What if the Liturgical Reform Fails?

I think we need to step back and contemplate for a moment the awful reality that awaits us if the reform of the reform fails. The following is not from a real liturgy (it is from Fr. Richard Lo Hung & Friends), but I have no doubt that there are some in the Church who would like to see the spectacle below done in every Catholic liturgy.

Take heart then, Catholic, and steel your spine! The stakes of the battle are high!

Law says "Mom" and "Dad" offensive to Gays

As the saying goes, California is a country unto itself, which draws all the biggest nutcases and liberal wackos. Two new laws (called SB777 and AB14), signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, make the following provisions:

The use of the terms "mom", "dad" and "husband" and "wife" are to be banned from usage in the schools unless corresponding terms relating to gay couples are also included. Simply saying "mom" and "dad" promotes a discriminatory bias.

Also signed was AB394, which targets parents and teachers for such pro-gay indoctrination through "anti-harassment" training, CCF said.

Prohibits any "instruction" or school-sponsored "activity" that "promotes a discriminatory bias" against "gender" – the bill's definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes – as well as "sexual orientation." Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

An Index of Forbidden books is to be established; on the banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens.

Most outrageously: students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

AB394 promotes the same issues through state-funded publications, postings, curricula and handouts to students, parents and teachers.

Creates the circumstances where a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be convicted of "harassment," and a student who believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes.

Prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches. Affected will be day care centers, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs and others.

I want to say that it is unbelievable that this could happen in America, but I have seen way too much already to think anything is unbelievable anymore. I am simply flabbergasted by this law; normally, I'd have some commentary on it, but today I don't. I simply read it and am shocked. I think we ought to pray fervently for Gov. Schwarzenegger's conversion; but we ought to ask God (Who knows all hearts), that if the governor won't repent, that he would then be removed from this earth so that he can stop assisting in the dragging of other innocent souls to hell.

If you'd like to see the full article from World Net Daily that chronicles these abominations, click here.

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.

I hope the Pope doesn't fall for this one...

A body of 38 Muslim scholars has sent a petition to Pope Benedict XVI asking for more cooperation between Catholic and Muslims in promoting world peace. I hope the pope doesn't fall for this! First of all, Islam does not promote peace, except only as a means to furthering the end of global jihad. Secondly, though the document does not mention prayer specifically, it is worth pointing out that communio in sacris with heretics or pagans is never permitted. The only time it is justified, according to Church doctrine, is with Separated Brethren, but only for the purpose of praying for their reunion with Rome. So, let's hope the Pope does not go off offering to have prayer gathering with these Muslims. I think he is pretty solid, but he also feels much pressure to conform to the lamentable standard set by John Paul II. Below is the article from Zenit.org:

Muslim scholars have written to Benedict XVI and the heads of Christian churches to propose that the two faiths cooperate in creating peace and understanding in the world.Thursday's text comes a year after 38 Muslim scholars sent an open letter to the Pope in the wake of his address given at the University of Regensburg in September. The discourse had sparked controversy among some Muslim circles.The 138 signatories of this year's letter offer an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over what is most essential to their respective faiths -- the commandment of love.With over a half of the world's population consisting of Muslims and Christians, the letter's authors believe that easing world tensions can only come from peace and justice between these two faiths.The document calls for tolerance, understanding and moderation, and is signed by Muslim leaders, politicians and academics.

Obscure Anglo-Saxon Saints: St. Wilfrid of Ripon

Born in Northumberland in 634, St. Wilfrid was educated at Lindesfarne and then spent some time in Lyons and Rome. Returning to England, he was elected abbot of Ripon in 658 and introduced the Roman rules and practices in opposition to the celtic ways of northern England. In 664, he was the architect of the definitive victory of the Roman party at the Conference of Whitby. He was appointed Bishop of York and after some difficulty finally took possession of his See in 669. He labored zealously and founded many monasteries of the Benedictine Order, but he was obliged to appeal to Rome in order to prevent the subdivision of his diocese by St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury. While waiting for the case to be decided, he was forced to go into exile, and worked hard and long to evangelize the heathen south Saxons until his recall in 686. In 691, he had to retire again to the midland suntil Rome once again vindicated him. In 703, h resigned his post and retired to his monastery at Ripon where he spent his remaining time in prayer and penitential practices, until his death in 709. St. Wilfrid was an outstanding personage of his day, extremely capable and possessed of unbounded courage, remaining firm in his convictions despite running afoul of civil and ecclesiastical authorities. He helped bring the discipline of the English Church into line with that of Rome. He was also a dedicated pastor and a zealous and skilled missionary; his brief time spent in Friesland in 678-679 was the starting point for the great English mission to the Germanic peoples of continental Europe. His feast day is October 12th (today).

St. Wilfrid, ora pro nobis!

Pics of TLM in Detroit

Here are some pics of the TLM at St. Josaphat's Catholic Church in Detroit, MI. on Sunday, October 7th. St. Josaphat's was the only parish allowed to use the TLM under the indult and has celebrated the Traditional Mass every Sunday for years. Click here for the rest of the pictures in their online album. Enjoy.

When did smoking become a crime?

While abortion rages unrestricted throughout this country, taking thousands of human lives per day, our government is treating smokers as the real criminals for the base purpose of raising tax revenue! Smokers are increasingly being thrust out fo restaraunts, public places, and in some areas, entire cities. They suffer from much higher insurance rates (never mind the fact that probably 85% of smokers will never develop lung cancer), social stigmatization and absurdly high taxes on the cigarettes they purchase.

I am not a smoker, nor have I ever been one. I think smoking is gross, but by God, a man ought to have the right to sit down and calm his nerves with a peaceful smoke, or sit in a pub puffing on a pipe if he so pleases! Though I'm not a smoker, I am outraged that this one segment of the population is singled out for such intense abuse.

