"The Beauty of Our Worship In The Liturgy" - Bp. Morlino

The following is a column by The Bishop of Madison Wisconsin, The Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, from the Catholic Herald:

Dear Friends,

Clearly there has been much dialogue recently about our continuing liturgical renewal in the Diocese of Madison — this awareness has even risen to the international level. There was, in fact, a recent blog in Spain about our local matter. It is very difficult for me to believe that the tale of a bishop, leading his diocese in fine-tuning the implementation of the correct interpretation of Vatican II, would rise to the level of an international news item. But that says, indeed, a lot about the world in which we live, favoring as it does anarchic displays rather than a reasonable exercise of lawful authority.

Be that all as it may, I myself have yet to mention in a very public way the consideration which essentially accompanies our realization of Christ’s true presence and our natural and supernatural response of reverence. The liturgy, as the worship which the Holy Spirit has given His Church, always requires beauty in its celebrations.

Since the frequently mistaken implementation of Vatican II (almost 50 years ago), many liturgies have taken place which are, at least, less than beautiful. To this statement, our country and our culture would respond immediately, “but beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” or, “everything is beautiful, in its own way.” Just as our culture has sought to relativize everything important to human nobility, asserting that it is human nature not to have a nature, so too is this the case with beauty itself.

Beauty: not simply in the ‘eye of the beholder’
Beauty is not, in fact, simply in the eye of the beholder, from the viewpoint of reason. For reason tells us that beautiful, good, true, and one are interchangeable; therefore, whatever is beautiful is also good and true, and expresses unity and harmony.

Beautiful can never be mistaken as an indicator of what pleases some majority of people somewhere. The fact that our parish likes to sing a particular song at the liturgy cannot, of itself, make that song beautiful. To be beautiful, indeed, is to be good and is to be true. As much as some people may enjoy the musical antics of Lady Gaga, these cannot honestly be described as beautiful.

Beautiful means, in the first place, embodying the truth. Some of the songs that we sing at liturgy contain lyrics which clearly are not true — for example, the song “All Are Welcome.” As a matter of fact, the liturgy takes place mystically in the heavenly sanctuary. All are welcome at the liturgy who truly seek salvation in and through Jesus Christ, by following God’s Will, as spelled out through His Son’s very Body, the Church. People who have little interest in doing God’s Will don’t fit at the liturgy. And certainly, by their own choosing, the poor souls who suffer in Hell for all eternity are not welcome. Those are simple, but true facts. Thus the song, “All Are Welcome,” gives an impression that the choice for the Will of Jesus Christ, as it comes to us through the Church, makes no difference; and nothing could be further from the truth. It could therefore be concluded that the song, “All are Welcome,” is not beautiful so as to be appropriate-for-liturgical-use. Being true is necessary before anything can be beautiful.

Ennobling the human person
But, it is equally important for something to be good so that it also might be judged beautiful. The truth, which is clothed by beauty, must be such as to ennoble the human person in terms of bringing out his or her very best, both of intellect and of will. The beautiful must embody that which is true, but also ennobling to our human nature as made in the image and likeness of God. Whatever is beautiful must fix our minds and our hearts on the things above, according to St. Paul (Phil 4).

When one realizes that to be authentically beautiful, something must be both true and ennobling of our human nature, that tells us a great deal about what exactly is appropriate at the liturgy. Because it is the source and the summit of our lives as followers of Christ, the liturgy must never be anything less than beautiful, beautiful in such wise as to evoke the correct sacramental attitude of reverence, beautiful as befitting our communion at the liturgy with all the angels and saints.

Thus, everything that we will be doing in the days, months, and years ahead, since it will be aimed at reverent Christ-centeredness in liturgical celebrations, must be nothing less than beautiful, reflecting the perfect beauty, unity, truth, and goodness of the object of our worship and adoration Themselves, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for reading this. God Bless each one of you! Praised be Jesus Christ!

Now, this might be the single handed most forthcoming and forthright piece of written Catechesis I have seen from an American Bishop. Now, granted, it comes with a disclaimer: "This column is the bishop’s communication with the faithful of the Diocese of Madison. Any wider circulation reaches beyond the intention of the bishop." So that means the good Bishop understands his role as the shepherd of a particular flock, and would never improperly begin to think that his teaching should ever encroach on that of other Bishops. Humility.

That being said, I think this letter is instructive not only in its direct message to the faithful of Madison, but also in why as a Bishop he feels the need to say such things.

Wow. Solid.

†††

Archbishop Kurtz on Ethical & Religious Directives (ERDs)

Archbishop Kurtz

Archbishop Kurtz, of the Archdiocse of Louisville, recently wrote an article and spoke about the importance of upholding and defending ERDs by Catholic hospitals::

Our Catholic moral and social teaching, as reflected in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, is informed by a concern about the dignity of the person and the common good. We do not believe, for example, that the destruction of the child in the womb serves mothers, children, or families, and we do not see this as a legitimate healthcare service. Does it truly serve the common good to require us or any healthcare provider to violate important issues of conscience or principle in order to provide for the health of persons within our community?

You can add to that line of thinking contraception and sterilization as well. As he states, these are not legitimate healthcare services. 

