Old School

LITURGICAL MUSIC VS. DEVOTIONAL MUSIC

2009-02-05T20:11:00.002-05:00

Music in the Catholic Church can be divided into two categories. Liturgical music is appropriate for a Mass or any other ritual action that is under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. Devotional (worship) music is music that has been produced to be used in worshiping God, but not in a liturgical setting. The third edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal suggests that Gregorian chant is proper to the Roman Liturgy and should be regarded as the music that is proper to a liturgical setting. It also says that other types of music, such as polyphony, are appropriate if they “correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action” and “foster the participation of all the faithful.” Going hand in hand with the types of music used for liturgy is the types of instrumentation used. In a later paragraph, the Instruction states that the preferred instrument for liturgy is the organ. Other wind, stringed or percussion instruments may be used as long as they can be rendered “truly apt for sacred use.”

In other words, liturgical music should adhere to, and be used within, the context for which it was created. Liturgical music, traditionally, has been written for the organ or for the small ensemble of instruments it is designed to mimic. Many pieces have been written to include both the organ and the ensemble. Instruments that do not require amplification are preferred within the liturgy. This is so that we may complement the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with our own sacrifices. It takes more work to create music that can properly fill the church without amplification. Any instrument that requires amplification is a failure to live up to our prayer that this sacrifice of not only the bread and wine but our labor to give glory and praise is truly the work of our human hands.

Devotional music and authentic devotion is supposed to lead us back to the mystery of the Mass and to draw us deeper into the mystery of Christ. As we said last week, authentic devotion can be done anywhere. Therefore, devotional music can exist anywhere. Whether we are caught in a traffic jam, shopping or participating in the parish charismatic praise and worship group, this music keeps Christ fresh in our minds. It also helps to lead us into a greater understanding of our participation in the gift of life. Like devotion in general, devotional music takes a free form and can be played with a variety of instruments. Amplification is not an issue with devotional music because the assembly is usually smaller, and the sense of sacrifice reserved for the Mass is replaced with the idea of giving praise and thanksgiving to God for his many gifts.

Since devotional music is intended for a smaller group, this community should have greater control over what types of music and instruments are played. The devotional setting is the proper place for instruments such as guitars and for groups that prefer to play “rock” style music. Christian “praise bands”, and the songs that they play should be reserved for the devotions of the Church. This is so that the people attending may participate as they wish. A question that should be answered before devotional music is used, and before authentic devotion may take place is; “How does this activity lead us back to the life, death and resurrection of Christ that is present in the Mass?” Next week, we will complete this series of articles by discussing the prayers of the Church when it comes to liturgy and devotion, and also the places where liturgy and devotion take place.

(Material from the Diocese of Columbus, OH)

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

2008-11-18T22:05:00.002-05:00

Originally Posted at Vox Nova:

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

November 14, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama,

As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.

Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another

One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.

One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.

Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”

As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.

There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.

One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.

It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.
If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.

Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).

Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.

To which I add my name with the others:

Sincerely,
Brandon Charles Markey

And now for something completely different:

2008-11-10T11:31:00.002-05:00

This is an atricle in the WSJ by a Mr. Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives from 2002-2006. He is now president of Saint Vincent College in Latrobe:

President Bush will soon be heading home and for many that day cannot come soon enough. Count me among those who will miss him and his bedrock decency.

He had a rough road from day one. His first inauguration struck me as a portent. I was there, shivering in the grandstands on Pennsylvania Avenue. At the exact moment the president heard"Hail to the Chief" for the first time and was announced to the audience, a sleet storm descended from the skies.

It has never let up.

Through it all Mr. Bush kept his head up and soldiered on. He took the criticism in stride. I remember riding with him in his presidential limousine to the Washington Hilton for a speech. A woman standing at an intersection directed an obscene gesture at him that I had hoped he missed. The president waved to her and with a bemused look said to me, "Did you see what she did?"

Many other Americans, particularly the "values voters" who helped elect him twice, will miss him because of what he achieved: Samuel Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court, children in schools that now are better because they are accountable, African women who now have medicines for their HIV-infected babies, and religious charities that are finally being treated by government as partners instead of rivals.

I remember coming to the West Wing one morning before the daily 7:30 senior staff meeting and seeing Mr. Bush at his desk in the Oval Office, reading a daily devotional. I remember the look of sorrow on his face as he signed letters to the families of the fallen. When he met with recovering addicts whose lives were transformed by a faith-based program, he spoke plainly of his own humiliating journey years ago with alcohol. When a Liberian refugee broke into tears after recounting her escape to freedom in America, the president went over and held and comforted her.

Little acts behind the curtain like these inspired intense loyalty by staff members. They spoke of someone never too busy or burdened to care -- like when he took time on Air Force One to call my wife when she was sick. The president's true character rendered his media image pure caricature.

Mother Teresa was asked at the end of her life whether she was discouraged because after decades of caring for the dying and destitute in Calcutta little seemed to have changed. She replied, "No. God doesn't call me to be successful. God calls me to be faithful."

History will decide whether George W. Bush was a successful President. But he was faithful. He had a charge to keep and he kept it.

2008-11-04T23:21:00.000-05:00

Sackcloth and Ashes.

... O Canada...............................................

The Gadfly - Biting the Sleeping Horse

2008-09-03T23:23:00.002-04:00

As a student at Franciscan University, I often write for our underground student paper, The Gadfly which seeks to "bite the sleeping horse." Recently a friend of mine asked me if I would be writing another article soon. I said sure, give me a topic. She gave me a few, which I'll ask you for your opinion on.

On which should I write something:

1. The discrepancies between what the Church demands us to say and what we often say/sing instead.

2. Commentary/criticism on Churches/Communities/Universities which use armies of Extraordinary Ministers(Ministrettes) of Holy Communion.

3. Commentary/criticism of the general laisse-faire attitude and widespread irreverence for the celebration of Holy Mass.

or a fourth idea:

Answer some questions comparing/contrasting the differences between the Novvs Ordo and the Gregorian Rite of the Holy Sacrifice, and discussing the future perhaps a tertium quid.

I await your responses!

Feminae! Quid Nunc Cupiant?

2008-07-20T21:27:00.006-04:00

Okay, well you had to know that I would come out of summer-hibernation for this one.

This afternoon/evening the AP and Boston Globe (what a rag of a paper) reported that the excommunicant organization "Womenpriests" announced the "ordination" of three women as priests and a fourth as a deacon. I'll try the Fr. Z style and just give you an article with my emphases and [my comments].

Group says it ordains 3 women Catholic priests

Jul 20, 8:06 PM (ET)

By STEVE LeBLANC

BOSTON (AP) - An activist group hoping to pressure the Roman Catholic church into dropping its long-standing prohibition [It's not a prohibition, it's a recognition that the Church doesn't have the authority.] barring women from the priesthood says it ordained three women on Sunday. [Can 1024 Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus.]

Church officials did not recognize the ordination, and the Vatican has previously warned that women taking part in ordination ceremonies will be excommunicated. [Actually what the Holy See has said is that these participants are already excommunicated, and have become so by their own actions. The Church, in this instance, only announces the excommunicated state, and enforces the penalty, she does not place them in it. They have done that themselves.]

The group known as Roman Catholic Womenpriests held the ceremony at the Church of the Covenant, a Protestant Church in Boston. [Please note that they hely it at a protestant Church, yet another sign of their departure from Rome.]

The group said the three women - Gloria Carpeneto of Baltimore, Judy Lee of Fort Myers, Fla., and Gabriella Velardi Ward of New York City - are responding to a heartfelt call to serve the church as priests. [Who are they to insert themselves into God's plan? He does not call the "qualified" but qualifies the called.]

A fourth woman, Mary Ann McCarthy Schoettly of Newton, N.J., was ordained as a deacon, the group said.

The Archdiocese of Boston issued a statement decrying the ceremony.

"Catholics who attempt to confer a sacred order on a woman, and the women who attempt to receive a sacred order, are by their own actions separating themselves from the church," the archdiocese said. [At least something orthodox is coming out of Boston now-a-days.]

The group says the women who are ordained remain loyal members of the church and [/yet] will act as priests whether they are excommunicated or not. [Let's get this straight. They're loyal to Mother Church, yet when she, in her wisdom, orders them not to do something, their loyalty will compel them to go ahead and disobey. Gotta love loyalty.]

Sunday's ordination ceremony was performed by two women the group describes as bishops - Ida Raming of Struttgart, Germany, and Dana Reynolds from California.

The ceremony "is not in compliance with their man-made rules,[...which stipulate men...] but it's certainly in compliance with the Roman Catholic ordination rituals[...which stipulate men...] because our bishops were ordained by all-male Roman Catholic bishops [stop the presses here... Not only are they using the argumentum ad verecundiam, the logical fallacy which invokes false authority, but we're referencing something which begs the question, how did this go unchecked?] who are in good standing with the church," [WRONG. Just because we don't KNOW who they are, doesn't mean that the Church, as the Bride of Christ is not wounded and betrayed by these deceitful and venemous Sucessors to the Apostles.] as provided by the church's ordination rituals, said Bridget Mary Meehan, the group's spokeswoman.

The group, which was formed in 2002, has conducted similar ceremonies in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

In March, the archbishop of St. Louis [Yay, Burke! Can we just petition the Vatican to make him the Ordinary of America?] excommunicated three women - two Americans and a South African who were part of the Womenpriests movement - for participating in a woman's ordination.

Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, has rebuffed calls to change traditional church teachings [Again, because he simplt does not have the authority to do such a thing!] on the requirement that priests be male.

Catholics who are excommunicated cannot receive sacraments. The penalty can be lifted if those who have been punished are sincerely repentant.

So I don't understand how these women, and not a few men seem to get confused with the limitations of their authority, and the limitations of the Church's authority. We (the Church) were given very strict parameters under which to operate, and to deviate from them, the orders of Christ, direct or implied and discerned, is an offense against God and His people. When you wound the Church, you wound all of us.

This is the further extent of the Free-Church movement. It expresses itself in liberal (read: non-traditional, innovative, new) liturgies, music and words within it; in wishy-washy spirituality, which leaves itself in the profane, merely human realm and avoids the inner depths of the spiritual life in favour of emotions and good feelings.