Consider this: On Tuesday, September 25th the House of Representatives passed a $6.10 per carton increase of the federal excise tax on cigarettes by a vote of 265 to 159. On Thursday, September 27th the Senate passed the same legislation by a vote of 67 to 29. State and federal cigarette taxes have been raised 73 times since the year 2000-increasing the average price of cigarettes 80% a pack! It is anticipated that the president will veto this, but it is by no means certain.

But, aren't the taxes being paid by big, fat tobacco corporations? Sure they are, but that doesn't make them right. I don't care if you are a blue collar working Joe or a billion dollar company, it is not right to single one industry out for such outrageous taxation, especially when these tax increases since 2000 amount to a 156% tax increase, which is passed on to the smoker. Taxes on tobacco companies equals to higher costs for the smoker.

Two things about this issue: one, it is often argued that higher taxes means less smokers. Well of course! If you tax anything 156%, chances are less people are going to do it. We could eliminate a lot of alcoholism in this country, too, if we were tax beer at 156%. And junk food, and sugar, and every other item that some bureaucrats and radical Leftists decide we should not be able to put into our bodies. But is this a licit way of reducing an unhealthy habit? Especially when smoking is such a difficult thing to break, persons who want to quit ought to be given help to kick the habit, not socked with huge fines for being addicted to tobacco. I think most worldly people I know drink too much, also. But you know what? I'll fight to the death to keep it legal because I fear the government trying to regulate what I can and cannot do more than I fear the possible negative consequences of drinking or smoking.

I urge you to visit this website to petition Congress and let them know they are going too far. Yes, this site is paid for by Philip Morris, but that shouldn't stop anybody from protesting an unfair 156% tax increase. Injustice is injustice, no matter to whom it is done, and singling out one particular segment of the populace for this punishing tax is criminal. It is a sign of the incompetence of our lawmakers that they can never think of a way to raise revenue without increasing taxes.

Interpretive norms for MP "quite soon"

According to an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale by Andrea Tornielli, an interpretive set of norms for implementing Summorum Pontificum might be released "quite soon." The reason? Benedict is keenly aware of all the foot dragging of many of the bishops; the article reports that Benedict was "quite displeased" with all of the "resistance." Ecclesia Dei reports that in the past weeks (since September 14th) it has been flooded with letters, questions and petitions from people angry about the luke-warm implementation of many bishops. I pray to God that Benedict issues an interpretive guidline and does it soon! While he's at it, he should issue one for Dei Verbum, Sacrosanctum Concilium and every other ambiguous Vatican document that has come out in the last 45 years! God bless Benedict XVI!

Private Revelation in Pinckney, MI.

Here is another story about a supposed private revelation of the Blessed Mother in southeast Michigan.

I first became aware of these apparitions by coming across several free booklets given away by the "Heavenly Grace" prayer group containing reputed messages of the Blessed Mother to one Carolyn Belprez-Kwiecinski of Pinkney, Michigan (north of Ann Arbor). The three booklets, Heavenly Grace, Standing in a Miracle and Loved for All Ages recount the messages of the Blessed Mother to Carolyn from December 1996 to November 2004. Before saying anything for good or ill about these messages, we will explain the nature of the messages and hear from the seer in her own words.

Carolyn says of her first message in 1996: "One afternoon while I was praying for help in choosing the right college, I asked to understand God's will. I clearly heard the words,"That which brings you closer to Him is always His will." I was stunned. I had heard someone speak to me in a way I had never before experienced. It was a voice that I did not hear with my ears, but within me. I knew in my heart who had spoken to me. It was Mary." Then, much like the Seers of Medjugorje, Carolyn was promised a message daily by Mary: "Because the Lord has allowed it to be so, I will give you each day a teaching for the good of the world."

Two things are interesting about the so-called messages to Carolyn: first, as with the Medjugorje seers, Mary (and sometimes the saints) speak through her in the first person, as if Carolyn in "possessed" by the one speaking. Secondly, as far as I can tell from reading the books and looking at the group's website, Carolyn never actually sees any apparitions; she only hears voices interiorly which she believes is the Blessed Mother.

The messages, like the Medjugorje messages, are trite and speak about generic blessings; take this message from September 23rd, 2003: "My dear children, again it is good to be with you...Pray, always! Dear ones, my desire for you in peace...peace in your homes, peace in your lives, peace in this world...May the peace of Christ be with you this day and always. As a mother to you, I pray God bless you and lead you always to a life filled with His peace." Does that sound familiar? Although, to Carolyn's credit, most of her messages (while not evidincing anything close to supernatural origin) are actually more theological and believeable than the Medjugorje messages (which is not saying much).

These messages have been submitted to the Diocese of Lansing for review, but neither the group nor the diocese says who is in charge of scrutinizing them, though Fr. Bill Ashbaugh of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Howell, MI, a defender of Carolyn, assures us that "Carolyn's messages were given to a priest in the Diocese of Lansing who has been charged by the bishop to review books and materials for proper theological content. According to his best judgement, Carolyn's messages are free from theological error and are in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are simple and encouraging." But there is no word of who this priest is. Nor has any official endorsement come from the Diocese of Lansing.

St. Mary Catholic Church in Pinckney, MI., home of the Heavenly Grace Prayer Group

I am suspicious of these messages for the same reason I am suspicious of Medjugorje. (1) There is no tradition that I know of in the Church of Mary of the saints speaking first person through a seer (2) As Cardinal Ratzinger said regarding Medjugorje, the sheer volume of messages received through Carolyn renders authenticity improbable: approximately 2,944 messages over seven years (3) Though Fr. Ashbaugh assures us that everything in the messages is theologically sound, I picked up the first book, Heavenly Grace, read it for twenty minutes and located at least three passages in the first 35 pages of the book that, while not openly heretical, definitely smacked of heresy (suspecta de haeresi errorem):

On page 3, in the 4th message (12-4-96), we have Mary saying: "Seek out your Lord in prayer. Know Him. Strive to hear His voice, for He has never left you. His faith in you is unshaken." His faith in you is unshaken? Since when does Jesus have faith in us? Faith is defined as believing in the revelation of God because He is truth and cannot deceive nor be deceived; it is a supernatural virtue infused by baptism. How can Jesus have faith in us? In fact, how can the Second Person of the Trinity have "faith" in anything since He has immediate knowledge of everything and thus no need of faith??

