First AnniversaryFor the record: after another papal interview, another Holy See Press Office clarification

This item has been widely covered in mainstream sources, but we are posting the following for the full record of events.

The original pope quote from his interview to major Italian daily Corriere della Sera, published last week in celebration of the first anniversary of the papal election:

Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity. [English translation: Zenit]

Is it possible that the Pope did not have homosexual civil unions in mind? We find it highly unlikely: first because his answer clearly provides two very different parts, marriage (which "is between one man and one woman"), and the rest, which include "different situations of coexistence" (actually, "cohabitation," that is the word used in Italian, and a closer English translation).

Second, because civil unions and homosexual "marriages" are far from unknown to the Pope. He was the primate of the Argentinian church when his country became the first in Latin America to approve the redefinition of civil marriage and many sources from Argentina (including, but not limited, to the ones who spoke to John Allen) have confirmed that he favored such unions as a compromise solution in the place of full "marriages".

This report makes sense because, as we reported at the time (note that this was in 2010, 3 years before the conclave, showing that we always had our eyes on what was going on in Argentina, and with Cardinal Bergoglio in particular):

The Bishops came very late into the game, mostly to display a façade of 'action' before the Holy See, and Catholics remained uninformed about their religious obligations until the very end. It would be wonderful if the Bishops of Argentina had been as forceful regarding this matter as they have been in preventing the Traditional Mass from being available in their dioceses.

This mess is mostly of their making. [Source]

Third, because the present provides even more context to the pope's quote, because such "homosexual civil unions" ("unioni gay") have been in the center of the Italian political debate on family for months. No wonder the defense by Matteo Renzi (at the time mayor of Florence and chairman of the Democratic Party of Italy, and now prime-minister) of homosexual civil unions was the center of the last major article by Mario Palmaro, posted by us in January. And no wonder that the Archbishop of Lucca, when questioned on the matter on Sunday, just let it be known that Christians have to "open up to diversity."

The clarification was issued by the English-language officer of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Rosica, on March 7. Let it remain clear that the application of the pope's words to homosexual civil unions was not denied:

“The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions.”

“In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.”

By giving this response “Pope Francis spoke in very general terms, and did not specifically refer to same-sex marriage as a civil union,” he explained.

“Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage,” the priest continued.

“We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words that what has been stated in very general terms.” [Source.]

_______________________________

Even the most favorable reading, therefore, means that the matter is left by the pope to the local episcopal conferences. Why that at best uncertainty, at worst tolerance, is a 180-degree turn from the permanent and unchanging position of the Holy See can be seen in the very recent pronouncements made by Popes who were quite comfortable with modern thinking, modern family problems, and therefore quite acquainted with the discussion, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who were nonetheless always clear and explicit on this matter:

Homosexuality? De facto unions? "Time to open up to diversity," says Italian archbishop

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Lucca (Tuscany, Italy) received a group of religion journalists for his annual chat, and the talk was moderated by a famous Vaticanist in Italian public television and radio network RAI, Raffaele Luise.

The following excerpt is from Lucca in diretta:

The evening concluded with a debate in depth on the matter of homosexuality. Both Luise and the archbishop praise, in substance, the opening of the Church regarding gays and de facto couples. Particularly for Luise, it is necessary on this theme, "a cultural revolution, that contemplates the fact that homosexuality is not a deviancy, but a human attitude, and not just that, considering that almost 500 natural species display homosexuality." "The new paradigm - says bishop Castellani - is that every diversity is richness. In my life as a parish priest, I saw and lived so many situations [and he describes a few]; and I am convinced that the time has come for Christians to open up to diversity."

Snack table at the "Archbishop's Evening with Journalists", Lucca (source)

_____________________________

From "who am I to judge" to "bravo" to "every diversity is richness"... Is it pointless? Have we arrived at a point where it is pointless to argue? Is much of the hierarchy willing to leave us alone defending what the Church (the Apostles whose successors they are!) has always taught? That is the situation of the defense of Christian faith and morals today: every man for himself...? 

The point is however, whether we want to admit this, dispute and denounce it, or whether we want to play smart and hide behind the “Who am I to judge”. The point is also whether this worldwide Sodom and Gomorrah merit the language of mercy and comprehension.

Well, then, I wonder, why don’t we also reserve the same mercy for the traffickers of chemical weapons, the slave-traders and financial embezzlers? Aren’t they also poor sinners? Right? Or do I have to ask Schönborn to meet them for lunch and evaluate their purity?