The personal seizure of religion and communion with the Divine manifests itself in congregationalism and Unitarian Universalism, neither of which are true religion in my estimation, is seeping into the Church of Rome. Our Anglican cousins are bleeding out from being wounded by this very issue. Let's take a page from their book and continue to avoid this divisive scandal, and pray, pray, pray that God will deliver us. His Grace is sufficient!

Salve festa Dies

2008-05-31T18:57:00.002-04:00

If you haven't picked up... Barring some major event, I'm on hiatus for the summer! I'll return some time around mid-August.

God Bless!

Meno chiacchiere – più processioni!

2008-04-24T11:55:00.009-04:00

So Thanks be to God, we got our Franciscan University household started and inducted! We are the Equites Lux Sacra, Knights of the Holy Light.

"Why," you may ask, "is the title not Equites Lucis Sacrae?"
Well. Let me explain. It's called apposition. It's a title, and not part of a grammatical structure. Simple as that. think of SPQR - Senatus Publiusque Romanus. Nominative. Apposition. Titular.

Anyways. The ceremony went generally as follows: (no... here's the program instead)

Institution of the
EQVITES LVX SACRA
23 August 2008 – Feast of St. George

Introductory Rite
(All Stand)
P. In nomine Sanctissimi Trinitatis, Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, Amen. Dominus Vobiscum.
R/. Et cum spiritu tuo.
P. Oremus
Lord Jesus Christ … God-Father, God-Son, and God-Holy Ghost.
R/. Amen

Epistle
(Guests and Household sit) (Romans 13:11b-14)

The Covenant
(Equites stand)

Investiture
(Triarii stand)

Charge and Promises
(Guests sit, Household stand.)

Oath Against Modernism
(Guests and Household Stand)

The Dubbing
(Clerics, Seminarians, and Religious Knights stand, all other guests and household kneel.)

Benediction
(Guests and Household stand)

Please join us for a light celebration in the Bonaventure Common areas.

:) Here are some photos from our 45 minute ceremony last night:

Gone? Household?

2008-04-13T02:17:00.003-04:00

Yes! I'm still around. I've just been busy with lots of interesting things...

It's about that time in the school year that things start revving up... tests and papers and such.

Also, gotta prepare for summer work -- youth ministry! Going to try and get the teens interested in the more orthodox and traditional love of the Church, rather than the new-fangled guitar stuff. Pray for that!

Also, and perhaps most time-consuming, I've begun a Household here on campus at SteubyU. It's a further extension of what Eques has set up with his ELS. It's adapted to a college campus which is particularly suited to such radical approaches at evangelization and living Christ's commands. Actually, Fr. Z o{]:¬) posted something about us about a week ago... Here.

Here is the Covenant by which we intend to live our brotherhood. Support is wonderful, financial is more than welcome, but what we need most are prayers and moral support... So here it is. What do you think?

EQVITES LVX SACRA

Household Covenant

Equites were the first rank of nobility in early Rome and the word itself comes from the word Equus, “horse.” Men who could afford their own horses to ride into battle were therefore called Equites; Knights.

Lux Sacra, “The Sacred Light,” is Christ himself, who is the Light of the world not to be overcome by the darkness of evil. We, the Equites Lux Sacra, are the Cavalry of Christ who strive to serve Him. Christo Serviam.

Therefore, we are Equites of the Holy Light, acting as the vanguard of Christ-God, defending and revering Him in His Eucharistic Body. We also love and defend His Mystical Body, the Church Militant and call upon the glorious members, the Saints, for their intercession and sacred aid.

Our anthem is St. Thomas Aquinas’ Adoro Te Devote. Our essential prayer is for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the Memorare, the protection of Holy Michael the Archangel, and for the guidance of Eques St. George in combat against the dragon of the Seven Capital Sins, temptation, and evil.

Mission

We attempt to conduct ourselves as Christian Gentlemen at all times according to the ancient rules of chivalry. We are on our honor to keep these promises, as knights and Equites of old.

Spirituality

As a Household, we are dedicated to the traditions of the Church, dogmatic and ritual.

1. We reject, outright, unnecessary innovation and change for the sake of change. We also reject relativity, which goes so far as to lose the essence of the Church and her Teachings. As well, we embrace the ancient hymns and prayers, the spiritual staples of the Church Militant for generations.

2. We harbor a great love for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and a particular appreciation for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The solemnity of this Celebration of Christ’s Sacrifice deeply resonates with the charisms and spirituality of the Equites Lux Sacra.

Chivalry

We are committed to the virtues of Chivalry in utmost respect for our God, our brothers and our sisters.

1. We uphold and defend the dignity of human life born and unborn. Whether the value of life is denied or lessened, the Equites stand ready to defend it even to the point of death.

2. We recognize this selfless service in the quotation from the Servant of God Catherine Doherty; “I am Third.” We place God first, and neighbor second, before ourselves. As a visible witness of this commitment, the Equites strive to perform acts of selfless service. Whereas, in ages past, men and women would bow to each other, recognizing the internal goodness of the person, our selfless work goes further, recognizing the person as a divine Ikon of the Creator-God, intrinsically worthy of love and service.

Devotion

Good Knight St George, the Bringer of Victory is the model for Christian Knighthood, and true God-centered chivalry. We revere him and imitate his bravery and heroism, recalling the battle to slay the dragon of sin and division. We celebrate the glorious death that St. George suffered rather than renounce his faith. We strive to echo his witness and express our undying fealty to God.

Motto

Our motto, “Induamur Arma Lucis” translates “Let us put on the armor of light.” Each Eques is symbolically presented with a breastplate, which symbolizes our Knighthood and our Motto. St. Paul instructs the new Christians in Rome to cast off the works of darkness and put on this armor of light. He commanded the Christians in Ephesus to take up the helm of salvation and the sword of the spirit, to put on the breastplate of righteousness and take up the shield of faith. Because of his faithful witness, he was held for two years under house arrest, awaiting his trial and eventual martyrdom. It is by his example that we must always be willing to suffer much, even to the point of death, to sacrifice all for the sake of Christ and for love of neighbor.

Quest

Our quest is to serve Christ our God. We echo this in our cry Christo Serviam; I will serve Christ! This is accomplished by living the admonishment of St. Paul in Romans 13.

Romans 13:12-14

The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct ourselves honorably as in the day, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in promiscuity and licentiousness, not in rivalry and jealousy.

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the desires of the flesh.

This pericope from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans concisely describes how each of the Equites strives to live his life, and pursue our noble quest for the Holy Grail, which for each of us is the quest for holiness itself. We are made holy first by our Baptism, strengthened in it by our Confirmation, continually renewed and fortified by the Holy Eucharist. Equites Lux Sacra is a way of living out this fundamental call to holiness in a profound way, humbly serving God, His Church and one another.

Christo Serviam et Induamur Arma Lucis

________________________
Brandon M. Belinsky, Eques Imperator

________________________
Christopher Millette, Eques

________________________
Jon Haines, Eques

________________________
Tyler Schmit, Eques

________________________
Matthew Nawrocki, Eques

________________________
Sean McBrearty, Eques

We have six members, so far. Perhaps we'll have seven by the end of the week.
Our institution, for ourselves, is Wednesday the 23rd at 7pm. (Details to follow, all are invited.) And our introduction to the campus community is at the Household Life Mass on Friday, the 25th of this month.

Say the Black. Do the Red.

2008-04-02T23:43:00.007-04:00

This is an article which I wrote and was recently featured in The Gadfly, a student-run newspaper here at Franciscan University. The title is stolen, unabashedly from Fr. Z, over at WDTPRS.

Say the Black. Do the Red.

There’s an old joke. What is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? The answer of course is: “You can negotiate with a terrorist.”

Having grown up with quite a solid style of liturgy, a mite old-fashioned and following all the prescribed rubrics and legislations, and adhering to the dictates of the General Instruction for the Roman Missal coming to Franciscan University of Steubenville was a bit of a shock to my system. Sure, at home we had a guitar, and some drums (both of which, IMHO, ought not to be played in the liturgy, but that’s another article altogether), but the priest, the celebrant of the liturgy, was always careful to follow the Mass and not go off on his own tangential prayer. The Liturgy, whether it be the Divine Office or the Liturgies of the Word and Eucharist, are the official prayer of the Church, in which we participate. We do not stand alone in our prayer, which is one of the eternal glories and mysteries of our Church.

Understanding this, it seems bizarre and objectionable that a priest would presume to interject the Mass with his own words, and mini reflection. Let me give you some context; I have been to approximately eight Sunday Masses on campus, just less than half of them being Fieldhouse Masses (to which I shall never again go). The others were regular Chapel Masses. At every one, I’ve been given a small twitch at the blatant, if typically “minor” abuses of the liturgy. However, last week I was at a Sunday Mass and the priest (I do not know his name, and if I did, I wouldn’t write it) decided to wing the beginning of the Communion Rite.

In various places within the celebration, the Rite allows for “these or similar words.” Wherever it does not say this, we assume that the prescribed words are unchangeable parts of the Liturgy, essential to its complete participation in the Universal Sacrifice. The beginning of the Communion Rite does not allow for “these or similar words.” It says: “The priest genuflects. Taking the host, he raises it slightly over the paten and facing the people, says aloud: This is the Lamb of God/ who takes away the sins of the world. / Happy are those who are called to his supper.” To which we respond with the humbling “Lord, I am not worthy to receive thee[…]” Fr. Improv, on the contrary, decided that he had a better idea and inserted a small portion of his homily and a bit of the gospel regarding Jesus’ calling of Lazarus from the tomb. This reflection went on for long enough that I, while revering the Most Blessed Sacrament, had time to sigh (probably loudly), offer up a short, silent prayer to God that I was sorry for the disruption of His Holy Mass, and for a friend to look at me with what may have been amusement at my consternation as I quietly expressed to her my disappointment with the random mini-homily.

