Divided Loyalties

Sometimes I think my kids have what is common called "selective hearing." This means that they hear and obey me when it is convenient for them, but when it is inconvenient, then they ignore me or claim to have not heard what I said. Most kids engage in this sort of thing at one time or another. And why do they do it? For the purpose of taxing the borders of the permissible as much as they possibly can. They push the envelope until they reach the point where you will not allow them to push it anymore. It has to do with authority and what one can get away with.

It is very obvious to me that many in the Church have selective hearing when it comes to obedience. However, selective hearing is not the only issue here. Another thing my kids do to me is they try to play mother and father against each other. "Dad, mom already said I can do it!" And then, when mom is against them, "Remember mom, dad is the boss of the family and he said we could do it." I think they know they are supposed to obey me ultimately, but they will very quickly place my wife between themselves and I if they think she supports their position better.

When I was at NCYC, I asked a woman flat out who deserved out obedience, the Pope or the bishops. Now of course ideally, obeidence to the Pope should be manifest by obedience to the bishops, who (in theory) should be with the Pope. We all know that is not the reality. So, in the event that there is a divergence between what is coming from the Vatican and what is coming from the USCCB, to whom does our allegiance belong? This woman unreservedly said to the USCCB. But if (and I can't imagine this would happen) the USCCB started taking more orthodox positions and the Vatican started taking heterodox positions, I imagine then she and her kind would all be trumpeting about their loyalty to the Pope in that situation. It has nothing to do with loyalty. It has to do with whoever happens to support your position. By the way, this is not just an issue with liberal or dissenting Catholics; even conservatives and Trads can do this, too.

Take this common example. When the issue of Medjugorje comes up, Medjugorje supporters tend to claim that there has never been a ban on pilgrimages to Medjugorje. When you point out that the local bishops of Mostar have repeatedly forbidden pilgrimages there for the past twenty-odd years, they shrug and say, "Yes, but those are just from the local bishop. The Vatican has never said we can't go there." Clearly in this case, the local bishop's authority counts for nothing at all, even though it falls to him to regulate pilgrimages in his diocese. They will settle for nothing less than a declaration by the Pope in this matter. By the way, the very reason the Vatican has not ruled on this yet is exactly because the Vatican understands that this is the bishop's role and unless the bishops request the Vatican to make a statement, they are not going to. Jesus said, "If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one should rise from the dead." If people refuse to listen to the bishop in his own diocese, then would they listen to the Vatican?

On the other hand, when it comes to things like standing at communion or receiving on the tongue, liberals are very quick to point out that the norm in the United States is standing. When you point out that the Vatican has said that nobody can be denied communion for kneeling and that kneeling has always been the preferred method of reception, they say that nevertheless we must give obedience in these matters to the bishops (the same bishops they ignore in other matters) and that even though we are under Rome nominally (somebody actually said this to me), our first obedience lies with the bishop.

So which is it? Has anybody else experienced this sort of double-speak? Well, just for the record, let's remember that the Pope (not the USCCB) is the visible sign of unity for the Church and its authorative head on earth and that our communion with the Church is determined by our communion with the Bishop of Rome, and with those bishops who are in communion with Rome. The charism of infallibility was not given to the USCCB, but to Peter and his successors.

How long is a homily supposed to be?

The Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, His Excellency Most Reverend Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige , recently gave another statement regarding the Motu Proprio to the Italian journal Petrus (if you recall, Ranjith made news last month with his statement in the Netherlands that those who resisted Summorum Pontificum were instruments of the devil). The new statement reiterates his earlier calls for episcopal obedience in allowing free reign to Summorum for the implemenation of the Tridentine Mass. Fr. Zuhlsdorf has posted the entire interview (here) and I will not repost it on this blog, but I did want to quote an interesting statement that the Archbishop made regarding the length of homilies.