If Providence wants to be a Catholic hospital they must stand for Catholic moral virtue, that includes the ERDs and the Catechism. Otherwise, they are simply prostituting the faith for some ulterior motive. We must pray that Archbishop Schwietz will be as courageous and strong as Bishop Olmsted and Archbishop Kurtz. It means something to say that you are Catholic. In today's world where so many Catholics "pick and choose" what they believe, we are in dire need of truth and clarity.

†††

Philadelphia's New Bishop: Chaput? - The American Bishop Carousel?

Archbishop Charles Chaput - Currently of Denver

If you follow Catholic blogs or the "Bishop News" in this country, you probably know quite well that Cardinal Justin Rigali will be resigning this week in Philadelphia, which Pope Benedict is said to be ready to accept. The appointment of the next Archbishop is the real page turner though.

To find out the latest, we turn to the the usual suspects, Rocco Palmo at Whispers in the Loggia and Thomas Peters over at the American Papist. Both right now are pointing to Denver's: Archbishop Chaput. This has been speculated, but for weeks seemed like more of a "dream" for most folks as opposed to any type of reality. Why? Well let's let Palmo explain in his words:

And if multiple indications from near and far have it right, he [Chaput] stands set to bring the most revolutionary change American Catholicism’s most traditional major outpost has known in at least a century, to begin its rebuilding from the ashes of the darkest in its long, storied history

This is a pretty big statement. Philly has had it's share of problems, we don't have to recount them here, but moving one of the highest profile Bishop's there makes more than one statement. Peters' take is quite similar actually:

We need to keep the appointee –whoever he is– in our prayers. Philadelphia is a very troubled archdiocese these days and whoever is chosen to succeed +Rigali will have his work cut out for him.

Boy is he right, there will be work "cut out for him." So if all these signs point to Chaput, and as the day goes on more and more reports seem to point that way, it looks like tomorrow's announcement is the worst kept secret right now. Palmo seems pleased and says:

Thanks be to God for his goodness to us. Truly, we are blessed beyond words.

So it seems that Philly is all but locked-up as having Chaput be tapped as the next Archbishop. But that leaves a lot to talk about in all honesty as opposed to tying everything together actually...

My take...

••†••

If Chaput leaves Denever, and Cardinal Rigali retires it essentially leaves two holes. An active Cardinal and Denver. Not only that but was Chaput the pick all along or is this a move in the background? Sure we dont want to mix politics and the Church but there is a reality there. 

So will there be a "re-ordering" of  Bishops here in the States? There are obvious "traditions" that are often kept in terms of Bishop cities, who goes where, etc... but all that seems to be changing. What else is changing is also the current Papal Nuncio. Will that have some affect? 

There are only a few dioceses with vacant seats, and nothing too surprising. Over the next year though, some pretty "big" retirements are coming up with moves or new appointments that will need to be made, a total of 11 retirements could occur by the end of 2012, not to mention 8 other bishops already beyond the age of 75. This means that there could be as many as 20 new dioceses with new bishops within the next year, almost 2 per month. These aren't in little out of the way places either: Lincoln, NE; San Francisco, CA; Chicago, IL; Portland, OR; Hartford, CT; etc... so maybe a re-ordering will be in place. 

CLICK TO ENLARGE | Table Source: Canonlaw.info

Let us pray in the least for all these holy men, and let us especially pray for Archbishop Chaput. If he is indeed going to Philly he will need our prayers and we can only hope that his fidelity, courage, and love for the Church will fill the city of Brotherly Love and turn it once again into a beacon of the Faith.

†††

Bishop Aquila: Confirmation before First Eucharist

This story is somewhat "old" in terms of news but I think it is rather relevant to post about, since Confirmation in our Archdiocese happens at age 16, which has always confused me. I say this not to be 'critical' or as a matter of opinion, but from a Theological understanding of what Confirmation is, what it does, and how it affects us spiritually.

So, when I read that Bishop Samuel Aquila, of the Diocese of Fargo, North Dakota, recently gave a lecture where he urged children to receive Confirmation prior to First Eucharist, I felt validated in my understanding and beliefs about the Sacrament. Here is a tiny sliver of what he said:

Turning to the present administration of the sacrament, Bishop Aquila questioned whether the common placement of confirmation in late adolescence treats it as “a reward, or worse, as something earned or deserved for attendance and work in a parish catechetical program.”

“Should the fear of not receiving a sacrament ever be used as a means to keep a young person involved in the life of the Church? Should the gift and strengthening of the Holy Spirit be denied young persons in their most formative years?” he asked.

Bishop Aquila also wondered whether the special attention and length of preparation given to confirmation makes many perceive it to be more important than baptism and the Eucharist.

The view that confirmation is a way for young people to make a personal commitment to their faith “distorts” the sacrament, he said.

“Confirmation is not marked by a choice to believe or not believe in the Catholic faith. Rather, as disciples, we are chosen by God to receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit generously bestowed by God, and we are called to cooperate with that grace,” he explained.

The whole article is worth posting really. It isn't his lecture, but it summarizes it quite well. It also aligns with what I have read and understood regarding the Sacraments. We are so short-sighted in our desires and needs in our individual parishes and dioceses that we often lose sight of the bigger picture. I hope this understanding of Confirmation catches on.

For the Record I believe that Confirmation and First Eucharist should occur at the same Mass just like Bishop Aquila states. I am not necessarily stuck on 2nd Grade for Reconciliation and 3rd Grade for Eucharist & Confirmation, but for most children I know those seem the most appropriate.