Why do priests feel the need to disrupt the Mass with their personalisms? They are acting in persona Christi; not in their own persons. Imagine if the priest were to improvise at another celebration of the Church… I thee baptize in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier… Agreed, this is a “slippery slope” but truly, if you improvise one thing, how far down the slope will you slip? This is not as bad as liturgical dancing, or flowing ribbons and wandering bowls of incense parading around the church (or Fieldhouse), but liturgical abuse is liturgical abuse. Any amount of abuse at all is intolerable. Priests are in a nuptial relationship with the Church as Christ is. Moreover, just as Christ would not abuse His beloved spouse, neither should a priest.

Fathers, thank you so very much for your sacrifice and service, but please, do as Mother Church tells you. Surrender yourself completely. Submit your personal flair and internal reflection to the public prayer of the Church, which you so graciously offer. In short; Say the black. Do the red.

Jesus of Nazareth - Chapter 04

2008-03-27T01:26:00.000-04:00

The Sermon on the Mount

Immediately after Jesus’ baptism, he begins His public ministry. The Holy Father examines this beginning in regards to three particular elements. He recognizes Matthew’s intended summary of Jesus’ preaching-entire as “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Benedict also sees the calling of the twelve as pivotal and fundamental in Jesus’ ministries as well as the clarification that Jesus, himself, is not simply a preacher and teacher, but the one whom has been prophesied, the anointed one, the Messiah and redeemer of all peoples.

Just as Moses led his people out of the hands of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, contemporary Jews believed that the Messiah would come to liberate them from the Romans as an occupying force, and return to them the land that was promised them. Instead, Jesus came to liberate His people from their ignorance and hardness of heart. Jesus has infact come as the new Moses as prophet and guide from darkness. The Pope pointedly remarks on particular actions related by the evangelists, which indicate the authority of Jesus. Matthew, writing to the Jews, details how Jesus goes up on a mountain (see Moses), and then sits down. This is the posture of an authority and teacher in the rabbinical style. However, instead of being seated in a school or synagogue to teach solely to Jews, Jesus sits above everyone on the mountain, to indicate His authority over the world. As Moses went up the mountain to pray and commune with God, and then taught his people, Jesus echoes this saving prefigurement.

This accent is in contrast to the particular choice of emphasis of Luke the evangelizer. Luke writes for the gentiles, who would not be familiar with the synagogical or rabbinical style. Luke, therefore, writes of particular pericope that imply authority for his audience. Benedict hits upon Jesus’ standing amidst His apostles. Standing indicates authority and kingship over the breadth of peoples, and all who had come to Him symbolized the peoples of the entire world, from whom Jesus demanded discipleship.

Again, the Pope harkens back to Exodus and the words and actions of the people. The Hebrews beg Moses to speak to them for they are afraid of dying were they to hear God’s own voice. As Jesus speaks, it is not only the new Moses, but it is no-less-than God, Himself, speaking. Benedict points out in amusement that the Israelites were right when they feared death at God’s voice. If we do listen to His voice, we hear Him calling us to die to this world so that we might live with Him. This is baptism in its fullest form; as the Pope says, baptism cannot be reduced to a mere ritual.

The Pope continues this exegesis with the teachings themselves of Jesus, remarking how they are reflective of, and indeed complimentary to the Law of Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament. The Beatitudes, far form being the commonly accepted “new commandments” are instead a commentary on the condition of Jesus’ disciples. It is particularly the poor, the downcast, and the weak who are explicitly invited to become part of God’s family. In addition to these Beatitudes, Jesus clarifies and renews the teachings of the Torah. He begins with “You have heard it was said…” and then continues with a calling to deeper fidelity and a deeper awareness of the call to goodness and holiness.

Victimae Paschali Laudes

2008-03-23T14:30:00.004-04:00

Victimae paschali laudes
immolent Christiani.
Agnus redemit oves:
Christus innocens Patri
reconciliavit peccatores.
Mors et vita duello
conflixere mirando:
dux vitae mortuus,
regnat vivus.
Dic nobis Maria,
quid vidisti in via?
Sepulcrum Christi viventis,
et gloriam vidi resurgentis:
Angelicos testes,
sudarium, et vestes.
Surrexit Christus spes mea:
praecedet suos in Galilaeam.
Scimus Christum surrexisse
a mortuis vere:
tu nobis, victor Rex,
miserere.
Amen. Alleluia.

A beautiful recording of this ancient Paschal Sequence.
(you might need to download VLC to hear it.)

Happy Easter all! He has Risen as He said! Alleluia!

Holy Saturday -- The World in Silence Waits

2008-03-22T02:54:00.000-04:00

Something strange is happening - there is a great silence on earth today, a great silence and stillness. The whole earth keeps silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. God has died in the flesh and hell trembles with fear.

He has gone to search for our first parent, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow the captives Adam and Eve, he who is both God and the son of Eve. The Lord approached them bearing the cross, the weapon that had won him the victory. At the sight of him Adam, the first man he had created, struck his breast in terror and cried out to everyone: “My Lord be with you all.” Christ answered him: “And with your spirit.” He took him by the hand and raised him up, saying: “Awake, O sleeper,and rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.

“I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. Out of love for you and for your descendants I now by my own authority command all who are held in bondage to come forth, all who are in darkness to be enlightened, all who are sleeping to arise. I order you, O sleeper,to awake. I did not create you to be held a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead. Rise up, work of my hands, you who we recreated in my image. Rise, let us leave this place, for you are in me And I am in you; together we form only one person and we cannot be separated.For your sake I, your God, became your son; I, the Lord, took the form of a slave; I, whose home is above the heavens, descended to the earth and beneath the earth. For your sake, for the sake of man, I became like a man without help, free among the dead. For the sake of you, who left a garden, I was betrayed to the Jews in a garden, and I was crucified in a garden.

“See on my face the spittle I received in order to restore to you the life I once breathed into you. See there the marks of the blows I received in order to refashion your warped nature in my image.On my back see the marks of the scourging I endured to remove the burden of sin that weighs upon your back. See my hands, nailed firmly to a tree,for you who once wickedly stretched out your hand to a tree.

“I slept on the cross and a sword pierced my side for you who slept in paradise and brought forth Eve from your side. My side has healed the pain in yours. My sleep will rouse you from your sleep in hell. The sword that pierced me has sheathed the sword that was turned against you.

“Rise, let us leave this place. The enemy led you out of the earthly paradise. I will not restore you to that paradise, but I will enthrone you in heaven. I forbade you the tree that was only a symbol of life, but see, I who am life itself am now one with you. I appointed cherubim to guard you as slaves are guarded, but now I make them worship you as God. The throne formed by cherubim awaits you, its bearers swift and eager. The bridal chamber is adorned, the banquet is ready, the eternal dwelling places are prepared, the treasure houses of all good things lie open. The kingdom of heaven has been prepared for you from all eternity.

The Power of Christ's blood

2008-03-21T01:54:00.001-04:00

From the Catecheses by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop

If we wish to understand the power of Christ’s blood, we should go back to the ancient account of its prefiguration in Egypt. “Sacrifice a lamb without blemish”, commanded Moses, “and sprinkle its blood on your doors”. If we were to ask him what he meant, and how the blood of an irrational beast could possibly save men endowed with reason, his answer would be that the saving power lies not in the blood itself, but in the fact that it is a sign of the Lord’s blood. In those days, when the destroying angel saw the blood on the doors he did not dare to enter, so how much less will the devil approach now when he sees, not that figurative blood on the doors, but the true blood on the lips of believers, the doors of the temple of Christ. If you desire further proof of the power of this blood, remember where it came from, how it ran down from the cross, flowing from the Master’s side. The gospel records that when Christ was dead, but still hung on the cross, a soldier came and pierced his side with a lance and immediately there poured out water and blood. Now the water was a symbol of baptism and the blood, of the holy eucharist. The soldier pierced the Lord’s side, he breached the wall of the sacred temple, and I have found the treasure and made it my own. So also with the lamb: the Jews sacrificed the victim and I have been saved by it. “There flowed from his side water and blood”. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolised baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death. Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.

From the Catecheses by Saint John Chrysostom, bishop

If we wish to understand the power of Christ’s blood, we should go back to the ancient account of its prefiguration in Egypt. “Sacrifice a lamb without blemish”, commanded Moses, “and sprinkle its blood on your doors”. If we were to ask him what he meant, and how the blood of an irrational beast could possibly save men endowed with reason, his answer would be that the saving power lies not in the blood itself, but in the fact that it is a sign of the Lord’s blood. In those days, when the destroying angel saw the blood on the doors he did not dare to enter, so how much less will the devil approach now when he sees, not that figurative blood on the doors, but the true blood on the lips of believers, the doors of the temple of Christ.

If you desire further proof of the power of this blood, remember where it came from, how it ran down from the cross, flowing from the Master’s side. The gospel records that when Christ was dead, but still hung on the cross, a soldier came and pierced his side with a lance and immediately there poured out water and blood. Now the water was a symbol of baptism and the blood, of the holy eucharist. The soldier pierced the Lord’s side, he breached the wall of the sacred temple, and I have found the treasure and made it my own. So also with the lamb: the Jews sacrificed the victim and I have been saved by it.

“There flowed from his side water and blood”. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolised baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.

Travesty

2008-02-19T02:47:00.001-05:00

I was here. Last night. Steubenville High School.

The heckler was NOT a Franciscan University student, nor was he affilliated with us in any way, shape or form.

But Billy still bit it when he answered.

Jesus of Nazareth - Chapter 2

2008-02-07T16:59:00.000-05:00

The third installment of my reflections of Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth.

The Temptations of Jesus

The Temptations of Christ immediately follow His commissioning and anointing as the Messiah whom had been prophesied for Israel. Christ received the Holy Ghost immediately after His Baptism; this gift strengthened Jesus for the trials that He would endure proximately.

The Holy Ghost first commands Jesus to the desert that he might be tempted by the devil. This is very important; Christ becomes man so that he might share our human sufferings, he is baptized as a sign of His empathy with our sinfulness, and decent into the deep only to rise out again, and now the devil tempts Him with the pleasures and glories of this world, an experience that we all face daily. Jesus here, more fully enters into the “drama of human existence” through his desert trials “so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest” who, though without sin, has experienced the pain of temptation. The Holy Father points out the reflective nature and Edenic imagery of Christ’s journey into the desert. He takes care to point out that the angels ministered to Christ and He was with the wild beasts [in harmony]; all of this being of the original state of things in the Garden. It is here that Benedict brilliantly says, “Creation, torn asunder by strife, once more becomes the dwelling place of peace.”

