Punditry

From Fr. Tucker.

Some people are making a lot of noise about how disruptive such changes will be. Perhaps. But what I think we’re seeing is mainly the nostalgic response of older people, for whom the current translations have become "traditional" — even if that tradition goes no further back than a few decades. Maybe they can petition Rome for a special Indult by virtue of which Mass can be said (oh, maybe, in one church in each Province) according to the current translation, for the sake of those who are nostalgic for "And also with you." Perhaps Rome might even promote Bishop Trautman, and bring him to Rome to oversee the "And also with you" Indult?

Ha! Great idea if it actually followed the model of the Tridentine indult of being fairly rare or nonexistent in most diocese. It would be great fun telling those who liked the 60’s ICEL translation that they were just pining for an old-fashioned liturgy. That they are resistant to change and just want the Mass they grew up with. That they are not being open-minded in accepting adaptations to the liturgy and accommodating to progress. To top it off you could tell them that if they really want the old translation they can go to a Mass 200 miles away offered at 6 in the morning once a month during leap years in mausoleum chapel at a Catholic cemetery.

Though I wonder what are the real arguments for retaining a inaccurate translation? So far they seem to fall mainly along the changes being disruptive and that people are use to the current one. It seems many liturgist severely underestimate the laity. In their view they are always being confused by something. For example some liturgists suggested that the tabernacle be removed behind the altar so that people would not be confused between Christ sacramentally present in the tabernacle and Christ becoming sacramentally present during the consecration. As if people were blowing up like Star Trek robots in the pews. Or that the communal meal aspect of the Eucharist must be promoted over the sacrificial aspect so as to not confuse people. Yet somehow they expect people get the deep nuance of liturgical dancers and how it relates yet they’re too stupid to understand various levels of Christ being present. That we can’t understand that when we go back to the "I believe" that we can’t understand that the recitation of the Nicene Creed is both a personal and a communal affirmation of the faith.

You would think with as many times that Catholic bring up the whole "it not either/or but both/and" that we just might realize the truth of that statement. Though as a side I must admit to being bored by the term both/and. Can’t we just come up with our own word and get it over with. How about boand?

Though maybe to accommodate those who like the less accurate translation we can print Interlinear Study Missals. That is with the new and better translation on one side of the page and the inferior one on the other. So at any time they can translate the text more in line with the official Latin texts with the more agenda driven texts of the ICEL translation.

Now as for the tongue-in-cheek suggestion by Fr. Tucker about giving Bishop Trautman a position in the Vatican to promote the "And also with you" Indult I have some other ideas. In line with Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Walks, why can’t we set up curial positions to assign some bishops and cardinals to? Bishop Trautman could head the Congregation of Unnecessary Liturgical Changes, Cardinal Mahony "Not so Divine Worship and the Lack of Discipline of the Sacraments" or possibly the "Department for Neglect of Vocations." Though maybe with his experience of presiding over liturgical dance the "Ministry of Silly Walks" would truly be in order. There probably are several U.S. Bishops that could be assigned to the "Congregation for giving out stones instead of bread." And with all the emphasis on disordered sex education promoted within the USCCB there must be some that could be in charge of some curial position on sex education. Though what would you call it? Talking about Touching wouldn’t fit. How about "I’m curia yellow."

In a interview via AMDG.

In an interview published Saturday by Inside the Vatican, the Cardinal [Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments], somewhat exasperatedly, responded once again to the question. In the interview he compared the situation to a person in favour of killing politicians and asked rhetorically if such a person should be denied communion. He said: Suppose somebody voted for the killing of all the members of the House of Representatives, ‘for all of you being killed. I call that pro-choice. Moreover, I am going to receive Holy Communion next Sunday.’ Then you ask me, should he be given communion. My reply, ‘Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that question?’ Can a child having made his First Communion not answer that question? Is it really so complicated? The child will give the correct answer immediately, unless he is conditioned by political correctness. It is a pity, cardinals have to be asked such questions."

This is because the bishops as a whole commit the sin of commision. The sin of commision is instead of making the common sense and theologically correct decision they instead create a commision. Have you ever heard of the members of a commision that were martyred for their faith? Neither have I and I doubt if I will see it any time soon.

The sin of commision leads to silliness like:

McCarrick plans to seek advice on this at meetings with Catholic Democrats and Republicans this week who were recommended by their local bishops. [Source]

Maybe I am dense, but I don’t see what needs to be investigated and how Cardinal McCarrick’s commision could just go on and on without ever coming to a definitive conclusion. The main question seems to me to be do you care enough about a public sinner that you withhold Communion out of care for their soul? Sure there are prudential questions about taking actions that appear to be political. But which is more important someone’s soul or appearances? Secondly what about the scandal caused by those openly in defiance of the Church and in objectively grave sin receiving Communion? It seems to me as priories go the pastorally sensitive questions are totally outweighed by points one and two. But then again I am only an armchair bishop.