†††

Bishop Vasa assumes Diocese of Santa Rosa

Bishop Vasa | Catholic.org

He in on my Fantasy Bishball team, and has been officially "called up to the bigs." Something tells me he won't take long getting warmed up and will be swinging for the fences from the "first pitch." If you have no idea what I am talking about: click here.

Is it wrong for me to be excited about this?


Oh and he requires a profession of faith for anyone involved in ministry at his diocesan parishes:

...require all “lectors, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, cantors, and catechists to attest to the fact that they affirm and believe the basic teachings of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

He adds, “This includes declaring such things as: I believe in God, the virgin birth, the existence of purgatory, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. I also accept the Church’s moral teachings, such as the evil and sinfulness of contraception, homosexual activity, and adulterous behavior.”

Read his document relating to this requirement:

Giving Testimony to the Truth

Could you imagine??!? A boy can dream can't he?

To learn more about the Bishop:
Announcement of Bishop Vasa being named Co-Adjutor for Santa Rosa
Vasa requires profession of faith from all Ministers

†††

The Southeast Alaska Catholic Online - Diocese of Juneau, Alaska

The Southeast Alaska Catholic Online, or SeAC Online as they refer to themselves, is shaping up to be a find publication. It is refreshing to see some of the articles they are publishing. For example, two recent samplings are:

Divorce and Communion

&

Songs Mixed with Gregorian Chant

It is nice to see Catholic publications taking an interest in Liturgical and Canonical issues. Catholic diocesan publications need to realize, as do the SEAC Online and Catholic, that there is a great Catechetical opportunity with Catholic papers. The SEAC Online has upped the ante with their recent articles on Catholics and Divorce and Gregorian Chant. I would almost consider those topics taboo or third-rail when it comes to the Catholic world, so I am pleasantly surprised!

I look forward to more orthodox and enlightening articles to come! Congrats Bishop Burns!

Won't you take a minute and email the Bishop and thank him for his commitment to orthodox Catholic teachings?

The Most Reverend Bishop Edward Burns 

(Click on link above for email)

Also, I notice that Bishop Burns started a blog but hasn't kept it up much. In your email you might include a nice little word or two of encouragement in updating it more often. We need to hear from our priests, especially the Bishops!

†††

So Much Time, So Little To Do...

Wait, switch that, reverse it. There is so much that I have wanted to posted about this weekend, but I have been extremely busy. I think the best way to catch up is to do a link round-up. This enables me to touch on a few things at once, a la Conversion Diary and The Anchoress style. So here are some topics and links I want to discuss and let you know about. (Link goodness included... click on them, but dont forget to come back!)

Spirituality and The Mass

••†††••

Spiritual Combat & Warfare are always a big topic for me. I found a February post over at The Catholic Thing: Born for Combat talking about such a topic and think it is a good piece. I would have posted earlier, but I really am trying to cut down on my - rehashed posts of other blogs. This post says it all, and I just want to make more people aware of it. It is about the importance of fighting for the faith as Catholics.

Likwise the New Theological Movement posted a month or so ago about the Mass as a Sacrifice. This is a subject that I think more discussion needs to occur about on blogs, but I have had a hard time thinking of anything to add to the topic. The post stands for itself and is a must read. They also discuss the fact that so many folks deny this reality. Mass is not entertainment or "learn about the Faith" time. Our American faith culture is so Protestantized and edutainment driven, we have lost sight and complete understanding of what the Mass truly is.

Bishops Making News

••†††••

There are a few good Bishops who are doing things worth posting about, for various reasons. Raymond Cardinal Burke has been in the news quite a bit lately. He got a lot of coverage for his appearance down south at the large Planned Parenthood, but more recently has been quoted talking about the Mass. He echoes the sentiment of a few prominent Catholic media personalities, as well as this blogger's, concerning the need to shift away from a human focused Liturgy to a God centered one.

Bishop Etienne of Cheyenne on the other hand is making news with his ... gun? You have to check out his blog about a spring turkey hunt. Yes, you read all of that correctly.

••†††••

The 2011 Canon Law conference will again be at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Wisconsin. It is in August and I would just love to go! Dr. Peters will of course be there and Cardinal Burke will be hosting. Dr. Charles Rice, a former Ave Law professor and great gentleman, will also be presenting. Oh, if I had a million dollars! Alaska makes this trip almost undoable but if you live anywhere in driving distance and have some relation or interest in law or Canon Law, you would be foolish not to attend. It has a high registration fee relative to its function, but again, those related to the law should not see this as any hurdle. In fact, if you help out with legal (Canon or Secular) issues within your parish or diocese, I would suggest requesting a scholarship of sorts. This is the Superbowl of events for a geek like me.

For those of you in Anchorage, or elsewhere, that attend the Dominican Rite Mass, there is a new booklet  that can help you follow along.

Have you heard about the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska? They have 41 Seminarians! Their Catholic population is estimated around 95,000. That is one seminarian for every 2317 people. Comparatively that number crushes almost all other Dioceses efforts. Could it be the Bishop? You make the call.

The whole, 'When should Confirmation occur?' debate has come up again. This probably merits its own post, but the NTM takes a Thomistic view of the debate. They make some really good points, and once again the weight of the debate falls on the side of moving the Sacrament's celebration earlier and not later in life. There is good theological reasoning behind it, but of course you have to shed any humanistic emotion and bias to understand it, which means that the ears that need to hear it will be of course deaf to the argument from the get-go.