Christ was tempted by the devil to turn stones into bread, presumably not simply for him but for the whole world. He however rejects this challenge, asserting that [earthly] bread is not sufficient for man, but that more is required, namely the Word of God; Himself. Next He is told that were He to cast himself down from a precipice that the angels would bear Him up, but again he rejects this and offers that one should not test the LORD but instead rely on Him. The devil’s final offer for Jesus is that of world domination if He would only bow to Satan. Christ again, successfully counters that God alone is worthy of worship and adoration.

These three temptations are an explicit enumeration of the temptations that man faces implicitly in every day of his life. To “turn stones to bread,” as the Pope points out, would be to provide earthly food for the world, but to reject that anything else is necessary, being God. His Holiness analyzes the modern world’s attempts to provide earthly bread for the world but providing nothing further, or anything of deeper significance. However, it is Jesus’ rightful role to provide for His people, both physically and spiritually. He does this for the 5,000 and most especially at the Last Supper, providing food eternal for His people.

Equally, Benedict points out that, as Christ was tempted by the devil to demand a sign from God whereby God’s angels protect Him from a fall; Jesus rejects this as blasphemous. He quotes Scripture right back saying that one must not tempt God. His Holiness explains that our scientific approach to the world imposes “arrogance” and “laboratory conditions” on God and by this, God cannot be found. Jesus recognizes this and refuses the devil, only to leap later in life into the abyss of hell in order to save souls.

Finally, the devil asks Jesus to prostrate before him, and in return, the kingdoms of the world would be Jesus’; the authority and power would rest on His shoulders alone. Jesus rejects this as well, saying that only God can be worshiped, and power flows from Him alone. Again, we see Jesus’ reception of these gifts anyways later when on the mountain He declares that all authority has been given Him.

Jesus’ threefold temptation and threefold rejection of the devil is a rejection of personal glory, and instead a directive to look to God. In His coming, he brings us God and allows us to live in Him. Christ receives all the things, which were offered him by the devil, and more; however he receives these through humility and obedience to God’s Will.

Ash Wednesday

2008-02-06T00:31:00.000-05:00

Hear O' Man! Turn from thy sins and cling to the Gospel, for remember that thou art dust and unto dust shalt thou return.

Memento homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.

Today is Ash Wednesday. The day on which we begin the Liturgical Season of Lent. Today is (edit:) NOT an Holy Day of Obligation though it is a day of Fasting and Abstinence for all in the Church between 14 and 65, barring any infirmity.

Our society can be described as post-Christian. While we maintain the external shell of Christianity, the inner meaning has shriveled. A common example is Christmas. It is a commercial holiday, even a celebration of "life" and "goodwill," but the startling notion that the Creator of the universe took human flesh is no longer the focus. We see another example of post Christianity this week. Celebrations of marti-gras or Carnival (from the Latin carne-meat, vale-farewell) have expanded, (fat-Tuesday pun provided at no extra charge) but their connections to today, Ash Wednesday, have become vague.

The exuberance of carnival originated as a counterweight to the austerity of Lent. It pointed to something beyond haec lacrimarum valle, "this valley of tears," namely Easter, the Resurrection itself. It is important not to lose sight of that as we receive the cross of ashes on our foreheads to inaugurate these forty days of preparation.

As a help to understanding the true character of Lent, read these two sentences from Bishop St. Augustine. In his Tract on the First Letter of John he states:

The entire life of a good Christian is in fact an exercise
of holy desire. You do not see what you long for, but the
very act of desiring prepares you, so that when he comes you
may see and be utterly satisfied.

Lent ought be understood as an exercise of holy desire. Augustine points out what has become a willful blindness. We tend to fill our days with three things: work, solving problems and diversions. For most of us we work and try to solve problems (like staying healthy or cars breaking down) in order to have more time to spend on our diversions: reading, vacations, friends, meals, sports, games, TV, etc. None of those things are intrinsically bad, but become disordered when they keep us from seeking for what our souls truly long.

Lent is a time to put aside some of those diversions and get in touch with our true desire. Jesus sets out the program in the Gospel today. Before going into detail, let's clear up an unfortunate misunderstanding. More-recently, some people have concluded, especially since the sixties and seventies, that because Jesus criticized the way the Pharisee's fasted, he was down-playing fasting itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus assumed that his disciples would fast and up until very recent times, all Christians have understood - and acted upon - that assumption.

Fasting says "no" to the most obvious diversions in our lives. It is a paradigm (what a great word) for all other Christian discipline, denying ourselves some immediate gratification for the sake of a greater future good. This practice, in itself is abhorrent in modern culture, as today's society sees no need for any kind-of delay of anything. It is interesting that while in general we have given up the practice of fasting, almost everyone today is on some kind-of diet. Even people who are the object of resentment because they can "eat anything" and don't gain weight, unlike myself, "watch certain foods." This is not called fasting but a diet. What else is fasting, save a diet with deeper spiritual reasoning?

In this regard the discipline of Lent can be a tremendous help. Today and Good Friday are official days of fast and the other six Fridays are days of abstinence from meat. Even though this is a quite minimal requirement, I have had people ask me whether they can get a dispensation because they are attending some party of other social thing. Obviously a dispensation is out of the question because this is exactly the point of the abstinence law--to give a witness to others and to your own self. It is not such a hard requirement, is it really?

Fasting helps to expose some of our false desires. Hopefully it can help us turn to the other two penitential practices of Lent: prayer and almsgiving. This Lent, spend an hour with me a week in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament. I'm going to try and make it every Monday from 11am-12pm. If you can't make it this time, spend another, but let's join our prayers together and ask for God's Will in our lives, and ask for Him to cleanse us from all our unhealthy practices and desires. And, in addition to that, join me in asking for God's forgiveness every week in the sacrament of Penance. If you think you don't need to go, remember that our Pope goes to confession once a week. If he sins enough to confess, so do you.

Let me conclude with his description of the cleansing necessary for the exercise of holy desire:

This exercise will be effective only to the extent we free
ourselves from desires leading to infatuation with this
world. Let me return to the example I have already used, of
filling an empty container. God means to fill each of you
with what is good; so cast out what is bad! If he wishes to
fill you with honey and you are full of sour wine, where is
the honey to go? The vessel must be emptied of its contents
and then be cleansed.

Welcome to Lent, brother and sisters. May it be a time of emptying and cleansing--to discover our heart's true desire.

A Little History

Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of the Season of Lent. It is a season of penance, reflection, and fasting which prepares us for Christ's Resurrection on Easter Sunday, through which we attain redemption.

Why we receive the ashes
Following the example of the Nine vites, who did penance in sackcloth and ashes, our foreheads are marked with ashes to humble our hearts and reminds us that life passes away on Earth. We remember this when we are told

"Remember, Man is dust, and unto dust you shall return."

Ashes are a symbol of penance made sacramental by the blessing of the Church, and they help us develop a spirit of humility and sacrifice.

The distribution of ashes comes from a ceremony of ages past. Christians who had committed grave faults performed public penance. On Ash Wednesday, the Bishop blessed the hair shirts which they were to wear during the forty days of penance, and sprinkled over them ashes made from the palms from the previous year. Then, while the faithful recited the Seven Penitential Psalms, the penitents were turned out of the church because of their sins -- just as Adam, the first man, was turned out of Paradise because of his disobedience. The penitents did not enter the church again until Maundy Thursday after having won reconciliation by the toil of forty days' penance and sacramental absolution. Later, all Christians, whether public or secret penitents, came to receive ashes out of devotion. In earlier times, the distribution of ashes was followed by a penitential procession.

The Ashes
The ashes are made from the blessed palms used in the Palm Sunday celebration of the previous year. The ashes are sprinkled with Holy Water and are scented by exposure to incense. While the ashes symbolize penance and contrition, they are also a reminder that God is gracious and merciful to those who call on Him with repentant hearts. His Divine mercy is of utmost importance during the season of Lent, and the Church calls on us to seek that mercy during the entire Lenten season with reflection, prayer and penance.

(Source: Catholic-Online.net)

On Church and State

2008-02-05T12:46:00.001-05:00

Your faithful blogger was asked to comment on Eques Quod Scripsit's blog on his post The Church can not be an instrument of the State: The Conversation Continues. Here's my response, but definitely go read the original postings. We've got Eques from Eques Quod Scripsit, Tim from Thalsesian Fools and Jose from... Jose.

The framers of our Constitution had no concept of the Separation of Church and State as it is understood today; infact as a side note, it's such a permeating ideology that the majority of Americans think it's some statute or Amendment. However, on the contrary, the Government has no right whatsoever to infringe on the just practice of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law which establishes a religion, either from scratch, or as being higher than another, and that the Government shall not make any law abridging the free exercise of any religion.

If this is not enough, any corporation could not and would not hire an employee which shared the values, ideals and goals of the company itself. If an employee were to be hired and then, whether by action or omission of action, to undermine the mission of a corporation and to bring about the failure, humiliation, and destruction thereof, that would be grounds for termination. If this were known before the hire occurred, why would the applicant even be hired? As long as a Corporation does not infringe on the rights of others (please see Tim's argument on murder, evasion, bribery and aiding and abetting known fugitives, which are all against various other laws and statutes of long-established jurisprudence) while protecting it's own viability and interests, this corporation is free to continue to operate as such. As a person does not have the intrinsic right to work in a particular institution (as opposed to a person's rights to life, liberty, speedy trial-by-jury and basic human Justice), and that core-beliefs can be valid reasons for incompatibility in a workplace, the hiring and firing based upon ideologies can not be prohibited.