After talking about abuses of the Novus Ordo and episcopal resistance to the Motu Proprio, Ranjith goes on to cite long homilies as one form of liturgical abuse that is seldom mentioned. This point is very timely; I have often thought on this, but the abuse of long homilies often sneaks under the radar because of the manifest nature of the other more grievious abuses. Ranjith points out that despite the unity of the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it remains the case that the Eucharistic liturgy is the center of the Mass and that the homily ought to be a simple and brief explanation of the readings with an exhortation to pursue holiness, not a long, drawn out affair full of the priest's personal opinions and personality quirks. Interestingly enough, he draws a connection between the entertainment oriented worship that so often occurs with the Novus Ordo and the possibility of the development of a personality cult with regards to the priest who happens to be a gifted speaker: "I have to laugh when I hear it said, even by friends, that in a some parish, a priest is a ‘saint’ because of his homily or how well he speaks. Holy Mass is sacrifice, gift, mystery, independently of the priest celebrating it. It is important, nay rather, fundamental that the priest step aside: the protagonist of the Mass is Christ. So I really don’t understand these Eucharistic celebrations turned into shows with dances, songs or applause, as frequently happens with the Novus Ordo."

So how long ought a homily to be? Ranjith says that 10 to 15 minutes is an adequate time to explicate the readings, exhort the faithful and dispose their minds to marvel at the sacred mystery that is about to be carried out on the altar:

"I’m against dances and applause during Masses, which aren’t a circus or stadium. Regarding homilies, they must be about, as the Pope has underscored, the catechetical dimension exclusively, avoiding sociologizing and pointless chatter. For example, priests jump onto some political point because they didn’t prepare their homily well, which really ought to be scrupulously worked on. An excessively long homily is synonymous with poor preparation: the right length of time for a sermon should be 10 minutes, 15 at most. You have to remember that the high point of the celebration is the Eucharistic mystery, without of course intending to downplay the liturgy of the Word, but rather to make clear how to carry out a correct liturgy."

By the way, sorry about my brief posts; this has been a very busy week!

Excellent Example of a Magisterial Document

Traditionalists have frequently been critical of the modern Magisterium for issuing way too many documents on way too many issues that are all way too long and say way too little. A good example is Gaudium et Spes, which despite its 90+ pages, manages to say very little of substance and appears to the reader in 2007 as one of the most dated, time-bound and wordy of all the Vatican II documents. We have yearned for the former days when popes like Pius X issued simple decrees in the forms of affirmations followed by anathemas that were usually less than ten pages in length. Consider even older bulls, like the pivotal bulls of Boniface VIII, Clericos Laicos (1296) and Unam Sanctam (1302), both of which are a single printed page in length and yet were of immense importance in the Church's history.

I would like to give an example of a modern document from the Magisterium that I think gives us hope that the traditional way of promoting Catholic teaching is not dead. This is a document called Note on the Minister of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, put out by Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF in 2005 and meant to answer objections as to why deacons and lay persons could not administer the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick

There are three things about this document I would like to draw your attention to. First, its brevity. Printed out, it is only about three pages long with the accompanying letter.

Second, it is a very definitive, cut and dry definition. It states the Catholic position and then defines it as definitive tenenda. This is a Latin phrase which an earlier 1998 CDF document on the Professio Fidei defined as meaning a truth which "Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to... based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church." There is no ambiguity here; not one iota. The doctrine is clarified, is given the title definitive tenenda, and it is declared that anyone who disagrees would be out of communion with the Church.

Third, I would like to draw attention to the fact that most of the brief document is spent reiterating Catholic Tradition. The Council of Florence, Gratian's Decretals and even Pope Innocent I are all quoted in support of the orthodox position; and that is only a few of the sources named. This demonstrates amply a point which Fr. Ripperger, FSSP, has pointed out many times: when a Magisterium does feel the need to issue a decree on a matter of doctrine, it is the new decree that must be interpreted in light of the old, not vice versa. We can see this in this particular document: Ratzinger lists sufficient Scriptural and Traditional proofs for the orthodox position and proceeds to restate what the Church has always taught on the matter.

I urge you all to view this document. Even if you don't care about why a deacon can't administer the Sacrament of Anointing (which we Trads know is really called Extreme Unction), I still recommend you check this out an an example of this definitive, unambiguous, brief Magisterial document in line with Catholic Tradition. Let's hope that Benedict XVI follows this model in his future encyclicals.

Burke Would Deny Giuliani Communion

Kudos to Archbishop Raymond Burke for his recent statement that he would deny Holy Communion to any pro-abortion candidate who presented himself, citing Giuliani specifically. Of course, Burke made news in 2004 for saying he would deny Holy Communion to pro-abort John Kerry.