Cardinal Arinze’s example reminds me of a question someone on Mark Shea’s blog asked a bit of time ago.

IF SOME POLITICIAN favored a law which authorized the beheading and dismemberment of a very moderate number of Catholic bishops ~ annually ~ would the bishops say "…but where does he stand on tax reform"?"

The answer to which I wrote in my post Every Bishop a Wanted Bishop.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago noted that a long-standing division between bishops who prefer standard American English and those who want a literal rending of Latin has become more complex. Some bishops on both sides have realized that the current English text is more familiar and meaningful to many Catholics than the centuries-old Latin text once was, he said.

Since the above isn’t in quote text I assume the reporter translated whatever the Cardinal said into gibberish since there is no plan to go back to Latin only, but only to reform the English translation.

"There are those who have been quite critical of the present translation, but who are now saying that we don’t want to disturb the people, especially in the situation of weakened episcopal authority we have now," he said, referring to distrust of bishops who failed to remove child molesters from the priesthood.

Exactly how does a more faithful translation disturb the people? Wouldn’t a more accurate translation of the Word of God be nothing but be a benefit. And exactly why was it okay to "disturb the people" with all the changes made in the sixties and it is wrong to make corrections now? Not working towards valid reform demonstrates a weakening of episcopal authority and not the opposite. If you can’t get the laity to accept better scriptural translations then what would be a better example of weakening authority?

Conference president Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., spoke of different credibility issues related to the scandal. While surveys show that 90 percent of priests love the priesthood and more than 90 percent of parishioners say parish priests do a good job, bishops fare less well. Priests fear that bishops will remove innocent priests.

And the laity fear that they will not remove guilty ones. I bet "bishops fare less well" is quite an understatement. Most of the anger has not been directed at fallen priests, but at those who facilitated their behavior by playing the diocese version of musical chairs. Of course priests have a valid concern about false accusations in the current climate. I remember while in the military after the Tailhook scandal and the endless sexual harassment training that there was great fear of being falsely accused by those who saw this as an easy way to retaliate against a supervisor they didn’t like.

Some bishops, including Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, believe the changes are clunky and obscure. For instance, in the Nicene Creed, "one in being with the father" would be replaced with "consubstantial with the father." [Source]

Wee Catlicks are 2 dum to lrn more precise theological terms. When Bishop Trautman was voted in for the bishops’ Committee on Liturgy we knew that we would get more of the same. The very bishop who has been sending off letters arguing with the Vatican about the Holy See reserving the right to appoint members to ICEL and as to whether the text even needed to be reformed. This of course is no surprise since as chairman of the BCL he was responsible during the years of massive revisions of scriptural and liturgical texts. It is hard to see the problems in your own handiwork.

Update: Mark Brumley has a more substantial take on the same article.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While the official Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue continues, questions have arisen regarding the potential impact on the dialogue of Roman Catholics or Anglicans who switch communities.

While Anglicans — especially Anglican bishops or priests — becoming Roman Catholic after disagreeing with their community’s stands on ordaining women or openly gay men has made news, the movement of Catholic priests and laity to Anglicanism seldom makes headlines.

Bishop John Flack, head of the Anglican Center in Rome, said he meets people moving in both directions, yet the ecumenical dialogue has not explored the implications of their movement.

"We are not talking about huge numbers in either direction, but it is perhaps a constant trickle," he told Catholic News Service Nov. 9.

Among those changing denominations, the Roman Catholics generally say they long to breathe the "free air" of the Anglican Communion, with Catholic priests usually saying they plan to marry, the bishop said. The Anglicans usually say they have had enough of the "woolly thinking" of their leadership, he added.

"Anglicans who become Roman Catholic generally become very conservative Roman Catholics, while Roman Catholics who become Anglican tend to become very liberal Anglicans," he said. [Source]

The last paragraph is not exactly a surprise.

Great news! Over half of American Catholics are already saints. [Via Roman Catholic Blog]

… A 2003 survey of over 1,000 Catholics, conducted by sociologists James Davidson and Dean Hoge, indicates that while 46 percent of Catholics celebrate Reconciliation once a year or more, 53 percent never or almost never do. In addition, only 38 percent of Catholics say that private Confession to a priest is “essential to [their] vision of being Catholic.”

In a 2001 article in Commonweal magazine Boston College historian James O’Toole wrote: “We seem to be in the process of reducing the number of sacraments from seven to six—by default.” A closer look at the “most endangered sacrament” reveals that, though there are signs of hope, this trend isn’t likely to reverse itself anytime soon.