Now, on the question of the Church becoming an arm of the State... Simply because a laboratory receives Government funding, does not make it a Government laboratory, simply that the Government acknowledges that it's intended research is worthy. The same could be true of the Church's charities. It is when the Government begins to regulate these Churches and charities, restricting how they can operate that the relationship becomes perverse; this is painfully evident in the forced-closure of the Archdiocese of Boston's Adoption Services when it was mandated to allow non-traditional (read: homosexual) couples to adopt. This went firmly against the history, Teachings and Traditions of the Catholic Church as a faith-system and as a charitable organization. The State does not have the mandate, nor the authority to contravene the just-exercise of Religion wherein the rights and privileges of individuals are not violated.

Neither a married couple nor a homosexual couple has the right to adopt, no more than do they have the right to stand in my living-room uninvited (baring some dire need superseding my right to personal property). The adoption process is to benefit the child more than the adopting couple; this couple having gone through rigorous screening processes to determine whether or not is it a suitable match, based upon the understandings and prejudices of the adoption agency. To enforce particular standard of suitability is socialist at best, tyrannical at worst. Getting married within a Catholic Church, you publicly vow that you will be open to children, and you will bring them up Catholic. Why would you get married in a Catholic Church if you didn't feel that you could uphold this standard of behaviour? By the same token, insofar as the Catholic Church believes that homosexual action is a moral evil, and that homosexual unions are a perversion of traditional family values, why would the Church be forced to perform ceremonies, "marriages" if it were against the grained teaching of the Church? Therefore, why would the Church be forced to condone such "behaviour/lifestyle choice/orientation et al." by granting adoption privileges to such a couple?

Moving on. The Boy Scouts of America is a non-governmental organization which receives Government funding. The mission is wholesome and "American." However, the BSA forbids homosexuals from being in leadership positions, and infact from being even in the ranks of its members. The mission of the BSA is a worthy mission, one which the Government finds appropriate and deserving of financial assistance. Ought the Government pull funding, or demand "equal rights" for membership applications? But I digress... Eagle Scouts of the BSA are mandated-reporters in the same respect as priests/bishops/doctors/teachers. While this is a noble title, endeavouring to protect the youth, for a religious institution which founds itself on forgiveness and recovery such as the Church, this is a dangerous concept. The requisite reporting of any allegation or even slight issue would render these two essential, core beliefs null, as modern society does not act within "innocent until proven guilty," no it acts more on "guilty even if proven innocent."

There are flaws in our Government. There are flaws in our Church members and leaders. Let's not multiply these flaws by combining them.

Jesus of Nazareth - Chapter 1

2008-01-31T21:22:00.000-05:00

The Baptism of Jesus

The Holy Father begins his Jesus of Nazareth with a logical initial step—the baptism of Christ. This is when the life of Christ becomes public, and history begins recording His actions. There are a few different accounts of the baptism and different settings in history. Benedict examines each and explains each of their importance. Matthew, for example, by his lineage of Jesus, shows that Jesus is the inheritor of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, fulfilling the promises to each and prophesy regarding them. Luke the Evangelist makes a point to emphasize the connection with man and God in his genealogy. When Luke refers to Adam, he emphasizes the special relationship which our first father shared with God, being the “son of God.” This emphasizes the relationship which Jesus shares as son of [...] Adam, Son of God. This emphasizes Jesus' relationship with God as divine, but also as Man, suggesting that as such, we share in the same humanity and thus possibly the same destiny.

Here the Pope switches gears slightly toward John the Baptizer and his own references in history, again, helping to establish a solid time-frame for his existence and for Jesus'. This case for the “historical Jesus” is made even more firm when He and John the Baptizer are recorded in the times of particular emperors and high-priests. In regards to these earthly leaders, the Pope makes an interesting distinction, pointing out that the emperor and Jesus belong to two different realities, distinct, but not mutually exclusive. Here we see the potential for struggle between the earthly and the divine, though preempted by Christ in his dictum “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and undo God that which is His” (Mk 12:17). John's role is, therefore, to prepare the path for Jesus who will come and bridge these two divergent realities.

John's mission echoes precisely that foretold in the prophets. And John's actions prefigure the saving actions of Christ. He baptizes, a sort-of death, and hears the confessions of all who come to him in the river Jordan. The Pope here begins to examine why it is that Jesus would do as all of Judea and come to John, a lesser man, for baptism and confession, when we understand that Christ was without sin to begin with. Benedict wonders here if Jesus could actually do as the rest of John's followers and put off his old life, and put on a new one. Now things really pick up in lesson, and we see that Jesus is trying to emphasize righteousness, which is necessary for salvation. Instead of descending into the waters of the Jordan and confessing His own sins, and putting on a new life for himself, which was utterly unnecessary and impossible for Him-who-is-Blameless, Jesus begins his public life with the symbolic action of how he would end it. His going down into the water is an assimilation of His humanity with the plight of humanity as a whole. The waters of Jesus' baptism are representative, as they are for us, of the tomb and the deep, Sheol. Were we to descend without Him we would be lost forever but in His descent and return the gates of Hell are flung open and He contends with Satan, and all that manipulate us, in order to free us. In this light, it only makes sense to baptize a person as soon as possible that they might share in the victory which Christ won for us in His baptism and eventual death.

Just as we witness Jesus’ communion with God and his commission at His baptism, we begin our life with God in the same way at ours. Jesus is Wholly Other, as Benedict says, and yet wholly contemporary of us, and through that, we can become Christian, and give our lives unto God.

Jesus of Nazareth: Introduction

2008-01-30T00:16:00.000-05:00

So, for a class I have with Dr. Scott Hahn, I have to (re)read Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger AKA Pope Benedict XVI. For the class I have to summarize each chapter in a single page, single spaced. So I think I'll post them here for your edification. And comment.

The first assignment was to read and summarize His Holiness' Introduction.

In his Introduction in Jesus of Nazareth the Holy Father wishes to plainly expose that he will be writing about the Historical Jesus in the context of the combined natures of Him, God and man. He begins by citing books from his youth, recalling the inspiration he drew from works which depicted Jesus-the-man in the light of Divine perfection, combining the God with that Humanity.

His Holiness notes with a touch of dismay the transformation of Christological Understanding in the middle of the last century, separating the notions of the historicity of the Biblical Jesus and the Jesus who is the subject of Faith. In addition to this, the humanness of Jesus was divided into two extremist camps: the revolutionary leader versus the humble rabbi. Benedict criticizes these “exegetes” for portraying themselves in their work instead of attempting to shed light on Jesus, choosing instead to thrust their notions, agendas and doubts onto His historical being.

The Pope goes on to explicitly criticize one particular account where the author, Rudolf Schnakenburg, separates the true incarnation from history, saying instead that the Evangelists attempted to clothe the Divinity of God in the flesh of man. The Holy Father questions this simply, asserting that there was no attempt or even a need for an attempt, for fact already coincided with the view of an Incarnate God. Benedict goes on to address this redactive methodology, pointing out the benefits and limits of the the Historical Critical Method. He explains the indispensability of this particular method as the dimension of exegetical work which addresses the reality of History. The Pope explains that without the accurate examination of History, and the understanding of the Church in that light, Christianity disassembles and devolves into other sects and religions. However the Historical Critical Method does not have the ability to examine save historical accuracies.; this benefit is also it's greatest limitation. In order to be a fully effective exegetical tool, it would also have to address the supernatural incarnation of the Divine-in-flesh as a moving character in history while, as Benedict has pointed out, only solid facts, not “supra-historical truths”can be examined.

The Holy Father discusses at-length the further limitation of the Historical Critical Method, that being its requirement to leave Biblical texts in the past and to examine them in the sitz im leben or context in which they were written. This method is limited by it's inability to address profound truth; it cannot represent the past today and apply it to modern life. Furthermore, being historical as-it-is, it deals exclusively in a limited set of presented facts and therefore must resort to conjecture and hypothesis to supplement it's lacks and to tie together it's facts.

To atone for this missing line, and indeed to properly exegete, Benedict, while incorporating the importance of the Historical Critical Method, posits that in-order to garner the full features of Scripture, one must turn to complimentary methods. From the examination of history through the aformentioned method, we ought to be inclined to hear “a voice greater than man's...[echoing]... in Scripture's human words.” That is, though the Canon is comprised of many authors and voices, throughout the entirity of these texts is a sub-uttered voice, instructing and guiding the faithful and embodying the unity of Scripture. This non-linear Canonical exegesis nonetheless progresses forward to and by Jesus Christ, moving in a manner through which the Old and New Testaments are woven as a seamless unity, complimenting each other with the “key”, that-is, Jesus.

This understanding is non-contradictory to the Historical Critical Method and both are integral parts of a true Scriptural and Christological hermeneutic. The former endeavours to determine the precise sense which the texts of the Canon convey, while the latter goes beyond and above literality to the deeper and essentially more significant level of supernatural Truth. These words, therefore, are, but can not be limited to a literal level. The Holy Father therefore asserts that the sense of Scripture, the collective authors, direct their texts toward the entire historical, present and future People of God.

What do you think?

Kneel Before Thy God in the Most Holy Eucharist

2008-01-28T20:08:00.000-05:00

In July of 2002 the (please withhold the laughter) United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (thank you for your restraint) issued a [IMHO] seemingly-blasphemous statement which read "The bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be standing. Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance."

Let us step back 12 years to the instruction by Pope Servant of God John Paul II, where in Inaestimabile Donum claims that "When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling itself is a sign of adoration." (#11)

Again step forward to October 2001, Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote a letter to the Bishops of the United States regarding certain New Word Innovations (my words) and American Adaptations (his words). He says that "the tenor of not a few letters received from the faithful in various Dioceses of that country leads the Congregation, even after a very careful consideration of such data, to urge the Conference to introduce a clause that would protect those faithful who will inevitably be led by their own sensibilities to kneel from imprudent action by priests, deacons or lay ministers in particular, or from being refused Holy Communion for such a reason as happens on occasion." (full text)

To further illustrate my point, and to completely beat this dead horse into submission, let me relate to you the letter written seven months after the USCCB's letter, again from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The relevant portion of this letter reads "communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion."

And now, to the thick of it. Here at Franciscan University of Steubenville the Pre-Theologate Program has forbidden it's members (young men discerning a vocation to God's Holy Priesthood) from kneeling to receive their Blessed Lord in the Eucharist. They have been accused of disobedience and disunity.