As always, Giuliani and the media attempted to play the "don't judge" card against Burke. When asked to comment on Burke's statement, Giuliani said, "Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know. There's freedom of religion in this country. There's no established religion, and archbishops have a right to their opinion. Everybody has a right to their opinion." That's nice, except this has nothing to do with "freedom of religion." It has to do with clergy of a respective religion being able to enforce the moral dictates of that particular religion, which in this case includes denying Communion to persons in a state of grave, persistent public sin, like Giuliani.

The media tried to catch Burke in a contradiction by asking him if he would deny communion to those who support the death-penalty or preemptive war, to which Burke responded, "It's a little more complicated in that case." Of course, the media sees abortion and preemptive war as equal in value, when they are certainly not. Everybody who has ever taken Moral Theology 101 knows that the application of the death-penalty or of a war are prudential matters that may or may not be evil depending on circumstances; but abortion is intrinsically evil and must always be opposed. Another kudos to Burke for making this differentiation.

Also in response to Burke, Giuliani came back with the standard, "I'm guided very, very often about, 'Don't judge others, lest you be judged." Raymond Burke gave an excellent rebuttal to this when he responded that a denial of Communion was not "judgment." Canon law and Church discipline can only judge exterior acts, not interior dispositions. "What the state of his soul is is between God and him," Burke said, but reiterated that, judging by external actions, Giuliani was in a state of objective, persistent and public sin (his strong support of abortion and his multiple divorce and remarriages; only his first marriage was annulled). Therefore, Church discipline says that he should not receive the Sacrament.

But now look at this odd comment by Giuliani from August, 2007. When a voter in Iowa asked him if he was a "traditional, practicing Roman Catholic," he said: "My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not-so-good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests." So if he wants it left to the priests, doesn't that mean that Archbishop Burke is qualified to speak on his situation? But when a cleric does speak out, Giuliani says "Oh, that's just his opinion!"

One final odd Giuliani statement: "I have very, very strong views on religion that come about from having wanted to be a priest when I was younger, having studied theology for four years in college." Presumably this refers to his time at Bishop Loughlin Memorial High and Manhattan College. If we look at his bio, we see that he was born in 1944 and that his college years were from 1961-1965, not exactly the best time in this country to have been studying theology, as Giuliani claims to have.

Giuliani closed his comments with the sorry old line of saying that he personally accepted Christianity, but didn't want to impose it on others: "So it's a very, very important part of my life," he said. "But I think in a democracy and in a government like ours, my religion is my way of looking at God, and other people have other ways of doing it, and some people don't believe in God. I think that's unfortunate. I think their life would be a lot fuller if they did, but they have that right."

I pray that no Catholics vote for false-Catholic Rudy Giuliani. To have an apostate, liberal pro-Choice thrice-divorced and remarried "Catholic" in the White House would not only be a slap in the face to the Catholic Church, but would be a stain upon the office of the Presidency (which is already stained as it is!). This is another example of an American Catholic thinking that the universal laws, customs and doctrines of the Church somehow don't apply to him because "we have freedom of religion." This is the heresy of Americanism at its worst.

Cardinal Dulles stricken with "neurological problem"

This just came in from the Office of Catechesis in my diocese; Avery Cardinal Dulles was scheduled to come speak here this month, but this morning the Diocese announced that he would not be available because:

Sister Anne-Marie Kirmse, OP, Personal Assistant to His Eminence, Avery Cardinal Dulles, contacted the Diocesan Office of Catechesis with the news that Cardinal Dulles has developed a sudden neurological problem which has rendered speech near impossible. Therefore, with regret, it is announced that due to this sudden physical ailment, Avery Cardinal Dulles hascanceled his visit to the Diocese. Cardinal Dulles' doctors have determined that he did not suffer a stroke; however, the origin of this neurological condition remains as yet unknown. He remains alert and able to communicate by writing. The Cardinal is undergoing testing to determine the exact nature of his condition and the correct course of treatment.

Very odd, indeed. I do not know of any other neurological problem besides a stroke that has these effects. Please keep Cardinal Dulles in your prayers; I know he is not the best one we have, but he is pretty good, as far as Cardinal's go.

Developing...