Dear Director, the situation by now is very clear: any Catholic politician, intellectual or journalist even if he wants to fight on the homosexualist front, will find himself spiked in the back by the mysticism of mercy and forgiveness. We are all completely de-legitimized, and any bishop, priest, theologian, director of a diocesan weekly or politician of the Catholic-democratic-type can shut us up with that “Who am I to judge”. We would be riddled with shots like a farm pheasant in a hunting chase ... .

Dear Director, our problem is not Matteo Renzi [now Prime-Minister and in favor of homosexual civil unions].

Our problem, my problem, is that the other day the Holy Father said the Gospel “is not proclaimed with doctrinal beatings, but with sweetness.” Also here, I would please ask “normalists” and timewasters to abstain. Even I know that effectively the Gospel is announced like that – apart from the fact that John the Baptist had rather brusque methods himself, and the Lord defines him “as the greatest among those born of woman”.

But you know very well that with that little sentence, we have both been spiked like codfish.

We have ... been fighting against legalized abortion, divorce, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, homosexual unions and cunning politicians like Matteo Renzi, who are promoting and spreading all that stuff. But there you have it, we are both irremediable doctrinal bashers, people without charity, ethicists, “theologians”, as some journalist from Communion and Liberation calls us. ...

[O]ur problem and the problem of Catholics and ordinary people is not Matteo Renzi.

The problem is our Mother Church, who has decided to abandon us in the jungle of Vietnam: the helicopters have taken off and we have been left where we’ll let ourselves, one at a time, be spiked by the “Vietcong relativists.” I am not protesting for myself, and you know the reasons why. And besides, I prefer a thousand times, to stay down here waiting for the Vietcong, rather than ever get into one of those helicopters, in which perhaps there is the promise of a little seat in some clerical conference of the type “Science and Life,” under the illusion that one is a part, in some way, of the official power, together with all the other ecclesial movements. Or with the crazy idea - written in black and white - that, Gnocchi and Palmaro were perhaps right, but they shouldn’t have said it, because certain truths should not be uttered, rather they should be somewhat denied publically in order to confound the enemy.

No, I am not protesting for myself.

However, I still have the problem of that seven-year-old son of mine and three older ones too. ... Because last night I couldn't sleep. And because I’d like to understand – and ask the readership ... a question: What more has to happen in the Church for Catholics to stand up, once and for all, and shout their indignation from the rooftops? Attention: I am addressing individual Catholics, not associations, secret meetings, movements, sects which for years have been managing the brains of the faithful for the benefit of third parties, dictating the line the followers have to take. These groups seem to me to be placed under the care of those minus habens [of lesser intelligence] and headed from afar by more or less charismatic individuals, who are more or less trustworthy. No, no: here I am making an appeal to individual consciences, to their hearts, their faith and their virility. Before it is too late.

Mario Palmaro (R.I.P.)

La Bussola Quotidiana

January 8, 2014

Silence in the Liturgy: LMS video

Building on the FIUV Position Papers published here on Rorate Caeli last year, we at the Latin Mass Society have started a series of short videos to introduce the issues in a very simple way. Having tackled Septuagesima (a position paper on this is in preparation), I can now present a video on Silence in the Liturgy.

The original posting of this paper on Rorate Caeli on this can be seen here. The Position Paper itself is only 1,600 words, plus footnotes. You can download a pdf here; see the whole set of publishes papers here.

The series of Position Papers is ongoing, I will be posting the next one, on the Pax, here on Rorate Caeli in a couple of weeks.

Event: Pilgrimage to Portugal, with Traditional Mass in the Ritus Bracarensis

Igreja do Monte, Funchal, Madeira

Rev. Joseph D. Santos, Jr., of the Church of the Holy Name of Jesus (Diocese of Providence), invites you to travel with him to Portugal from May 6 – May 14, 2014, where he will be offering the Traditional Latin Mass each day in the Roman Rite and including a Mass in  the Rite of Braga.

Among the highlights are Madeira isle, Blessed Karl’s resting place, Braga, the primal see of Portugal, and Fatima, a place chosen by heaven.  

For more information and phone numbers, visit here.

How to Regard Vatican II a special essay by Don Pietro Leone

A representative image of the consequences of
Vatican II in the web encyclopedia Wikipedia

Many of our readers are aware of the work of Don Pietro Leone (for instance, The Roman Rite: Old and New, on the Traditional Mass and the many problems of the new liturgy). Don Pietro Leone is the pen name of a priest who celebrates the traditional Mass in full and peaceful communion with his Ordinary somewhere in that great cradle of civilization known as Italy. 