Finally, Erin Manning discusses the troubled situation in the K.C.-St. Joe's Diocese regarding a priest controversy. There is a lot going on in that issue, but the point she brings up about a "Chancery Bubble" is the part that I want to focus on. (Not that the other issue isn't the important one, but I leave other more adept folks to get to the bottom of that.) She discusses how many Bishops shield themselves in many ways behind the Chancery. In some instances I think that the Bishops are really a figurehead to the body politic of the Chancery. Manning brings up some really valid and interesting points that should be considered.

Ok... my fingers are tired... and hopefully you all learned something from this post....

†††

"BishBall" - Bishop Draft Results

Wow! I couldn't be happier. I was not in the most enviable of draft spots in any of the rounds really. There were three rounds with 10 teams (30 picks total). My picks were:

• #10 (10 overall)
• #7 (17 Overall)
• #7 (27 Overall)

Not what I call a real power slot in any of those places. Fortunately, I got a team of very Orthodox Bishops. Now scoring is a little, "uncertain" - so it is yet to be seen how my strategy of "orthodoxy" over "activism" will play out. What I mean by that it, you get points for Bishops "doing things". So news stories, blog posts, homilies, etc... are how you score your points, and yes fidelity to Rome is required. So there was definitely an orthodoxy spin to all of this. That being said, and picking in the spots that I did, I am super happy that I got who I did.

So I introduce to you (yes we picked cheesey "team names"):

The Vicious Vicars!

From Left to Right:

• Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (Link), Prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, Vatican
• Archbishop Robert Carlson (Link), Archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis
• Bishop Richard Vasa (Link), Coadjutor Bishop-Designate of Santa Rosa

Now I know that both Cardinal Burke and Bishop Vasa present a problem, in that they aren't Bishops (anymore or yet) of their own Diocese and therefore "news" from them will come at a different pace. Yet, picking so late in the rounds, I decided to go with orthodoxy over action. I know when they do "speak" or "act" it will be good solid stuff. In terms of the novelty of this whole game I couldn't really have asked for a better overall team. 

There were a few Bishops that I could have drafted, based on who was available that I am a little sad I didnt get to put on the team, but you cant pick em all. Those Bishops are: Bruskewitz, Morlino, Etienne and DiLorenzo. Obviously folks like Chaput were taken very early, and other Bishops like Cordileone, Finn, and Aquila were never available by the time I got to pick. Overall it was a lot of fun, and I look forward to giving some updates as things go along. For purposes of the local aspects of this blog, no Michigan or Alaskan Bishops were chosen by any of the 30 picks. 

If anyone wants to help me get "interviews" or in touch with these Bishops, so that I can persuade them to take some point scoring action, please let me know - I think we get bonus points if we get shout outs! 

†††

Fantasy BishBall Draft

So I have entered the ranks of the Catholic Elite Geekdom. Tonight, I have a "Fantasy Bishball" draft. What is Fantasy Bishball? Think "Fantasy Football" mixed with "Catholic Blog Punditry." In other words, a bunch of us will select 3 bishops each in "draft" fashion from the list of American Bishops. We will then "score" points based on various criteria. (Homilies, public statements, heretical smackdowns, etc...)

I know, I know - I am completely geeky and have way to much time on my hands. But in reality, it is making me learn a lot more about the men entrusted with the Church here in America. The hard part is constructing a list of the top 30 bishops here in the U.S. There are 10 "teams" and 3 rounds, so I have to have around 30 bishops that I would be willing to draft.

My pick order is #10, #17, & #27. I have a decent list, but with picks that late in each round, I need to risk a little bit. Obviously I won't be getting Chaput, Bruskewitz or Burke, so my thinking needs to be a bit more "outside of the confessional" if you know what I mean.

If you have any suggestions please let me know. The draft is 11pm ET/7pm AKT, so there are a few hours left to give me some sage advice. BTW - my team name is the: "Vicious Vicars". Anyone good with graphics could make me a logo if they'd like. I will let you know how the draft goes.

###

Bishop Paprocki: "We can and should say the prayer to St. Michael at Church"

Awesome News! Bishop Paprocki authorized the Saint Michael Prayer after Mass in Springfield for public recitation.

From the Master of Ceremonies of the Diocese of Springfield Illinois:

His Excellency the Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, has authorized the public recitation of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel - originally composed by the Holy Father Pope Leo XIII in 1886 - following the dismissal at the end of Mass and before the recession.

Cool huh? Here is part of a letter Bishop Paprocki wrote to the faithful regarding this matter:

One of Satan’s greatest assets is his camouflage, the belief that he doesn’t exist. Disbelief in Satan and the forces of evil leave us unable to resist them. That is why it is good to remember the Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel. We need to remember that each time we pray we work to defeat our real enemies, not each other, but rather the devil and his evil spirits...

In recent years, a number of parishes have begun reciting the prayer once more, and many individual Catholics have kept up the practice. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have urged the faithful to pray it daily, and especially after Mass.