On page 11, in the message for 12-20-96, Mary opens her message with this shocking statement: "Blessed are all people, for they have experienced the mercy of God." Blessed are all people? First of all, not all people are blessed; only those who through the grace of God remain among the blessed. The Bible (especially the Psalms) always makes a clear distinction between the "righteous" and the "wicked." So clearly, not everybody can be blessed. As for the statement that "they have [past tense: ie, have already] received the mercy of God", this could be true if it meant they have all objectively been ransomed by Christ; but it uses the word "experienced", which subjectifies the atonement and seems to refer to the appropriation of Christ's saving grace. Clearly, not everybody receives this. This statement is tantamount to saying that all people are saved. I know that is not what Carolyn means, but that is what the words imply. And a true apparition would never be sloppy with such theologically important words.

One final example: on page 32 in the message for 1-26-97, Mary supposedly tells us: "Dear little one, you must trust that God has forgiven you fully." What? First of all, the catechism teaches that nobody can be absolutely certain that they are at any given moment in a state of grace. Secondly, forgiveness depends on contrition, confession, absolution and satisfaction. If these are deficient, then forgiveness is questionable or lacking; it certainly cannot be implied that it has already been accomplished fully, as the apparition apparently insinuates.

These are just three examples found in the first 35 pages of the first book. I don't understand the anonymous priest's assertion that there is nothing contrary to faith or morals in these messages when there are three quasi-heretical statements in just the first 35 pages! And these were not even all of them; I actually found seven.

To Carolyn's credit, unlike the Medjugorje seers, she has not attempted to profit from these messages and (to my knowledge), has not profited. But like them, she apparently did not change her lifestyle after hearing the Blessed Mother, meaning that she still went ahead and chose the married state. While the traditional seers of old demonstrated extraordinary change of life after their apparitions (usually by entry into religious life), modern seers tend to reat apparitions as something that you can just go ahead and continue your life afterward as you did before. Everybody has free will, but it is suspicious that 2,944 visits from Jesus, the Blessed Mother and the Saints did not produce a religious vocation. Again, St. Bernadette and Sr. Lucia should be our models.

I think the rise in private apparitions and things like this bespeak a crisis in Church authority; people are increasingly turning to such things because they are not getting the truth spoken clearly from the Magisterium. I do not know the status of the Heavenly Grace Prayer Group as of now; Carolyn's book says the messages ceased in 2004, but the website says they continue to this day (though it seems the website has not been updated for some time).

Obscure Anglo-Saxon Saints: St. Frithona (Deusdedit)

Of the early life of St. Frithona, almost nothing is known, other than that he was a native of Wessex born in the first generation after the conversion of Ethelbert of Kent by St. Augustine (d. 604) and apparently was raised a Catholic. In 655 he became the sixth Archbishop of Canterbury, the first Anglo-Saxon to occupy that See. He was consecrated bishop by Ithamar, the first Saxon Archbishop of Rochester. Soon after his consecration, he took the Latin name Deusdedit ("Dedicated to God"), by which he was thereafter known.

Besides being the first Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury, he was one of the first Anglo-Saxon bishops in the entire country of England, most being of old Celtic-Briton or French stock. The few authentic acts recorded of him seem to be of consecrating churches and setting up religious houses (an unsubstantiated tradition says he consecrated seventy nuns). The saintly Deusdedit died in 664 (some sources say of plague) on the same day as Erconbert, King of Kent, and was buried in St. Peter's porch at Canterbury. Since the vandalism of Canterbury at the time of the Dissolution, the location of his relics is uncertain.

The important Synod of Whitby, which discussed whether to follow the Latin or the Celtic traditions in the Northumbrian Church, was held the year of his death, but Deusdedit appears to have been too weak to attend, as there is no record of his presence at the Synod and his death took place only a few months later.

Let's not be hypocritical about Muslims...

There are indeed many, many things about Islam that ought to make us critical of it. First and foremost, Islam sets itself up as a rival revelation to the one delivered by Jesus Christ to the Apostles. It claims to be "another way" to God and asserts that the Christian revelation is defective and that our Scriptures are corrupted. This alone singles is out for condemnation and criticism. But that is the same with any rival religion to Christianity and this criticism does not single out Islam specifically.

Islam could also be condemned because it condones the practice of lying and deception in the interest of furthering Islam. This practice is called Al-taqiyya and the famous Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali said of it, "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." This is certainly one reason to condemn Islam.

One could also cite for censure the idea that true faith can be spread by means of force. This is contrary to the timeless Catholic belief that true faith must be volutary and arise from genuine assent of intellect and will to God's revelation, not because of duress or fear of death. Not only is forcing belief by violence an affront to the dignity of the human person, but it is actually impossible to inculcate anythng close to true faith by this means. It is both immoral and defective.

One could blame Islam for its belief that the proper relationship between God and His people is that of a slave-master relationship instead of a Father-Son relation. This belief makes a mockery of Christ's reconciliation between man and God and makes God's will arbitrary and unreasonable instead of motivated by reason and the good. The god of Islam (which I must state emphatically is not the same God as ours) is an arbitrary tyrant.

There are so many other things we could criticize Islam for: for its teaching that those who carry out attacks against non-believers and die in the process go straight to Paradise; for its acceptance of polygamy; for its acceptance of pedophilia (remember, Mohammed's youngest wife was 7 years old and only 9 when the marriage was consummated); for its stirring up of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hate around the globe. All of these things truly make Islam a vile and detestable religion.