Most endangered sacrament? Well this sacrament has been getting the silent treatment. Silence from the Bishops, pulpits, CCDs, etc. If people went to the hospital and found that the emergency room was only open on Saturdays between 5 and 5:30 pm you know there would be an outcry. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is truly the emergency room for those in mortal sin. They have been pronounced dead in their relationship with God and are revived and restored to life. Flat lined to grace and restored to a healthy pulse. Sure they always say "or by appointment", but doesn’t making an appointment somewhat remove the canonical right to anonymous confession? And what about all of us suffering from the cuts and bruises due to our venial sins? Sorry clinic hours are limited.

… Catholics born after Vatican II have never experienced the long Saturday lines at parish confessionals. Most are likely to have experienced Reconciliation as part of an Advent or Lenten communal penance service followed by individual Confessions, which comprises the vast majority of Reconciliation celebrations today.

Since my parish has confession before all Masses I would dispute the claim that people never experienced long lines. I suspect that other parishes that have frequent confession also have long lines.

While some Catholics may shy away from the sacrament for fear of confessing their sins to another person, an informal survey shows that a sense of sin and a sense of right and wrong is still alive and well in the hearts of minds of many Catholics.

When asked if they thought of themselves as sinners, many answered quite bluntly.

“Yes. I am a sinner,” says Manuel Gonzales, 37, of Los Angeles. “If we don’t see ourselves as sinners, we are in denial.”

It is very easy to just acknowledge that we are sinners. If someone is severely sick and they agree that they are sick, but don’t go to a doctor then their idea of sickness is not very well developed.

Jose Torres, 43, of Norman, Oklahoma, says he will only receive Communion if he has gone to Reconciliation beforehand.

“I need to be free of sin before I receive Christ and the Eucharist,” Torres says. “If I go [to Communion] with sin, I commit a double sin, and I don’t want that.”

Though people can also err in the opposite direction. If you are not in mortal sin your venial sins are removed via the Mass. "blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins." Pope Innocent III

“Until there is a new kind of religious consensus formed, revival is going to be very difficult,” says James O’Toole. “It won’t happen until there is a replacement for the cultural supports Catholics have had in the past.”

In other words, it may be a long time, if ever, before Reconciliation can be removed from the top of the “endangered sacrament” list

New York University’s plans for a 26-story dormitory on a site formerly owned by the Roman Catholic Church could potentially violate deed restrictions placed on the property by the Archdiocese of New York.

The restrictions prohibit future inhabitants – in this case, students – from offering advice on family planning or getting abortions, or pinning up posters to that effect.

The dorm for 700 students would be built on the current site of St. Ann’s Church and Rectory, on East 12th Street between Third and Fourth avenues. The deed signed in December 2004 between the Roman Catholic Church of St. Ann and the dorm’s developer, Hudson Companies, contains several restrictions on the property’s use, including a ban on "performing any abortions or providing any professional counseling or advice advocating abortions or family planning." It also prohibits signs or other advertising relating to abortions or family planning.

Moral deed restrictions are common in real estate transactions involving religious buildings, in part to avoid the embarrassment of a religious building being developed into something incongruous, such as a church on Sixth Avenue in Chelsea that was turned into a nightclub, once called the Limelight.

An attorney with Beckman, Lieberman & Barandes, Michael Beckman, said the restrictions most likely were designed to prevent the building from becoming an abortion clinic or home to an abortion advocacy group. But he said it is conceivable that regular dorm activities could come into conflict with the restrictions. Mr. Beckman said that, in his view, a sign posted in the dorm announcing a meeting that used the words "family planning" or "abortion" would violate the deed. He said a family-planning meeting or conference, or a class that advocated abortion over other options, would also potentially be in violation.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, Joseph Swilling, helps clear things up.

Mr. Swilling would not say whether NYU would then be permitted to provide any professional counseling or advice advocating abortion, or any signage advertising it. He said the deed restrictions were common in real estate transactions involving the Archdiocese.

About par for diocesan spokesman – you are usually left more confused after they issue any kind of clarifying statement. If diocesan spokesman got to pick their own mottos it would be "Through a glass darkly."

Andrew at Shrine of the Holy Whapping reports more about what the leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion recently said.

We have no doctrinal differences with Rome which would keep us from being in full communion with each other. The climate is brewing for the Traditional Anglican Communion to be the 27th ecclesial group accepted into communion with Rome and the first church touched by the Reformation to do so.

How can this be true? Especially after the progressive prophet Gene Robinson recently said:

Bishop Robinson said: "We are seeing so many Roman Catholics joining the church.

"Pope Ratzinger may be the best thing that ever happened to the Episcopal Church."

Well to give him his due maybe he was being prophetic like the High Priest Kaifa when he said, “it is better that one man die and the whole people
do not perish.” They both had no idea that the actual truth of the their words had nothing to do with what they meant.