FTR - My wife and I Pray this Prayer after every Mass we attend. I know all the Canonical specifics regarding it, and know that it isn't a mandate any longer. Yet, because of my devotion and thanks for the protection of the Holy Angels, I spend moments after Mass seeking their specific intercession and protection. Bishop Paprocki having Prayer Cards printed for all the Churches and on the back has listed his vision for the Diocese:

Bishop Paprocki

I envision a local Church where Catholics seek to grow in holiness, attend Mass every Sunday and participate regularly in the sacramental life of the Church. I see Catholics, who love God with all their heart, mind and soul and love their neighbors as themselves. I see the faithful who bear witness to Jesus Christ in their daily lives and promote respect for all human life from conception to natural death.

I envision an abundance of vocations with priests sufficient to staff and serve our parishes with virtuous commitment. I see dedicated deacons, nuns, brothers and lay people teaching the faith, caring for the sick, reaching out to the poor and dying. I see communities where family life is valued, homes where mothers and fathers love their children and whose children love them. In short, I envision God's kingdom already foreshadowed in the life of the Church and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet in the Eucharistic feast.

Everything that I have described is attainable. The only real obstacle in our lives is sin. Original sin is our inherited condition. The spiritual treasures of paradise were forfeited by our human ancestors. While Jesus Christ's death and resurrection have restored the gifts of heavenly treasures for us, we also have to recognize that the devil, Satan, is real, and he will do everything in his power to deflect us from our goal, which is eternal life with Christ in His kingdom. This reality should not frighten us nor lead us to despair, for Christ is more powerful than Satan.

Prayer and the sacraments are an essential part of what Saint Paul called the "armor of God" in his letter to the Ephesians. The Saint Michael prayer can help us "stand against the deceits of the devil" (Ephesians 6:11) by "taking the shield of faith" (Ephesians 6:16). God permits us to be tempted by the devil but gives us the grace to resist him through prayer in our daily lives. We can and should say the prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel at church with the assembly or on our own during the day for spiritual protection for ourselves and for others.

May God bless our diocese and our mission with every grace we need to grow in faith, hope and love. May Saint Michael the Archangel protect us from all evil, harm and temptation.

Deo Gratias! Amen Bishop Paprocki, Amen!

†††

"Liberalism has no young Catholic progeny"

George Cardinal Pell has some rather strong words about dissident priests and theologians in Australia. I certainly hope that his words and assessment are correct:

This brings me to another contemporary fact, which I never anticipated as a young seminarian in Rome during the Council or as a young priest. The now aged liberal wing of the Church, which dominated discussion after the Council and often the bishops and the emerging Church bureaucracies, has no following among young practising Catholics, priests or religious. This is not only true in Australia, but everywhere in the Western world. In these different countries dominated by a secular media and intelligentsia, liberalism has no young Catholic progeny. 

You can read the entire article at: The Swag


h/t: Fr. Cory Sticha

†††

If only more Bishops were like him... (UPDATED)

Archbishop Chaput

***UPDATE***: See Below

Archbishop Charles Chaput is a courageous and intelligent Bishop. As Thomas Peters from American Papist puts it:

"I will never tire of saying this: read everything Archbishop Chaput writes."

He is correct. You should read everything that Archbishop Chaput writes. Everything.

Recently, Archbishop Chaput gave a talk that was the keynote address as part of the University of Notre Dame student-organized Right to Life lecture series. You can find that talk here in essay form: Chaput Keynote Address in Essay. [NB: Following the directives that Peters and I have laid out, you should read this.]

What was said during a follow up Q&A session after this talk was even more telling on exactly how orthodox this Bishop is, and just how far gone other Bishops are. For example his answer regarding Abortion, Communion and Bishops, taken from the Boston Pilot [my comments]:

"There is unity among the bishops about abortion always being wrong, and that you can't be a Catholic and be in favor of abortion -- the bishops all agree to that -- but there's just an inability among the bishops together to speak clearly on this matter and even to say that if you're Catholic and you're pro-choice, you can't receive holy Communion," Archbishop Chaput said.

Individual bishops probably do take such a stand privately more often than anyone knows, the archbishop noted, and he said he is not in favor of refusing Communion without giving private notice ahead of time to the person. He emphasized, however, that Catholics who support keeping abortion legal should be told that they will not be given Communion, and not to present themselves to receive. [Amen!]

Archbishop Chaput said he and others have been trying to move the U.S. bishops' conference to speak clearly on this issue for a number of years. However, there is a fear, he said, that if they do so, the bishops might somehow disenfranchise the Catholic community from political life, making it difficult to get elected if a Catholic politician has to hold the church's position on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. [Bishops live in fear of politics? No wonder the American Church is where it stands today... what a disgrace!]

The strategy clearly has failed, he continued, "So let's try something different and see if it works. Let's be very, very clear on these matters," and he asked the audience to "help me to convince the bishops on that subject." [Wow... he's right, these young folks probably do know better than the Bishops for the enemy is within.]

Chaput isn't afraid to say what needs to be said. There is a reason that he wasn't elected the President of the USCCB and this is it. He is a bold and orthodox leader and the dissident Bishops do what they can to marginalize him. Why? Because he acts on his beliefs and those beliefs are rooted in the true teachings of the Church.

"We act on what we really believe," Archbishop Chaput said. "If we don't act on our beliefs, then we don't really believe them."