But there is one thing that I cannot in good conscience condemn Islam for; and curiously enough, this is the one thing that I see most conservative Catholics condemning Islam for the most: that is the fact that Islam seeks to dominate the entire world. I cannot fault the Muslims for this. Why not? Because we, too, seek to dominate the entire world. Let's not mince words here: it is unacceptable, in light of Christ's mandate to preach the Gospel to all creatures, that there exist so much as one non-Christian on the face of the earth. Christ commands that every creature must be converted and believe the Gospel. What our Gospel is differs entirely from what the Muslim message is, and the means by which people are won to the Gospel are good works, prayer, charity and preaching, not slaughter and beheading. But nevertheless, both religions seek universal dominance. Therefore, I cannot fault Muslims for wanting their religion to dominate.

That does not mean that we hate non-believers; that does not mean we cannot live in peace and harmony with Separated Brethren, Jews and non-Christians. But it does mean that ultimately, we would like to see every human soul on the globe a Catholic in communion with the Holy See.

I'm so sick of conservative Catholic talk-show hosts pointing out ominously, "Muslims seek to dominate the entire globe; Islam teaches that the whole world must be subject to them." Well, of course, but that's what our religion teaches, too! So let's not be hypocritical about it. There is a proper place for this argument. For example, in pointing out the bankruptcy of the American political plan of the liberals that says that if we just sit down and negotiate with these people then maybe they will stop attacking us. Then it is fitting to point out that they will never stop, because their goal is world domination. But this is a moot point when the discussion turns religious, because our religion also seeks to convert the entire planet (notwithstanding Pope John Paul II's cowardly promise to the Russian patriarch that Catholics wouldn't try to convert the Russian Orthodox).

So, let's keep our discussion about Islam on track. Let's censure it for what need to be censured, but recognize that we cannot justly blame it for things that we ourselves also believe (and if you do not believe that it is God's will that every single person be a Catholic, then you need to go back to Theology 101). I've recently been listening to a CD series by Dr. Srdja Trefkovic on Islam that I can highly recommend to anybody interested in this important issue.

If you're gonna do it wrong, at least do it right!

Reginald Heber (1783-1826): Anglican bishop and author of "Holy, Holy, Holy"

Everybody knows that we are not even supposed to be using "hymns" in the liturgy, at least as far as the word denotes the standard, Protestant written 1800's hymn composed by people like the Wesley's and John Newton. As many liturgical documents have attested, Gregorian Chant is to be given pride of place and remains the official music most suited to the Roman Rite.

That being the case, if somebody forced me to choose between Victorian-era traditional Protestant hymns (ones that aren't explicitly contrary to Catholic dogma, of course) and the latest Catholic stuff by Haugen-Hass, I'd choose the Protestant hymns in a heartbeat. At least the Protestant hymns uphold doctrines like the sinfulness of man, the need for Christ's grace, the importance of Christ's atoning death. At least the Protestant hymns, Protestant though they be, still remain essentially "vertical" in their theology. By contrast, the stuff of Haugen-Hass is "horizontal" to the core. That is why I can sing "Holy, Holy, Holy" by the Anglican Reginald Heber much more easily than I can sing "Gather Us In" by Marty Haugen (not to mention the fact that "Holy, Holy Holy" has much better music). So, given a choice between Haugen and Victorian-era Protestant hymns, the classical Protestant hymns win hands down. I know it is not the best choice; it is a lesser of two evils since so often in parish life Gregorian Chant is simply not an option.

But, if we are going to use the old 1800's hymns (which we shouldn't be doing), then let's at least sing them properly! I am referring to the horrible practice of the modern publishers and editors of sacred music, companies like GIA Publications, Inc., of altering the words to these old hymns on the sly in order to inject a liberal theological agenda. That they edit is bad enough in itself, but even worse is that they do not let the layman know that the lyrics he is singing have been sanitized, thus leaving the uneducated person thinking that he is really singing the hymn the way it was written.

An example is Reginald Heber's "Holy, Holy, Holy." The verse in question is verse 3, which in Heber's original lyrics read: "Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee, Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see; Only Thou art holy; there is none beside Thee, Perfect in power, in love, and purity." Now, let's look at the GIA version. In the GIA hymnal RitualSong, this hymn is number 624. In verse 3 of Reginald Heber's classic song (written in 1826), we read in the 3rd verse: "Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee,Though the eye made blind by sin Thy glory may not see; Only Thou art holy; there is none beside Thee, Perfect in power, in love, and purity."

Notice the subtle change in the 2nd line of the verse? The original reads "Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see." In Heber's original, all mankind is implicated in sin. It is man who is sinful in Heber's original. Now, in the GIA version, this line has been replaced by, "Though the eye made blind by sin Thy glory may not see." This line is not as universal; it seems to imply that some people are free from sin. This is undoubtedly meant to lift the self-esteem of the singer of this sanitized hymn by creating a mental separation between himself and "the eye made blind by sin." In the original, even the singer himself is implicated in the sins of man, for it says, "though the eye of sinful man." The new version is meant to give people good feelings and winds up causing spiritual pride.

Another popular hymn in Catholic parishes these days in John Newton's "Amazing Grace." Now, let me be clear, in my opinion there is never any liturgical occasion in which this song ought to be sung. Never. But, if we are going to persist in singing it, let's at least sing Newton's original lyrics. Newton wrote this hymn in 1772, and in the original we read in verse 1: "Amazing grace! How sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but know am found; was blind, but now I see." But in WLP Publications paper Seasonal Missalette we have the verse worded this way: "Amazing grace! How sweet the sound, that saved and set me free! I once was lost, but know am found; was blind, but now I see." The words "saved a wretch like me" are replaced with the more feel-goody "saved and set me free." Why? Well, God forbid anybody come away thinking that they might be like a "wretch" compared to God! God forbid people get any sense of humility! This is a shame because "saved a wretch like me" is one of the most memorable lines in the hymn.