I beg the director to tell me how this position of prayer, the raising of hands, which has been encouraged and fostered here at Franciscan University, is more commensurate with the tradition of the Church than the posture which is cross-culturally, historically and traditionally the posture of surrender, service, worship and obedience, kneeling. I further inquire of the Bishop of this Diocese where he is in regards to liturgical abuses, especially in so prominent and forefront issue and place such as this University.

Is it possible that our Bishops and priests have taken such a stance against outward signs of reverence and devotion? In our seminaries, the men are chastised for, and warned against signs of "clericalism," categorized from believing in the superiority of the Priesthood, to the outward signs thereof, including but not limited to wearing of clerical attire (to which they have been traditionally entitled), formal respect for priests and many other things. But that's a sidebar, and a whole book in itself.

Recently I read a novel called Come Rack, Come Rope by Robert Hugh Benson, and a follow up Martyrs of the English Reformation by Dr. Malcolm Brennan. In it are descriptions of the rabid and rampant hatred and expunging of anything seen as "Romish" or Hoc-Est Popery (see here "Hocus Pocus"). It was here in the mid-late 16th century that the Protestant "Bishop" John Hooper declared that

"The outward behaviour and gesture of the receiver should want all kind of suspicion, shew [show], or inclination of idolatry. Wherefore seeing kneeling is a shew and external sign of honouring and worshipping, and heretofore hath grievous and damnable idolatry been committed by the honouring of the Sacrament, I would wish it were commanded by the magistrates that the communicators and receivers should do it standing or sitting..." (Philip Hughes, Philip, Reformation in England, (London: Hollis Carter, 1953, p. 197)

Why should we agree with these archaic Protesters heresies; these attacks on the Sacredness of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the very Soul and Divinity, whole and entire of the God of Abraham, Issac and the Creator and Savior of the world?

An Anarchist, Atheistic-Communist who managed to get himself ordained wrote in his Memoirs that

“To weaken more the notion of the ‘Real Presence’ of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more signs of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified and stern attitudes. Moreover the faithful will have to break themselves of the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion.” (AA 1025: The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle, p. 90)

*"...kneeling [...] will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion.”
- Atheistic Anarcho-Communist 'Priest'
*"Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion."
- USCCB

Frightening.

The adoration due the Sacrament is lacking. We must halt the tide of modernism and methodical dispiriting of our Church. But yet, how can we if the very men we are relying on to lead us into the next age of Christianity are so indoctrinated by the blasphemies (dare I say Heresies, denying the Real Presence) of their predecessors. I am of the opinion that we have not only innovative and lunatic liturgists who impose their own style and theology on the Liturgy rather than the style and theology proposed, and imposed by the only legitimate source: Rome, but that we also have a flood of anti-Catholicism which seeps in and infects, like a plague even our own bastions of Catholic Tradition and orthodoxy. We must fight back and demand that our bishops, priests and seminarians do and be allowed and encouraged to do what is traditional and necessary for the sustenance of Holy Mother Church. She is the Bride of Christ, and if she is allowed to be stripped of her finery, robbed of her Glory and broken of her Purity and Reality, how, then are we to lend ourselves to her example and prepare ourselves for Christ?

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a foretaste of Heaven. We reach out for the Divine, and we join the angels and the saints to sing their eternal hymn of Praise in declaring that God is Thrice-Holy and we beg him to allow us to share in the inheritance of His saints. Can we be expected adore Him properly, to bow before Him when we get to Heaven if we do not do it, if we are infact forbidden from doing it here on Earth?

"Wouldn't it correspond better to the deepest reality and truth about the consecrated bread if even today the faithful would kneel on the ground to receive it, opening their mouths like the prophet receiving the word of God and allowing themselves to be nourished like a child?" --The Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider, Karaganda, Kazakhstan

On the subject of Validity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

2008-01-25T01:51:00.000-05:00

There are three parts to a sacrament that pertain to its being valid, 1) Form, 2) Matter, and 3) Intention.

According to Pope Leo XIII from Apostolicae Curae,

"In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form". All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify."

Pope Leo XIII continues discussing the necessary intention,

"With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does."

Although in Apostolicae Curae, the Pope is addressing specifically the sacrament of Holy Orders (a subject I hope to address soon). The parts of a valid sacrament are the same for all sacraments; it is necessary to maintain what has essentially passed on from Christ and the Apostles. The Form are the words of the sacrament being administered. In regards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the form for the Holy Eucharist is "Hoc est enim corpvs mevm" (This is my body) and "Hic est enim calix sangvinis mei, novi et aeterni testimenti, mysterivm fidei, qvi pro vobis et pro mvltis effvndetvr in remissionem peccatorvm" (This is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, which for you (pl.) and for many is poured out in remission of sin). Any deviation from these essential words should be considered doubtful, especially if a different meaning is specified or intended, I.E. if the words do not "signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify." Usually, the words of consecration which are most regularly challenged come from those (mis)spoken over the chalice: for many v. for all and the mystery of faith.

In a simple manner, we can look to the Catechism of the Council of Trent which explains, "With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." The use of the words "for all" signify quite something else altogether. Clearly "for all" signifies salvation even for those who reject and/or do not believe; please remember that "extra ecclesiam nvlla salvs," that-is, outside the Church, there is no salvation. This is a solid dogma of the Church (about which I also hope to write soon). Regarding the words "Mysterivm Fidei" (Mystery of Faith) this same Catechism explains their necessity for they "signify that what lies hidden, and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with a firm faith." Pope Innocent III explains the necessity of these words in the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist as as such, because they explicitly protect against the error of disbelief. It is the "mystrium fidei" which declares the True Presence of Christ upon Catholic altars.

These same pronouncements from the teachings of the Popes are repeated in the Papal Bull de Defectibus of Pope St. Pius V. This bull was published in the front of every altar missal until the publication of the Novus Ordo Missae, when the first (IMHO dolorous) changes were made to the sacraments to conform to the "modern mind." Harken to the words of Pope St. Pius V:

"The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing. A defect may occur with regard to the matter to be consecrated, with regard to the form to be observed and with regard to the consecrating minister. There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant. If these things are present, the Sacrament is valid, no matter what else is lacking. There are other defects, however, which may involve sin or scandal, even if they do not impair the validity of the Sacrament."

The holy Pontiff continues with regard for the form,

"If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

So, be careful about receiving questionable sacraments. Christ gave us the sacraments that we might gain Heaven, giving us the tools to be administered by His Church, by which we might acquire sanctifying grace and be strengthened in our resolve to defend and spread the Faith. Holy Communion, received validly, and often, nourishes the soul with good food, for it is written that "man cannot live by [earthly] bread alone." Scripture refers to the Eucharist as "supersubstantial bread" (not to be confused with any heretical consubstantiation et al.).
This all being said, do yourself the justice, and honour the Church by exercising an effort to learn the differences between the Mass of All Time (Tridentine) and the Novus Ordo. They do differ for a reason; otherwise there would be no reason to make changes upon what God established and gave to the apostles.

Domine Deo Nostro, miserere nobis.
Maria Mater Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis.
S. Therese, ora pro nobis.

Bill of Rights... or Lefts...

2008-01-23T19:51:00.000-05:00

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

However, a court in my home-state of Massachusetts has a law which essentially eliminates free speech rights within a zone of 35 feet of an abortion clinic by prohibiting pro-life counselors from working, preaching and pleading with those souls who enter the clinics. Tell me again, just how this is Freedom of Speech?

BOSTON (LifeSiteNews) - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in federal court Friday against a new Massachusetts law that creates a 35-foot "buffer" zone around abortion clinics.

The law essentially eliminates free speech rights within the zone by restricting pro-life advocates from sharing their message with people entering the clinics.

"Pro-life advocates shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," said ADF-allied attorney and lead counsel Michael DePrimo.

"The buffer law is breathtaking in its scope. It obviously was designed and intended to squelch pro-life speech, but it prohibits much more, such as labor picketing and charitable solicitations. The First Amendment simply does not permit such outlandish restrictions on peaceful speech."

"It's ironic that Massachusetts, the 'cradle of liberty,' would pass a law that effectively creates a First Amendment-free zone that silences those who seek to share the truth about abortion," said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler. "Those with pro-life views have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else in America."

On Nov. 13, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law S.B. 1353, which created the "buffer" zone. First-time violators face a fine of up to $500 and three months in jail. Repeat offenders face fines of up to $5,000 and 2 1/2 years in prison.

ADF attorneys filed suit on behalf of several pro-life advocates whose ability to communicate peacefully with people entering the clinics has been severely compromised by the new law. In some instances, the new law leaves only about one foot of public sidewalk open to free speech, making it virtually impossible to engage in reasoned conversation.

According to the pro-life advocates filing suit, more than 100 women have changed their minds about having an abortion after hearing their message.

Ecclesial Pussification

2008-01-23T02:13:00.000-05:00

This week as I was visiting a local parish, I happened to read the bulletin for this upcoming Sunday. The mystery was solved. Last week, I happened to notice a drum set in church and found this most unusual. Why on earth would you ruin the beauty of the church with a drum set? What need was there exactly for such a thing in the Liturgy? To my disgust, I read in the bulletin that St. Joseph’s would now be offering the “Life Teen” mass (with a lowercase m) on the first and third Saturday evening of each month. (The Life Teen mass will replace the usual weekend Mass at that time.) If you attend Saturday evening Mass traditionally, and this new method makes you uncomfortable, tough, it’s what “the young people want.” Or is it? If this is what the young people want, why do vocational trends indicate otherwise? Saying that all young people “want” Life Teen is like saying all Irish people all drunks, it’s a terrible and most inaccurate stereotype.

There are some in “pastoral leadership” who would say “If we don’t make the Mass ‘fun,’ young people will leave the Church.”

I have one response to that statement: When last I checked, crucifixion was certainly no picnic. However, Christ loved us so much that He made the ultimate sacrifice. During the Triduum, we hear the final HOURS of Christ’s suffering and ultimately His death. His gift to us (among other things): the Eucharist. ONE HOUR A WEEK. Sixty minutes. That’s less time than it takes to watch a movie, a football game, or play a video game. Less time than a high school dance.