The idea that the separation of church and state should force us to exclude our religious beliefs from guiding our political behavior makes no sense at all, he continued:

"If we don't remain true in our public actions to what we claim to believe in our personal lives, then we only deceive ourselves, because God certainly isn't fooled: He sees who and what we are. God sees that our duplicity is really a kind of cowardice, and our lack of courage does a lot more damage than simply wounding our own integrity; it also saps the courage of other good people who really do try to publicly witness what they believe. And that compounds the sin of dishonesty and the sin of injustice."

Amen Archbishop, Amen. If only we had more like him...

***UPDATE***:
The Heterodox National Catholic Reporter has posted an article by none other than Michael Sean Winters. If you don't know what this means... lucky you. He essentially calls our Archbishop Chaput and claims that Chaput is in a small minority of Bishops that think the way he does about Canon 915. He goes further to say that Chaput should bring up the issue during his ad limina visit ("State of the Diocese Visit") and he will find that the Holy Father and the Vatican are in disagreement with his "theology" concerning Canon 915. He does make a point about Cardinal Levada, but aside from that he post is more about his feathers being ruffled than anything. What he doesn't say and can't say is that Canon 915 was written to do exactly what Chaput indicates, but that Bishops have since ignored it to the point that the norm no longer reflects the intent. As St. John Chrysostom, Athanasius, John Eudes and many others have informed us... much in hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.


You can find Archbishop Chaput's book: "Render Unto Caesar" here, and you can read his homilies and writings at his Archdiocesan website here. 

†††

We need more Bishops like Abp. Chaput

Archbishop Chaput - Denver, CO

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver tells it like it is. For those that read this blog, you know I have been a big fan of his since I read "Render Unto Caesar," a book you all should read. Well, he recently spoke to a group of European Church officials and had some rather forceful things to say:

“The main crisis of modern Christianity is not one of resources, or personnel, or marketing,” Archbishop Chaput asserted. “It is a crisis of faith. Millions of people claim to be Christian, but they don't really believe.”

“They don't study Scripture. They don't love the Church as a mother and teacher. And they settle for an inoffensive, vanilla Christianity that amounts to a system of decent social ethics.”

“This is self-delusion,” he warned, “the worst kind of phony Christianity that has no power to create hope out of suffering, to resist persecution, or to lead anyone else to God.”

How true is the statement that we live in a "Vanilla Christianity that amounts to a system of decent social ethics"? How often do we hear - "just be a good person." Without any set of moral laws or an understanding of absolute truth, this is simply a social construct and rather flimsy.

The most important statement that Abp. Chaput made though involved how we release from these idolatries:

But the Archbishop of Denver said that these human tendencies, leading to the worship of objects and of oneself, could not be driven out by the mere exercise of authority.

“The Christian remedy to these idolatries,” he explained, “can never simply be coerced from the outside, by stronger statements from stronger bishops.” He quoted Cardinal Lustiger's insight that these forms of idolatry “must be exorcised from the inside … To uproot them, we must be converted in depth.”

We must reclaim an authentic Catholicism where the precepts of the faith are what drive us, and not simply use them as guideposts and signs that direct us in some general way. Our faith must be apparent by the way we live, and must originate in the center of our being.



Original Link: Archbishop Chaupt - "Weak faith cannot compete with modern 'idolatry'" 

†††

Canon 915: a primer and list of resources

The recent posts around the blogosphere regarding Canon 915 [See: GLACC, In Light of the Law, DUIB] have had me thinking all day. But before I begin, I want to bring all readers up to speed on what Canon 915 is before I go on. I know 'they' say that bloggers should write what they care about and not write to their audience but I think this is an issue that all Catholics should know at least something about.

···•°···

Canon 915 – A primer

First off a disclaimer: I am not a Canon Lawyer, I am simply a lawyer of the regular type. I was educated at an authentic Catholic Law school, deeply rooted in the Natural Law and adherent to a strict and loyal interpretation of the Code of Canon Law as well as the Catechism. This still does not make me an expert. Therefore, anything I say should be taken with that in mind, as a lay lawyer with this sort of background, I am at best an amateur or novice Canon Law enthusiast; this is true in the sense that not only do I adhere to the force of the Code of Canon Law, but I read and study its implications from time to time. If you really want a good thourough understanding of ANY Canon Law issue, you should read Dr. Ed Peters' blog: In Light of the Law.

With that out of the way, I want to attempt to explain the issue(s) that generally surrounds the invocation of Canon 915 in discussion and debate. It would be impossible to fully explain how Canon Law works, how it is interpreted and the various ways that folks interpret the Code itself and how it should be applied. I know this sounds rather "wishy washy" for Catholic precepts, but I say it not as a truth that I assert but as an observation of what happens. 

For a great overview of Canon 915 - Dr. Peters has a much primer than I could ever create at his Canon Law Site - Resources for Understanding and Applying Canon 915. I will try to give a cliff notes version.

The text of the Canon is as follows:

1983 CIC 915. Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. (See also CCEO 712)

It doesn't seem very hard to understand when given a plain reading, but where complexity ensues is at its application. For those not familiar with the law, let me point out the legally vexing: each set of terms creates wiggle room and are the things that make lawyers millions of dollars. Terms such as "obstinately persevering" are so easily disputed and debated that their specificity and precision actually end up creating ambiguity and confusion. They are the catalyst for why so many folks detest lawyers of all flavors. Now let me be clear – there is nothing intrinsically defective in these terms, their distortion is created by those with malicious and devious intent. So as you can now probably see, taking Canon 915's text, adding to it the politics and personalities of human persons, and one can see how the application of this Canon could be so difficult and confusing.

