiness, and true peace.
For this insight alone, Benedict should be honored and applauded by Jew and Gentile alike, for his words are prophetic... and much needed in our time.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Do you think the novus ordo is valid?
Fr. Zuhlsdorf over at What Does the Prayer Really Say? has this poll on whether "hard core" traditionalists think the novus ordo is valid or not.
So far the obvious answer is prevailing: Yes, it is valid.
The poll is in response to the outrageous and ignorant comment of William Oddie from the Catholic Herald, who wrote: "SSPX actually demands that Rome should repudiate the Council and accept that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, even Protestant."
This statement is so off the mark it makes one wonder why the Catholic Herald considers Mr. Oddie competent enough to comment on any thing pertaining to Catholicism, much less the SSPX or traditionalists.
I have never met an SSPX priest who thought the novus ordo was invalid. I have known some sedevacantists who held this opinion, but not among the SSPX or other traditionalists groups.
If it was invalid, then why would we care? Do we care about Lutheran services, or Anglican services, or Methodist services?
Is it Protestant? Yes and no.
The novus ordo isn't Protestant, per se. After all, it is a Catholic rite belonging to the Catholic Church. However, that does not mean it isn't Protestant in conception. In fact, it is an objective and discernible fact that it is almost a word-for-word copy of the 1959 Calvanist ritual of the Taizé community. This is what traditionalists mean when they say the novus ordo is "Protestant". Mr. Oddie, though, probably doesn't have the research skills to even look up the word "Taizé" on Google, so, of course, he wouldn't know this.
From the ignorance of the neo-cons, libera nos, Jesu!
So far the obvious answer is prevailing: Yes, it is valid.
The poll is in response to the outrageous and ignorant comment of William Oddie from the Catholic Herald, who wrote: "SSPX actually demands that Rome should repudiate the Council and accept that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, even Protestant."
This statement is so off the mark it makes one wonder why the Catholic Herald considers Mr. Oddie competent enough to comment on any thing pertaining to Catholicism, much less the SSPX or traditionalists.
I have never met an SSPX priest who thought the novus ordo was invalid. I have known some sedevacantists who held this opinion, but not among the SSPX or other traditionalists groups.
If it was invalid, then why would we care? Do we care about Lutheran services, or Anglican services, or Methodist services?
Is it Protestant? Yes and no.
The novus ordo isn't Protestant, per se. After all, it is a Catholic rite belonging to the Catholic Church. However, that does not mean it isn't Protestant in conception. In fact, it is an objective and discernible fact that it is almost a word-for-word copy of the 1959 Calvanist ritual of the Taizé community. This is what traditionalists mean when they say the novus ordo is "Protestant". Mr. Oddie, though, probably doesn't have the research skills to even look up the word "Taizé" on Google, so, of course, he wouldn't know this.
From the ignorance of the neo-cons, libera nos, Jesu!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)