The Mass, fun? Since when did Truman Capote and Andrew Lloyd Weber take a seat on the College of Cardinals? Why is it that the music of the Mass has to sound like something off Broadway in order for young people (and some adults) to desire to attend? Why should we “dummy down” the mystical supper in order to appeal to young people. This generation is spoiled. In our classrooms, in our shopping malls, television, everywhere you go, we cater to make things “fun.” To make the Mass fun is like slapping Jesus in the face. Each and every youth who sleeps in on Sunday because “Mass is boring” is personally telling Christ “Thanks for dying on the cross and all, but your sacrifice bores me.”

There was a time when Catholic young people dressed up for Mass. You would never see a female’s mid-drift, nor did young men dress up nicer for the homecoming dance than they do for Mass. (I had a Catholic priest tell me once, that the reason he did not turn away people who dressed inappropriately was that he feared “sexual harassment.” Give me a break. The bottom line is that he feared angering those who put money in the collection basket. That’s another problem. Priests are too afraid to preach for fear they will anger parishoners. Let’s face it, sometimes, the truth hurts.) When are shepherds act sheepish, what are we to do? When our clergy caves into the youth’s request for fun, what does that teach them?

There was a time when young people would gather with their family at the Church on Sunday night for Benediction, there was a time young people knew how to pray the Rosary, the Angelus, and the Stations of the Cross. These days, if they aren’t set to a rock beat, Pastoral leadership claims “our youth doesn’t want it.” Interesting theory isn’t it? If we don’t add some “pep” to the Mass, our youth apparently turn their backs on Christ. What kind of lesson are we teaching if we give in to this sad demand?

Let’s take a moment to really take a careful examination of Christ on the cross, and really adore the Eucharist, and think to ourselves, how selfish is it to demand the Mass be more fun and enjoyable. Never once did Christ ask for a less painful death for our sins.

When Pope Benedict was elected to the Papacy, needless to say, I was delighted. Having read most of Cardinal Ratzinger’s books I knew we were in for something wonderful. However, a couple of times he has let me down. Why? Honestly, I think he is letting the media have too much control. Before his election, he was seen as the “Rottweiller,” the one who really upheld tradition. For the media this was apparently a concern. During world youth day, we tune in for evening prayer and see a clown juggling fire on the stage. Why on earth was this necessary? If Benedict is so traditional, why would he stand for such a thing during Divine Office? Simple, because it “made the youth feel good.” Does that make it right? No. But if the Pope’s doing it, why shouldn’t parishes?

Over the past few months, we have read time and again that Pope Benedict will be granting universal approval for the use of the 1962 Roman Missal. We have read that talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X are progressing very well. Who on earth is the source of all this information?

Thus far, not one inkling of it has held water. Last week, TIME magazine online ran an article that stated how this fall Benedict would really be getting into full gear and really giving the world an idea of his platform. His platform? It read more like a fall movie preview than an article, but honestly, what platform are we talking about? The Cardinal Ratzinger we knew and loved? Or the Servant of the Servants of God, Pope Benedict XVI who doesn’t seem to be very firm on much of anything? I certainly hope this fall marks the beginning of the downfall of several liberal tendencies in the Church. I hope the “watchdog” of the faith gets out of the dog house and gets to work. Enough of these articles speculating, let’s see some action! His Holiness can not hep but know that it's out there, and so I would like for him to stop playing the game we all know and despise, that of silence and obfuscation which has won us so many friends lately, and speak. I am a hardcore Papist, everyone knows that. But sometimes those who love you most, must be your staunchest critics.

The bottom line, I can sit here and write about how much I despise Life Teen, I can write my disgust for Pastors who allow such things, and I speculate on liberal Bishops, but ultimately, at some point, IF the Pope really does have a conservative card up his sleeve, he needs to play it. Ecumenism has gotten out of hand. The modern church looks very protestant in many ways, and unfortunately, not much sets us apart from those who broke away centuries ago. If we continue to cave in to the requests of the youth and everybody else, what kind of church are we really? Is this a rock … or somehow has the foundation turned to clay? I hate Life Teen, yes. I don’t believe it should be permitted, but obviously the Holy Father doesn’t have a problem with the movement, so it can carry on.

Sunday after Sunday, our pastors can tell young people “let’s have fun at Mass, this is supposed to be exciting.” Meanwhile, Jesus hangs there on the cross looking miserable -- and only if your sanctuary happens to have a Crucifix. When we start to replace bread and wine with cookies and milk, maybe then somebody will say something. Until that time, enjoy the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, after all, IT’S ALL ABOUT YOU!

Note: This is a post from my original blog on 6 June 2007

The Forgotten Vice in Seminary Formation

2008-01-23T02:12:00.000-05:00

This is a post courtesy of the late Fr. Todd Reitmeyer (1969-2006)

We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”
C. S. Lewis - The Abolition of Man

This is an article that I wrote during my years of seminary formation but I was advised to wait to have it published until after my priestly ordination. It deals with a touchy subject, that will offend many involved in the work of seminary formation, but with the current atmosphere of scandals and talk of a more thorough screening process for seminarians, I believe it is a topic that must be dealt with. Sioux Falls is a rural farming diocese that is having great success in vocations with both numbers and quality and one of the consistent complaints or difficulties our new seminarians have had in adjusting to seminary life is the issue of effeminacy. The fact of the matter is they are not used to and are uncomfortable living in an environment that is often effeminate. Recently one of our seminarians from a farm family was embarrassed to say that he would not want his brother to visit his dorm because of the way the men acted on his floor. While not, perhaps, stating it in the most precise manner it was understood by all when he said that many seminarians on his floor, “acted like a bunch of women.”

Saint Thomas includes effeminacy under the vices opposed to perseverance. It is from the Latin Mollities, which literally means “softness.” Mollities is the verb used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 which deals with the sexual sin of sodomy. It involves being inordinately passive or receptive. It may be true that some cultural prejudices are being revealed here with this comparison because a vice is a vice, whether it is found in a man or a woman, but it is also true that some vices are more perverse or disordered when found specifically in men or women.

What Saint Thomas means by persevering is when “a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance or difficulties and toils.” An “effeminate man is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrows caused by lack of pleasures, yielding as it were to a weak motion.” Thomas states that this effeminacy is caused in two ways. First, by custom, where a man is accustomed to enjoy pleasures and it is, therefore, more difficult for him to endure the lack of them. Second, by natural disposition, less persevering through frailty of temperament, and this is where Thomas compares men with women and also mentions the homosexual act of sodomy and the receiver in this act as being effeminate or like a woman. The vice of delicacy for Thomas considers those who cannot endure toils or anything that diminishes pleasure, and thus delicacy is a kind of effeminacy. Thomas quotes from Deuteronomy 28:56, “The tender and delicate woman, that could not go upon the ground, nor set down her foot for softness.” In priestly or seminary life we are not called to such softness, and these issues must be addressed in formation.

Imelda Marcos’ collection of shoes displays a type of softness, but if Ferdinand had a similar problem, it would be much more perverse or pronounced because he is a man. Effeminacy is more pronounced in a man than a woman because women are more susceptible to this vice. Just as the vice of drunkenness is more pronounced or perverse when found in a woman than a man.

I have five sisters, and all are feminine, but I would describe none of them as effeminate or soft. They are women; yet, they do not exhibit this particular vice. So, it must be understood, I am not putting down women or speaking on homosexuality, (though effeminacy is often a sign of this sexual disorder) but rather on acting in an inappropriate manner that is often prevalent in seminaries.

Saint Thomas also speaks on modesty concerning the outward movements of the body. Here, he quotes Saint Ambrose in stating that, “Beauty of conduct consists in becoming behavior towards others, according to their sex and person.” Thomas states that, “Outward movements are a sign of the inward disposition” and quotes Ecclesiastics 19:29-30, “You can tell a person by his appearance . . . the way a person dresses, the way he laughs, the way he walks, tell you what he is.” Saint Ambrose adds that, “The habit of mind is seen in the gesture of the body,” and that “the body’s movement is an index of the soul.” Ambrose goes on to say, “Let nature guide the movement: if nature fail in any respect, surely effort will supply the defect.” This effort is lacking in almost all seminary formation. Such things should be noticed and discussed by seminary faculty in both external and internal formation, as they can often be signs of deeper issues.

Saint Thomas, moreover, asserts the truth that it is often from our outward movements that other men form their judgment about us. Thomas encourages us to study our outward movements so that if they are inordinate in any way, they may be corrected. Such things need to be addressed in formation because they have a definite effect on our ability to be and bring Christ to others. Does the seminary deal with a seminarian that sways when he walks, who has limp wrists, who acts like a drama queen or who lisps? It must. This not about a witch hunt but being honest enough to admit that such external behavior affects our ability to share Christ. I knew a seminarian that spoke in a very effeminate manner, and to his credit he recognized this impediment to his future preaching the Gospel, and on his own sought help from a speech instructor. The seminary did not see this glaring problem and did not move this man to get assistance. That is the problem.

When we are at the altar or preaching the Gospel, we are Jesus Christ and must do our best to image him to our people. Anything we do that takes people’s attention away from this reality must be addressed. Over dramatic movements, purposeful lisps, swaying, in short, effeminate behavior removes attention from Christ and His word and puts it on the priest. This is not just distracting to other men but I know my sisters will roll their eyes when the Liberace-like priest celebrates himself while celebrating the Mass.