···°•···

application of the Canon

Without making this post more confusing, condescending, patronizing, or complex than it needs to be I will try and explain where the confusion and difficulty in applying this Canon exist. First, it is fair to say that when laws of any type are created, and especially when they are written down, they are meant to have some affect and with that some effects. Again, without getting into legal theory, I will try and explain this in as objective and broad of a way as possible. Knowing that Canon 915 was created at some point to prevent certain people, in this case those who are excommunicated, interdicted, or "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", from receiving Communion we know that our goal is to find out how we identify those classes of people.

For the sake of our discussion we will focus on the last of these using the shorter, "obstinately persevering" to describe them. The former two classes of people do enter this discussion occasionally, but it makes the whole thing more complex, and need not be addressed for our purposes.

Now the difficulty in application is obviously the difficulty of defining who is "obstinately persevering." The entire debate on this issue must come down to this, otherwise there is some other defect at play. What I mean is, if we could easily identify those that are in one of the three mentioned categories, but those people were still able to receive Communion while continuing to be in that class, there would be a break down in adherence to Canon Law and the issue would be about that generally and not about the specific application of Canon 915.

There is an issue relating to Canon 916, but I will discuss that later. Just know that there is a distinction between private actions and public actions. I will call this the 915/916 distinction.

Synopsis: The difficulty in applying this Canon is that there has been a confusion over whom is to be classified as "obstinately persevering." Because of human frailty and a breakdown in courage and understanding, Bishops have rarely categorized anyone as to belonging in this category and have essentially ignored Canon 915. 

···•°···

as it relates to "real-world" cases

Now, one can argue with some legitimacy that there is some difficulty in determining who is "obstinately persevering." So folks would have to be outwardly obstinate to be categorized in the excluded class. The most clear cut example of such a scenario would be a public figure, which in this country is usually an elected official. Because of their public "stance" and "support" for measures that touch on issues related to Catholic teachings and laws, it is usually these officials that can be determined to be "obstinately persevering."

This is clearest on the issue of Abortion. Because Catholic teaching and Natural Law are so clear cut on this issue, there shouldn't be any wiggle room. If a public official supports abortion then they are being "obstinately persevering." Now it is possible that a person votes for Bill 'X' and then goes and confesses their sin, that they would somehow be caught in some legalistic trap. There is a process that is to take place to apply this Canon. This is also the 915/916 distinction that needs to be understood.

So the application, as it relates to abortion and elected officials is whether their support of abortion thereby automatically, or by determination,  classifies them as "obstinately persevering." If so, then by Canon Law these folks should not be admitted to Holy Communion. Because there are Catholic Officials that attend Mass but also support Pro-Abortion, without being prevented Communion, it is obvious that there is a breakdown somewhere in the understanding of how to apply Canon 915.

As then Cardinal Ratzinger said:

When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

···°•···

the debate

Herein is where the debate centers: who and why should have Canon 915 applied to them. The most frequent issue is abortion and elected officials, but interestingly the current discussion in the world is centered around marital and cohabitation issues as they relate to an elected official.

The questions that make up this debate are:

• What qualifies as "obstinately persevering"?
• Does a persons "public" persona affect this determination?
• Should Canon 915 even be applied, should it be applied in a different way to public figures?
• How exactly should the process happen, if the Canon is applied?

Now I know this is no where near extensive enough to get everybody where they need to be. Hopefully though, this helps explain it to folks that needed a little background. Future posts dealing with this topic will hopefully be guided by this one. The best advice I can give you in regards to learning about this issue at a scholarly level is to go to Dr. Peters' site and read the information he has provided.

As this issue continues, I hope to write more about this issues, especially as it relates to the GLACC post regarding this topic. I will focus on exactly who and when should this Canon be applied to, and attempt to figure out why in cases that seem clear-cut there has been no effort made to uphold the Canon.

···•···

For those wanting or needing more info please see the following links:

• A Canon 915 Primer - Dr. Ed Peters - This contains a TON OF LINKS
• The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin - Cardinal Raymond Burke
• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cdl. Ratzinger's Memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles" - Cong. Doc. Faith; Ratzinger Memo
• "The Political Obligations of Catholics: a conversation with the Most Rev. Charles Chaput" - Abp. Charles Chaput

###

The Rupture - The Church and interpretation of doctrine

If you have read my blog for any length of time, you will know that I am no fan of the way that modernists have invaded our Church. Now, in real life, meaning the non-blogging world, I try and be as charitable as I can be to those that have a different opinion about the Church than I do. This is less about civility and more about making sure my wife isn't ostracized due to my rather deep devotion to the mission of the Ecclesia Militans.


Now, I haven't posted a Vortex in a while, mostly because I think Mr. Voris does fine on his own without my help, but also because the Catholic Blogosphere got inundated with them for a bit. That being said, sometimes they need to be posted because of how good they are. A recent one about the Church and interpretation of Doctrine is rather poignant. So I just wanted to post it to make sure you all saw it. It is important because of not only what Mr. Voris says, but the source of the video [which I will post about shortly.] We must not accept stones when we are due bread.