The worst thing about these alterations is that when one looks at the bottom of the page, where all the author's information is, we see no acknowledgement that there has been any alteration at all. For example, in the GIA version of "Holy, Holy, Holy", it simply says, "Text: Reginald Heber, 1783-1826, alt." There is no mention that the lyrics have been changed, unless that little "alt" at the end is short for "alternate lyrics have been inserted into this song." Even if it does mean that, it does not tell the reader where. Most people never read those little lines at the bottom anyway. So we are left thinking that everybody who ever wrote hymns in the past had the same sappy, feel-good attitudes that our present Church shares.

Again, we should not even be singing these Protestant hymns. But if we are, let's at least sing the words the way they are supposed to be. By the way, in case you are thinking that perhaps it is good that we do not call ourselves "wretches" and "sinners", look at how St. Francis of Assisi, one of the greatest of all saints, referred to himself: “Who are you, O God of sweetness, and who am I, base worm and your lowly servant?" If Francis was not afraid to refer to himself as a base worm, why should we be put off by admitting the simple fact that we are sinners in need of God's grace? Has the Catholic Church become afraid of Christ's saying: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn.1:8).

Here is a hilarious post on how to compose a Marty Haugen song.

Liturgical Dance Abomination in St. Louis

How could this happen on Archbishop Raymond Burke's watch?



This happened in July of 2007. Should we send this to Archbishop Burke so he knows what's going on?

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...

Vatican's Top Liturgical Liberal Replaced!

Archbishop Piero Marini, the Vatican's leading liturgical liberal

Monday the Vatican announced that Archbishop Piero Marini, Master of Ceremonies for the late John Paul II, will be replaced by Msgr. Guido Marini (no relation). The Master of Ceremonies is the person in charge of organizing all of the papal masses around the world. For example, Piero Marini was directly responsible for:

1. The Aztec dancers at the canonization of St. Juan Diego
2. The Mayan "exorcism" of the Pope at the canonization of the Mayan martyrs
3. John Paul II's wacky vestments at the Third Millenium celebration
4. Muslim rituals permitted at the canonization of the Franciscan proto-martyrs
5. Hula dancing in Brussels in 1995 at the beatification of Father Damien DeVeuster
6. Liturgical dancing at the World Youth Day Masses
7. The widespread disregard of liturgical discipline at all of John Paul II's papal masses

This is just a brief list; we could go on and on. Concerning the controversial "exorcism" of John Paul II by Mayan women, Marini recalled in 2003, “We discussed it a great deal here in this office with the responsible parties from the local church. I spoke with the bishop. At the beginning, I have to say I was against using this rite, which not even they seemed to understand very well. Obviously our penitential act is one thing, their expression is another. But we continued talking, and in the end this was not during the Eucharistic celebration, and the bishop wanted the rite at any cost. It was important as a sign of respect for the indigenous, but it’s also a matter of liturgical history. Often rites that were not originally Christian have been ‘Christianized.’ If the indigenous have this rite, it can with time take on a Christian meaning concerning the purification of sins. Just as we use holy water, which for us recalls the waters of baptism, forgiveness of sins and the resurrection, so for them this element of smoke can have a sense of liberation and forgiveness. This is the reason for which we at the end agreed to insert this element.”

This thinking is problematic for so many reasons, but let me just point out a few things. First, isn't it interesting that Marini says of the local bishops that "not even they seemed to understand [the Mayan rite] very well." The bishop's job is to regulate the liturgy in his diocese (as the bishops are so fond of pointing out with regards to the MP). Why would the bishop allow a pagan rite that he "didn't seem to understand very well"? This is crazy.

Second, notice that Marini said that "the bishop wanted the rite at any cost." At any cost? That phrase should tell us something about the liturgical mentality. Did Marini protest? Not at all; as Marini said, they "at the end agreed to insert this element.” Since when to people have the right to "insert" things into the sacred liturgy? And since when is this decided upon by a discussion between bishops? Marini's comparison of intentionally inserting pagan elements arbitrarily into the liturgy is completely different from the organic and gradual Christianization of the pagan religions of old, which took hundreds of years and happened naturally.

Some speculated that Marini's arrangement of the Pope Benedict's wacky tye-dyed garb at the Mariazell shrine last month was the last straw. By the way, do you know what Piero Marini did before he was Archbishop? He was secretary to an Archbishop named Annibale Bugnini. Hmm...Marini is being replaced by Msgr. Guido Marini, who curiously enough has little background in liturgy (he was master of ceremonies for Tarsicio Bertone) but is rather a specialist in canon law and spirituality. Some have speculated that this will make future papal Masses more legalist and canonical and less "pastoral," something I think would be absolutely wonderful. The driving desire to be "pastoral" has been the bane of the post-conciliar Church.

As for why the old Marini was kept around for so long, I can only speculate. Why John Paul II allowed his own Masses to be circuses all the while he was trying to tighten up discipline in other areas is a mystery to me, as John Paul himself is a mystery. It is evident that Marini's actions gave a tacit approval to every other liturgical innovator around the world. "Well, the Pope has liturgical dancers at his Masses, so it must be okay for us to do it!" We ought to thank God that this one-time secretary to Bugnini has finally been removed. Benedict made him President of the Pontifical Commission for International Eucharistic Congresses, a place where he will be able to cause less trouble directly. It was widely known, as well, that Marini privately had serious misgivings about Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum. That's hardly surprising, given his history!

Praise God for yet another wonderful action by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI!

For a 2003 interview with Piero Marini, including his views on inculturation and liturgical dancing, check out this article.

Is Pope John XXIII incorrupt?