Thomas also speaks on modesty of outward apparel. Moderation, of course, is the rule, and here he warns that the lack of moderation may arise from an inordinate attachment to clothes, with the result being that a man sometimes takes too much pleasure in them. G. K. Chesterton in describing a friend as a man’s man said it best when he stated, “He was not in any case a dandy; but insofar as he did dress well, he was totally indifferent to how other men who were his friends might dress, which is another mark of purely masculine companionship.” The three guiding virtues in dress are humility, contentment and simplicity. Here one must always consider the appropriateness of a situation and the personal motivation behind wearing certain apparel. This is not a new problem as Saint John Chrysostom addressed it in the 4th c. in his writing on The Learning of Temperance, which speaks of the folly of over-adorning oneself with jewels. He states that, “I, for my part, expect that in the process of time the young men among us will wear even women’s shoes and not be ashamed. And what is more grievous; men’s fathers seeing these things are not much displeased, but do even account it an indifferent manner. Do you want me to add what is still more grievous; that these things are done even when there are many poor?”. . . “What can be worse than this unseemliness, this absurdity? For, this marks a soul, in the first place effeminate, then unfeeling cruel, then curious and idly busy.” Chrysostom goes on to say, “You may indeed laugh at hearing this, but I am inclined to weep for these men’s madness and their earnest care about these matters, for in truth they would rather stain their body with mud than those pieces of leather.”

Now, I would hope that no one in seminary formation is going around in women’s shoes, but the general point is to watch our attachment to such things. Is it in line with being a man? With being a priest of Jesus Christ? I remember in my first year of seminary how I was shocked when I came across a first year priest in the seminary who was wearing a gold ankle bracelet and matching gold earring. These are not proper adornments for a priest or a seminarian, and this should be seen as a formation issue.

In the book, The Church Impotent, Leon Poodles asks why men in the Christian West are so little interested in religion and that men who are interested often do not follow the general pattern of masculinity. Father Tom Forrest, a priest active in international evangelization, points out that only 25% of the participants in Catholic gatherings he has attended are men. The fact is that women dominate daily Masses, church staff and volunteers, and church groups. Why are we not attracting men when the Orthodox seem to have a balance, and Islam and Judaism have predominately male membership? The author goes on to state that something seems to be creating a barrier between western Christianity and men.

Poodles observes, “Because Christianity is now seen as a part of the sphere of life proper to women rather to men, it sometimes attracts men whose masculinity is somewhat doubtful. By this I do not mean homosexuals, although a certain type of homosexual is included. Rather, religion is seen as a safe field, a refuge from the challenges of life, and therefore attracts men who are fearful of making the break with the secure world dominated by women. These are men who have problems following the path of masculinity.”

I am not a psychologist and I cannot speak on some over-attachment to the feminine, but there is a truth that masculinity as a needed virtue in the seminary is something that is generally ignored in formation. This may be one of the problems with why the church has a difficult time attracting men to Mass and serving the church.

What is it that draws soft or effeminate men to the seminary and why is this not dealt with in formation? Poodles offers the prior explanation for the former question but the latter can only be understood if it is admitted that there are many bishops, faculty and priests who suffer under this vice and are therefore unwilling or unable to recognize it or address it. All seminaries are not equal, some relish in their softness others have select faculty that will privately admit to the problem but for fear of offending colleagues and bishops refuse to speak out on it. In my years of seminary formation the most controversial conference was given by my own Bishop Robert Carlson on the vice of effeminacy. Some faculty and students were offended, the truth always stings, and felt my bishop either somehow lacked compassion or was mean spirited in discussing such an issue. This must end and as with all problems its solution begins only with admitting its existence and reality that many seminaries breed an effeminate culture.

In a study by Lewis Terman and Catherine Cox involving a masculinity-femininity test, Catholic seminarians scored at a point far less masculine than any other male group of their age. Right next to them, though, were the Protestant male seminarians, which the authors of the study stated ruled out celibacy or sexual deviance as a cause for connection to this lack of masculinity. This, it also must be pointed out, is not particular to the Catholic faith but to all of the western Christian faiths. In fact, “Some liberal Presbyterian or Methodist congregations are practically bereft of men.”

In a parish, it will be helpful if you can talk on sports to relate to men. If you have an easier time or even prefer interacting with women to the exclusion of men, this will cause problems in your parish and affect your ministry to men. I remember a seminarian from my dorm who, even though he was not athletically gifted, used to go out and practice basketball and softball with one of his classmates. He did this not so much for the exercise, but because he felt it would help him minister to the kids in the grade schools and high schools where he would serve as a priest. This man recognized the importance of sports in our culture and the fact that it could be used to draw the young, especially boys, to the church and to Christ.

The question then is what can be done in helping form and ordain more manly priests? First, seminaries and bishops must recognize effeminacy as a formation issue. In choosing faculty to teach and form our future priests the question must be asked does the candidate exhibit manly or effeminate qualities. Also, bishops need to realize that just because a priest requests an assignment, this does not automatically make him the right man for the job. This is especially true if the priest desires to work in liturgy, campus ministry, teaching or seminary work where a manly model of priesthood is most needed and unfortunately often most missing. Bishops need to take an active role in knowing and forming their priestly candidates. It is, perhaps, not only his most important decision but also the decision he will be held most accountable for. My own bishop is one of the few if not only bishops in our country who has every seminarian live at least a summer in his residence. He knows the men he will ordain. Bishop Carlson recounts a story of a seminarian he inherited who had already been through five years of formation and was extremely effeminate. In working with this seminarian he asked him about his sexual orientation. The seminarian responded he did not know. At that time he was two years away from being ordained and neither the rector nor seminary faculty saw this as a problem. This is the problem.

We need to consider Mt. 19:11-12 when the church discerns whether the seminarian actually has a priestly vocation. “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” This third and last category is the only one true call to celibacy and the priesthood. Hebrews 5:4 reminds us that, “No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.” Bishops, rectors and seminary faculty must use these scriptures verses as guides in truly discerning if Jesus Christ is calling this seminarian to the priesthood. The number’s game and pressure to fill parishes cannot be used as the standard in making such decisions. This is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are today. Certainly it is not always an easy decision but it must always be asked if this seminarian has an alternative motive to the priesthood other than God’s call. Also, necessarily, there must be men who are not blinded by similar vices to be able to see and makes this decision.

We need to take this time of scandal as an opportunity to take a good hard look at how our seminaries and vocation offices are run and staffed. As a seminarian I could not have said such things publicly without jeopardizing the review all seminarians must receive from the faculty staff to move onto ordination. I am now a priest and a vocation director and so, have a duty to raise such concerns in the hope that such things will be addressed in forming priests for the 3rd millennium who most fully image the source of priesthood our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a follow up to this, the following is are excerpts from an article written by a fellow seminarian, regarding the conditions at my former seminary.

-[This seminary] is staffed by good and holy people who genuinely have our best interests at heart. All of the following complaints are solely of a professional nature and are meant in no way as a personal rebuke.

- Amongst the student body, paranoia from being watched and being shut-in with a 120 men who are either like minded or scared to speak appears to have led to: rampant homophobia, lack of compassion for the laity and religious who are struggling with their faith and disobeying the church because of that struggle, lack of compassion for women who often feel ignored because of our patriarchal hierarchy, eagerness to mock cultures and Catholic parishes that do things differently from [this diocese], and an atmosphere of paranoia over committing heresy matched only by the Red Scare. This does not provide me with an open atmosphere to explore my faith and ask questions.

- I would’ve hoped that the majority of students at seminary would be happy people enjoying their seminary experience. This is not generally the case here. The majority of laughs are either at the expense of others or the ridiculousness of seminary policy. These laughs of sick desperation are however a welcome respite from the pervading mood of bitterness and sloth. My favorite quote made by a seminarian in good standing was “I’m tired of watching my vocation die.” All this makes it difficult to maintain an upbeat demeanor and an enthusiastic attitude towards my vocation.

Male Contraceptives May Soon Become A Reality

2008-01-23T02:08:00.000-05:00

Male Contraceptives May Soon Become A Reality

This article, as well as others like it, and conversations that I have had with fellow students in the past two days have prompted me to post this.

Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing--prevent pregnancy.

Because you don't judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as Natural Family Planning, but the ways they go about it are very different.

Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae defines contraception as "every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (14). Such an action actively eliminates or withholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because "every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" (11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, "a lie in the language of the body."

If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice Natural Family Planning is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning (typically) involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman's cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God's gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure.

One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while Natural Family Planning, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring "serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (16). Thus it must not be used as "contraception Catholic style."

If you have any questions, corrections, problems or comments please feel free to comment and we'll get into it.

Note: This is a post from my original blog on 28 April 2006

Liberal Christianity is paying for it's sins

2008-01-23T02:04:00.000-05:00

Out-of-the-mainstream beliefs about gay marriage and supposedly sexist doctrines are gutting old-line faiths.

The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.

Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.

Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.

You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.

When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.

Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years.

The Episcopalians have smells, bells, needlework cushions and colorfully garbed, Catholic-looking bishops as draws, but who, under the present circumstances, wants to become a Presbyterian?

Still, it must be galling to Episcopal liberals that many of the parishes and dioceses (including that of San Joaquin, Calif.) that want to pull out of the Episcopal Church USA are growing instead of shrinking, have live people in the pews who pay for the upkeep of their churches and don't have to rely on dead rich people. The 21-year-old Christ Church Episcopal in Plano, Texas, for example, is one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country. Its 2,200 worshipers on any given Sunday are about equal to the number of active Episcopalians in Jefferts Schori's entire Nevada diocese.

It's no surprise that Christ Church, like the other dissident parishes, preaches a very conservative theology. Its break from the national church came after Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion, proposed a two-tier membership in which the Episcopal Church USA and other churches that decline to adhere to traditional biblical standards would have "associate" status in the communion. The dissidents hope to retain full communication with Canterbury by establishing oversight by non-U.S. Anglican bishops.

As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. A number of liberal Episcopal websites are devoted these days to dissing Peter Akinola, outspoken primate of the Anglican diocese of Nigeria, who, like the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans reported by the Anglican Communion, believes that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" (those words are from the communion's 1998 resolution at the Lambeth conference of bishops). Akinola might have the numbers on his side, but he is now the Voldemort — no, make that the Karl Rove — of the U.S. Episcopal world. Other liberals fume over a feeble last-minute resolution in Columbus calling for "restraint" in consecrating bishops whose lifestyle might offend "the wider church" — a resolution immediately ignored when a second openly cohabitating gay man was nominated for bishop of Newark.

So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure.

Note: This is a post from my original blog from 14 July 2006.