###

The Alaskan Pro-Life Battle - Personhood Initiative & Mead Treadwell

Alaska Lt. Gov. -
Mead Treadwell

Recently, a reader posted a comment on the blog asking our take on a situation that recently occurred in the State of Alaska. It has to do with the rejection by the state of a ballot iniative. The Catholic Anchor reported about it and a few of the Pro-Life websites did as well, but little analysis was done. The comment left on our blog felt that the "ball was dropped" in this case by the Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell.

The proposed initiative is what many call a "Personhood" initiative. The purpose is to establish legal protection for unborn/pre-born persons, or more correctly to create legislation that establishes "personhood" at the moment of conception. A lot of the initiatives revolve around terms and their definitions. The purpose of such initiatives is to find a way through legislation to by-pass the judicial law created by the Roe v. Wade decision. It is a very complex legal issue because so much depends on the interplay between state law and federal Constitutional law. The question the commentator was asking is what our take was on Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell's hand in this particular scenario. Here is an excerpt from their comment:

I like Mead, but he really dropped the ball on this one; one could argue he also abrogated his duties as a Catholic legislator. And yes, I know he was a big contributor to the ballot initiative in August.

But that just means that a lot of people helped him win the primary so that he could use his powers as Lt Gov to effect the same causes.

···•°···

The issue here is whether the Lt. Gov. acted properly both in his role as Lt. Gov. and as a Catholic - because he is Catholic. The latter is actually his primary duty, regardless of what Senator Lisa Murkowski thinks. So we have to look at this specific issue and this specific proposed ballot initiative and not at some theoretical or philosophical level where we are fighting over concepts and not specific sets of facts.

Therefore we should first look at the language of the proposed ballot initiative:

Click to Enlarge

Now, the wording itself is problematic. It is very vague and there is a strong likelihood that it would be overturned at the state supreme court level. The Attorney General and the Lt. Gov. felt the same way. As the Anchor reported:

Alaska’s new Attorney General John Burns said the proposed initiative for the 2012 election is unconstitutional because it would go up against the Supreme Court’s decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions under Roe v. Wade.

“The proposed bill meets the ‘clearly unconstitutional’ standard because it would supersede a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. This right is a federal constitutional right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade,” Burns’ office said. It added that Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell should reject the measure as well.

Today, Treadwell did just that, according to the Juneau Empire.

“I was convinced the controlling case law made (the initiative) clearly unconstitutional,” Treadwell said.

···•°··· 

Now was this a "pass" as my commentator opines? Maybe, but I doubt it. The Lt. Gov. is a strong Catholic and placed his fortune and career on the line with his support of Proposal 2 this past fall. But did he "abrogate his duty as a Catholic" by not approving the measure and letting the chips fall where they may? I would argue no, and I think most Bishops would agree with me. Not only that, he might have done his Catholic duty by actually denying the certification. In fact, Archbishop Chaput of Denver, a strong Bishop known for his Catholic Natural Law writing  issued a letter regarding a very similar issue just a few years back:

Archbishop Charles Chaput

June 5, 2008


Statement of the Colorado Catholic Bishops
on the 2008 Colorado Personhood Amendment


We admire the goals of this year's effort to end abortion, and we remain committed to defending all human life from conception to natural death. As we have said from the start, however, we do not believe that this year's Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to pursue an end to abortion in 2008.


Unfortunately, even if this year's personhood amendment is passed in Colorado, lower federal courts interpreting this amendment will be required to apply the permissive 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also likely that the Supreme Court, given its current composition, will either decline to review such a case, effectively killing the state amendment, or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of Roe. While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado.
Constructive alternatives to reduce abortions and advance the ultimate objective of ending abortion, however, do exist at the state level.
...
+Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
+Most Rev. Arthur N. Tafoya, D.D.
+Most Rev. Michael J. Sheridan, S.T.D.

As they said, with such a proposal a bad court, like our state supreme court, or the Supreme Court of the United States would deny such a law, "...or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of Roe." This isn't some obscure strain of belief held by three priests in Colorado either; Nevada Life, the Georgia Bishops, Americans United for Life, and the Florida Bishops all feel the way I do. This might be the reason why Pro-Life groups in Alaska didn't support this measure.

···°•···

Is it frustrating? Yes, of course it is. I would love to have seen the Lt. Gov. certify it and say - "Let's let the courts decide." But if that happened... the victory would be short and in the end it might end up creating a platform for an even greater loss down the road. 

Does this mean that the Lt. Gov. or elected Catholic officials should weigh legislation for their chances of victory as a means to determining when they should or shouldn't support Pro-Life laws? Of course it doesn't, but this fight is too important to fight over gimmicks. The way to end abortion is to reverse the incorrect legal decision that celebrates its anniversary a few days from now: Roe v. Wade. 

Could the Lt. Gov. been more precise and clear in his explanation as to why he didn't certify this initiative? Sure he could of, but we will leave that to his press person to improve upon. It certainly would have been helpful to have him explain that as a Pro-Life elected official it is his goal is to enact laws that stem from the Natural Law and that will ultimately respect the sanctity of life, and while the Personhood initiative seems like it does just that, because it is somewhat gimmicky in its construction it is ultimately problematic.  That is why I can't fault him for his decision here. In fact, after reading the statements of Bishops on the matter I actually applaud what he did here, and so should you. 

†††