Truly Pope Benedict may be the best thing that ever happened to the Episcopal Church if his papacy provides an example for more to cross the Tiber. Though Gene Robinson is doing his part to remind those swimmers that when they see Bishop Robinson on the bank of the river that turning back is not an option. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger in his book "Introduction to Christianity" when talking about the Monarchians and Modalists that there arguments helped to lead to a correct conception of God and said in this case even "error was fruitful." Here’s to hoping the errors of Gene Robinson and others will be fruitful, especially in regards to Church unity.

A reader who blogs at AdoroTeDevote sent me a link to the following story.

Minnesota churches will soon see a sign of protest in collection plates.

Gay Catholics and their supporters plan to mark their donations to send a message to let the church know who exactly is giving them their money. Cash donations will be marked with a pink triangle around the pyramid on the back, while checks will have a notation in the memo field.

“If you want our money, then support us,” says parishioner Tom Degree. “They need to know how much they are receiving from GLBT congregants.”

Degree and others are concerned about several positions the Catholic church has taken recently, such as banning gay priests.

“I think that’s a bright idea,” says Rachel Dykosky. “I think they should let them know where the money is coming from. The church needs to know who is supporting them.”

Others think the protest is too political, and doesn’t belong in church. “It’s incomprehensible to me that they would do that. I don’t see any logic in it,” says Florence Pope.

Degree thinks the search for marked money will be similar to the church’s search for gay members in seminaries.

“This is gay money,” degree says. “If you don’t feel comfortable taking it, throw it away.”

My first reaction is shouldn’t they be using three dollar bills? Besides if the Church had a problem taking money from sinners we wouldn’t need collection baskets. The underlying thing I notice about protests by "Gay Catholics" is that the activism is not in any way Catholic. For example we have rainbow sashes, people receiving Communion and then spitting it out, and now this pink triangle money tactic. So the Church is suppose to abandon 2000 years of both scripture and Apostolic tradition and guidance by the Holy Spirit because somebody marks up money with a felt pen? The use of the triangle is fairly ironic considering that it is also a symbol of the Trinity. Though I guess you are going to substitute your opinion with the Holy Trinity it makes a certain sense. If you are going to say that the Church that Jesus founded has been wrong about something so basic for two-thousand years and has been teaching very severe error, I guess it takes the infamous narcissism of the homosexual culture to do just that. It is no coincidence that many homosexual events include the word pride in them.

Now if you truly believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and yet believe that the Church is wrong about homosexual acts then wouldn’t you be holding prayer services instead. How about prayer and fasting and encouraging others to join in. Threatening not to tithe or to disrupt the Mass is just profoundly un-Catholic. The Church must change because I don’t want to! Jesus welcomes everybody – just ignore those passage about repentance first and the possibility of going to Hell and sheep and goats, etc. Just ignore those passages condemning homosexuality – after all 10 out of 10 active homosexual exegetes find they don’t mean what they plainly mean. Oh by the way as part of a package deal you will have to drop the dogma on contraception also since homosexual sex is always contraceptive. Be fruity and don’t multiply.

In a new sign of improving relations between the Vatican and China, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony has just returned from China, where he met with Catholic church and government officials and publicly celebrated Mass in a parish church in Shanghai.

Mahony, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, said this week that he was "very optimistic" that diplomatic ties between the church and Beijing would be established, opening a new chapter in a long and sometimes difficult history in church-state relations. Mahony’s low-key journey was not announced in advance because of what archdiocesan spokesman Tod Tamberg called diplomatic sensitivities. Although Mahony described the tour as a private sabbatical, he said he is preparing a report of his findings for the Vatican. [Source]
[Via Vatican Watcher]

Reading the article I could almost imagine in it Cardinal Mahony declaring that his diocese has joined the Patriotic Catholic church in China. After all they would not have to make many if any changes. The Patriotic church does not come under the authority of the Pope. Between liturgical wackiness, ordaining an openly homosexual deacon, trying to make pastoral associates the equal of priests, heterodox conferences, known dissenters in the diocesan magazine – I think you could make a pretty good case that there is not much difference between the Patriotic Catholic church in China and the L.A. Diocese. Faithful Catholics in L.A. don’t come close to the level of persecution as the underground church in China, but their beliefs are not exactly met with open arms by many in that diocese.

"If I’m the nominee, Republicans will be sorry," said Biden, a Roman Catholic who ran for president in 1988. "The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat." [Source]

The question is not whether he is religious or not. The question would be as a Catholic is he faithful to the teachings of the Church or not. A 17 percent pro-life voting record and support for same-sex marriage doesn’t exactly point to faithfulness. Hopefully me might find another use for his Rosary then simple assault or to at least use the Rosary as a weapon in intercession against the culture of death.