The body of Bl. John XXIII, reputed by some to be incorrupt

Pope John XXIII is an enigmatic figure in the Church, as so much of the upheaval of the post-conciliar period hinges on his brief pontificate (1958-1963). For Traditionalists, he (along with his successor Paul VI) hold peculiar places; we certainly honor the office of the papacy and render it obedience, but from a prudential point of view, these two popes seem to have made some very disastrous changes in the Church that have led to the destruction of the sacred liturgy, doctrinal confusion, a plummet in vocations and the loss of innumerable souls. They are not exactly the models of other saintly popes, men like St. Pius V and St. Pius X, whose influence on the papacy and the Church was a solidifying rather than weakening and a return to discipline rather than a relaxation of it.

Then how could it be that the body of Bl. John XXIII is claimed to be incorrupt? If what John did was so destructive for the Church, why would God bless him with incorruptibility, which is usually (but not always) taken as a sign of eniment sanctity? How could one who put the Church on a path of destruction of her Tradition be considered a saint? Certainly the man might have been personally holy, and if he is a beata, then of course he is going to be in heaven, But of course, personal sanctity is not all that beatification/canonization is about, especially if one is a pope. There is also the element of whether or not one is a good role model and has fulfilled one's office or state in life faithfully, which with John XXIII is a whole different story.

But what about John's alleged incorruptibility? Is John XXIII really incorrupt?

Though conservative Catholics and popular Catholic media outlets have repeatedly asserted the incorruptibility of John XXIII's body, this seems to be a simplification of the facts. First off, if we take his beatification by John Paul II in September of 2000. It has been often pointed out that with the new Code of Canon Law (1983), most of the old criteria for determining sanctity were removed, and thus saints are pretty much made or not made by the will of the pontiff. The beatification of John XXIII can be seen as an arbitrary action by a pontiff wishing to give tacit approval of the reforms he instituted. This is not unseemly to suggest either; popes have frequently beatified or canonized saints for varying motives - no historian seriously doubts that the benefit of having a martyr for the faith in the Church/State disputes of the 12th century was partially involved in the quick canonization of St. Thomas Becket. I think something similar happened with Pope John - besides questions of his sanctity, his beatification lends credence to the vision of the Church he proposed for Catholics to adopt.

Following Pope Johnn's beatification ceremony, the body of John was removed for veneration of the faithful and found to be, in the words of the Vatican, "remarkably well preserved." That was all. But the faithful immediately started declaring his incorruptibility, and certain clerical popularizers spread this "fact" abroad, until it became almost axiomatic that Pope John XXIII was incorrupt. This is not unlike the automatic and spontaneous adding of "the Great" to the late John Paul II before any research into his cause has even gone forward. But what are the facts regarding this supposed miracle?

It is true that the body was, and is, in a remarkable state of preservation. This has never been denied. But true incorruptibility is a preservation of the body that is unexplainable by any other natural means. If there is any natural explanation to the occurence, then by definition, a mircale is ruled out. Incorruptibility requires the lack of any natural means of explaining the phenomenon. Were any natural means used to preserve the body of John XXIII?

Absolutely, and this is common knowledge. Professor's Valdoni and Mazzoni were the personal physicians of John XXIII. Upon John's death, the two doctors contacted a colleague, one Dr. Gennaro Goglia, assistant Professor at the Institute of Anatomy of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of the Sacred Heart in Rome, to come assist with the preparation of the pope's body for burial and veneration by the faithful. The two doctors had already spoken with John XXIII on the matter, and the latter had given them a written document leaving them in charge of preserving his mortal remains. This was all documented in two interviews with these doctors in the Italian Famiglia Cristiana and the French bulletin La Contre-Réforme Catholique, both published in 2001 when the controversy over Pope John's incorruptibility was at it's height.

As soon as the pope died, Dr. Goglia was contacted and came to the Vatican where he injected a preservative into the body of the late pope. Dr. Goglia, now in his eighties, told the Italian weekly Famiglia Cristiana in a 2001 interview: “We put the bottle containing the liquid on the tripod. We made a small cut in the right wrist and inserted the needle there. I was afraid that the blood would exit through the tube or that the liquid could cause the skin to rupture …. At 5 a.m. on June 4 the operation ended. The liquid had reached all the capillaries, blocking the process of decomposition. We then injected some liters of the liquid into the Pope’s stomach, destroyed by cancer, in order to kill the bacteria there.” In addition to this, John XXIII was sealed in an airtight coffin (a triple-seal casket in a marble tomb), which would of course reduce the rate of decomposition considerably. The Vatican says as much. "It’s more common than you might think. The body of the Holy Father was well protected. Oxygen couldn’t get into the coffin and any in there would have been used up very quickly," explained Vincenzo Pascali, from the University of Rome. Father Ciro Benedettini of the Vatican Information Services (VIS) said, "That the body is well preserved needs no comment or hypotheses concerning supernatural causes."

The Zenit news agency itself also denies any miracle surrounding the preservation of Pope John XXIII's remains. It reported that when John XXIII died on June 3, 1963, "the technicians of the Institute of Legal Medicine of Rome injected formaldehyde into his body, to allow the body’s exposition for the faithful, before its burial. The practice has been applied to the Popes who have died since the mid-20th century."

So what was the motive behind this embalming? Their appears to be nothing sinister. Some sedevecantists have claimed the John XXIII intentionally ordered this process for the explicit purpose of appearing incorrupt, but this does not seem to be substantiated. The facts seem to suggest that this was just the procedure at the time and nothing was thought of it. As we've seen, the Vatican strenuously denies any miraculous or supernatural cause to the pope's "remarkably well state of preservation."

Then why do the rumors of the incorrupt body of "Good Pope John" continue to circulate? Because the modern Catholic establishment has a lot invested in the person of Bl. Pope John XXIII. If his sanctity is called into question, then his doctrinal and canonical reforms may be called into question (more so than they already have); if that were to happen, then the entire current apparatus of the Church as it has existed in most places since the 1960's will be called into question. And that is simply not permissible; therefore, John XXIII must be incorrupt, and so he will probably remain.

I don't deny that Pope John was probably personally holy; otherwise I don't think he would have been declared a beata. But it does not follow that he is therefore incorruptible, nor is it a blanket approval of all his innovations.

Click here for a 2001 article on the Vatican's statements of the natural causes for John XXIII's preservation.

"But they're Catholic, too..."

I'd like to respond briefly to a comment posted on my recent post "Bishop's love affair with illegal aliens", posted earlier today. I thank this reader for his comments, though I respectfully disagree with them. I hope he does not mind me using his comment to further elaborate my point.

Here is his comment, with my interpolations in red:

For me, and I'm sure for many others, the reason I empathize with the latin american immigrants, even the illegal ones, is that they so much resemble the other Catholic minorites - Irish & Italian - that struggled in much the same way [Do they really resemble them? I come from a family of Italian immigrants. I can trace my family right back to Sicily in the 1870's; I've seen the pedigree. Do you know why I can do this? Because they came here legally through Ellis Island and there are records of their coming over; everything is documented. After a few years they became citizens, dropped their native tongue; their kids were regular English speaking Americans. There is a huge difference between the old Irish-Italian immigration and this current wave].

America's immigration history is rife with anti-Catholicism, so I think the Catholic Church is right to support these people [So what? Nobody that I know of opposes mass illegal Mexican immigration because they are Catholic (and I personally am dubious of their Catholicism). I am opposed to them for three reasons (1) they come here illegally (2) they lower wages and take our profits back to Mexico, and (3) they don't assimilate].

I don't mean politically support illegal immigration, I mean offering support to them, such as services, education, training - things that help them build the better life they came to America for [I think they ought to be able to get medical attention, food, etc. But education and training? Why? I have to pay for my education. A person who violates the sovereignty of our nation by sneaking in here illegally is entitled to nothing in the way of public handouts. I'm sorry, but I don't care if it makes them better persons or not. If you want the benefits, you have to stand in line just like everybody else. Furthermore, too often the bishops' support of immigration rights turns into an active support for the right of anybody to immigrate into this country by any means necessary. This is terrible] .

The way I see it, the problem isn't so much the illegal immigrants. The huge majority of them are honest [is someone who breaks the law to get into the country really that honest?], hardworking people [if they were really that hardworking, they'd come in the longer, harder (but legal) way into this country] trying to make a better life for themselves and their families; in that way they are remarkably similar to almost every other American immigrant throughout history [no, they are not. Other immigrants came in legally, their wages stayed within the country instead of being sent back to their homelands, and they wanted to assimilate and learn English, not maintain their own distinct cultural enclaves. There is a tremendous difference].

The real problem is the system, which makes it so hard for these people to come here legally. What the Catholic Church should be doing, I think, is offering support to all her children, regardless of their legal status, while working hard to make changes in the system, so that all may come to America to seek the better life they deserve, especially our Catholic brothers and sisters.

["The real problem is the system, which makes it so hard for these people to come here legally." This reasoning presupposes that it is simply impossible for them not to come here. They have to come here, legally, if possible, but if that is too hard, then they're just going to have to come illegally. This reasoning doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that they don't come here at all. Like when you speak to a pro-choicer about outlawing abortion, they say, "Well, this will just make abortions more dangerous because they will be done underground by "back-alley" abortionists." They just presuppose that women simply have to have abortions and that since it is inevitable, you might as well just legalize it. This is the logic being applied here. If the system is too hard for immigrants to get through, then guess what: no immigrants get through it. Bottom line.]

I'd like to make a few more points. (1) Mass illegal immigration is also bad for the country the immigrants came from because, if they are really so hardworking and honest, then they are depriving their country of its most honest and hardworking people. If they really wanted to make their country better, they ought to stay and apply their talents where they are most needed. Like India: all India's doctors go to study in Britian or the US, but when they get their degrees, they move to those countries for the higher wages. Thus, though India contributes thousands of new doctors every year to the profession, India itself still has very few qualified doctors. (2) A country has the right to keep out any person for any reason, bottom line. The only exception would be genocide, which as the Catechism says, "knows no borders." But this is not the situation with Mexico. (3) Unrestricted immigration has not been the norm throughout most of American history. There was a large Irish boom in the 1860's and a large Italian boom in the 1910's, but did you know that for most of the 20th century, until the 1960's, there were limits set on the number of immigrants a certain country could send a year? The average for a third world country was about 600. That's it. This only started to change in the 60's and 70's.

Of course, the Catholic Church should offer material support to anybody who comes looking for it. But it ought not encourage immigration of illegals by setting up cooling stations in the desert, and bottled water centers, and sending her priests to speak at pro-immigration rallies. This crosses the line from supporting human needs to promoting a political agenda, which is what is so troubling to me.

Many thanks for the blogger who posted this comment originally.

See this post on the Catholicity of many central American Catholics.

Bishops' support of illegal aliens

Anybody who has even casually perused the statements of the USCCB will notice their apparent intense love affair with illegal immigration. For example, if we look at the latest news posted on the USCCB website for today (October 2nd,2007), there are six articles linked. Of the six, three of them have to do with supporting illegal immigration. The articles bear titles like USCCB Migration Chairman Expresses Concern About Direction and Tone of National Immigration Debate, U. S Bishops urge congress to make changes to “Material Support” statute affecting refugee and asylum seekers, and U.S. Bishops Urge Elected Officials To Support DREAM Act, Affirm It Is The Right And Moral Thing To Do. So a random sampling of their news outlet shows that a full 50% of the USCCB's statements are in support for illegal immigration. What about abortion? Well, there is one article on abortion, but really it is only about "Respect Life Sunday" and mentions abortion only as one of many issues. For an article really condemning abortion in America, one has to go to the archives and scroll back to August 24th for an article condemning Amnesty International for supporting abortion.

So, on one day we have three articles out of six supporting illegal immigration, and for an equally strong condemnation of abortion we have to scroll all the way back to August 24th. What does this mean? It implies what Christ said, that "Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks." Given that the bishops speak so often on immigration and so little on abortion, we can rightfully conclude that in their hearts they are more concerned with supporting illegal immigrants than with stopping abortion. Why on earth would this be the case?

I can't figure out why anybody would support illegal immigration, but I think with the USCCB it is tied up with a guilt complex over abortion. It is well known that the bishops, as a whole, have been woefully silent and apathetic over the years in standing up for the lives of unborn infants. I imagine this wears on their conscience, and so they try to assuage it by supporting something else that they wrongfully see as a life issue: illegal immigration. It's as if they are trying to say, "Well, yeah we're silent on abortion. But we're not all bad! Look, see how much we support the rights of illegal immigrants? We really are compassionate and loving after all!"

Of course, the bishops cannot positively take a unilateral position in favor of illegal immigration. They always make certain to throw in the little token reminder that, in the words of the USCCB, “The U.S. bishops acknowledge the right of our country to secure our borders and enforce immigration law. Such enforcement, however, must respect human rights and dignity and minimize the separation of families.” But in an article of 15 paragraphs, the little blurb alone is the only mention of the right of a nation to secure its borders. And notice how reluctant it is; "the U.S. bishops acknowledge"; what a weak statement of support for the government-side of the debate. The other 14 paragraphs are passionate pleas in favor of illegal aliens. It is as if they are saying, "Well, Church doctrine forbids us to positively deny this right of the state, and so we will do as little in support of it as we can; we will merely acknowledge it. But that's it!" They dryly acknowledge the state's right; but when it comes time to defending the aliens, then they get passionate!

The USCCB seems positively intent on promoting the idea that illegal immigration is a human right. Thus, any attempt to curb illegal immigration would be a denial of human dignity. This is so far-fetched that I am surprised that anybody buys into it. First of all, nobody has a right to go wherever they please. Secondly, if people do come into another country, they need to go through the proper channels. Just because you may not like the proper channels does not mean you are therefore free to discard them. At the bank this morning, it took me fifteen minutes in line before I could get to the teller; does that mean I can just bust into the safe and take my money because I think the conventional methods are too slow? Of course not!

Furthermore, illegal immigration does such harm to this nation's economy that I would say the US government has an obligation to strictly enforce the borders. There are 13 million undocumented workers in this country, and most of them send their meager wages back home to Mexico. Billions of American dollars are being exported to a third world country every single year; meanwhile, there are millions who can't get work here. There are many other factors at play here, but the point is that why would we let an army of people who pay no taxes, got here by breaking our laws, and who destroy our economy by their presence, simply send off billions out of our country. Did you know that money sent to Mexico by illegal immigrants is Mexico's chief source of state revenue? What kind of country does that? Mexico is not a country; it is a parasite nation. Furthermore, how can we survive economically if we allow all our money to be exported?

Worst of all, week after week we have to endure our bishops supporting this parasitical relationship as if it were a fundamental, inalienable human right. If you are going to get all worked up, then get worked up about abortion, gay marriage, liturgical abuse or something that really is important. Stifling our country's attempts to protect itself is not a good way to endear yourselves to hard working citizens.

By the way, for a look at how I think we should solve the immigration problem, click here for this article on Operation Wetback, a 1954 operation organized by President Eisenhower. Notice how they managed to remove almost 1.5 million illegals with only 1050 agents. I also like how when the deport them, they don't just drop them at the border; they ship them 500 miles away into the deep Mexican interior or way down the coast at Vera Cruz closer to central America. I hope to post something in the future on this topic that is more scholarly and has some good statistics; but in the meantime, check out this website to view a lot of great articles on illegal immigration that are more well thought out and less off the cuff than mine!

Why are we stuck in the 60's?

Fr. Ripperger: Hermeneutic of rupture dishonors the martyrs, saints

"If the Church is supposed to be so modern, then why are we still stuck in the 1960's? Why is the music from the 60's? Why are the vestments from the 60's? Why is the architecture still from the 60's?" So asks Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., in his talk on "Catholic Tradition and Liturgy". Fr. Ripperger makes three excellent points on the hermeneutic of rupture that I'd like to point out.

(1) An intentional break with Tradition is a form of impiety. It is impiety because it suggests that the spirituality of the great Saints, Martyrs and Doctors was somehow wrong, and by extension, that they were wrong. One cannot simultaneously venerate St. Dominic and at the same time denounce the Mass that fed Dominic's sanctity. All the saints perceived an attack on the Mass as an attack on them and on God directly. Thus, it is a form of impiety.

(2) An intentional break with Tradition is a sin against the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment enjoins us to honor our mothers and fathers, which Tradition and the Catechism apply to our superiors and spiritual fathers as well. This also applies to our forebearers, our "fathers" in the faith. By approving things that our forefathers would have never stood for, we dishonor the things they believed and died for. Athanasius has brought this up by pointing out that John Paul II's allowance of a Muslim ritual at the canonization of the Franciscan proto-martyrs dishonors them because they died for refusal to participate in the ritual. Thus, it is a sin against the fourth commandment.

(3) An intentional break with Tradition is a form of theft. Theft is taking what one has no right to take. The Tradition belongs to no one generation, but to the Church of all ages. When one breaks with Tradition, they rob the future generations of the heritage labored for and passed on by generations of the faithful, a robbery that nobody has the right to commit. Thus, a break with Tradition is a form of robbery.

I think Fr. Ripperger's points are very valid and help to demonstrate two things: that breaking with Catholic Tradition is no small thing, but is a matter of tremendous, even earth-shaking significance; and also that this generation (or rather, that of the 1960's) is amazingly arrogant to assume all of the powers to be able to simply cast off Tradition at a whim.