In this special essay, reflecting the personal position of the author and translated by our contributor Francesca Romana, the reverend Father tries to explain what is the best way to regard the Second Vatican Council, 50 years later and with the full knowledge of all its fruits and consequences, willed or unintentional.

_________________________

The Vaticanum Secundum is characterized by a number of declarations lacking in clarity. An example is the statement: ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church’ (Lumen Gentium, 8). In this essay we shall present three criteria for understanding the Council as a whole in relation to this unclarity.

The criteria are as follows:

1) the accomplishment of the objective purpose of Vatican II as a Council;

2) the assistance of the Holy Spirit;

3) the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’.

I. The Accomplishment of the Purpose of the Council qua Council

The purpose of a Church Council is to exercise the Church’s munus docendi.

The Church has three munera or offices: the munus docendi, (the teaching office), the munus regendi (the office of government), and the munus sanctificandi (the office of sanctification).

The munus docendi, or teaching office, was entrusted to the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ together with the Depositum Fidei, in order that she might teach the Faith, the content of the Faith, or, in other words, that she might teach Catholic doctrine.

The Church has the competence to teach this doctrine, she has no competence to teach any other doctrine. This doctrine is immutable; it is re-iterated over the ages as the same doctrine and in the same sense; it is always to be understood in the same manner (in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia, Dei Filius, First Vatican Council, s.3 ch.4). The only change to which it is subject is the change in its expression, namely the increase in the depth and clarity of its expression over the ages.

Now, the Second Vatican Council did not declare Catholic doctrine in the same sense as it had been declared before, nor did it declare it with greater depth and clarity than before: rather it declared it in an obscure manner. In so doing it made an inadequate use of the Church’s munus docendi, and thereby failed in its purpose.

To illustrate this last paragraph let us return to the example given above: ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church’.

Now it is de Fide: it is an infallible doctrine of the Church, that is to say a dogma, that the Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and constitutes His Mystical Body.

As to the first fact, St. Pius X declares In the Antimodernist Oath (1910): ‘the Church was founded by the true and historical Christ Himself in the time of His earthly life, immediately and personally.’

As to the second fact, Pope Pius XII, repeating the doctrine he expressed in his encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), declares in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950, § 27): ‘…the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.’

From the fact that the Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ and constitutes His Mystical Body it follows that the Church of Christ is identical to the Catholic Church.

What we now need to do is to compare the proposition: ‘The Church of Christ is identical with the Catholic Church’ with the proposition: ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church’. And we shall ask whether the latter is the same doctrine as the former; whether it has the same sense; whether it is understood in the same manner; and, if it is different in any way, whether this difference is simply a difference in expression, which consists in an increase in depth or clarity of that expression.

We must reply that it is not in a clearer way the same doctrine, it does not have the same sense, it cannot be understood in the same manner vi verborum. Rather it is different, and this difference does not represent a clearer and deeper expression of the former doctrine. In a word, it is obscure. Therefore, at least in this declaration, the Council has failed in its purpose.

Someone might object that other doctrines of the Council, which are Catholic in nature, are indeed expressed in the same sense as they were previously, so that we must conclude that the Council accomplished its purpose as a Council, if not in all its texts, then at least in some of them.

To this objection we must reply that if the body of the texts is vitiated in part, it is vitiated as a whole, according to the principle: bonum ex integra causa. This is particularly true where it is hard to distinguish that which is vitiated from that which is not, where we need experts to do so, experts with the requisite formation in theology and Church history. And where do we find such experts to-day?

Take the example of a consignment of buns, some of which contain food-poisoning. If some are bad, then the consignment as a whole is bad, especially if it is hard to distinguish which buns are good and which are bad.

II. The Assistance of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit may assist a Council in two manners: a positive and a negative manner. He assists a Council in a positive manner in helping the Church to accomplish the purpose of the Council qua Council: that is to say in expressing Catholic doctrine adequately: in the same way as, or with greater depth and clarity than, it was expressed in the past; He assists the Council in a negative manner in preserving the Church from heresy in its various declarations.

Now since the Council did not express Catholic doctrine adequately, we may conclude that the Holy Spirit did not assist it in a positive manner. Since, by contrast, no formal heresies have been discovered in the Council texts, we may conclude that the Holy Spirit did at least assist it in a negative manner.

III. The Hermeneutic of Continuity

Pope Benedict XVI stated that the Council texts should be read in the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’. Several remarks may be made about this.

1) The mere word ‘Hermeneutic’, when used of the Council texts, indicates that the Council has failed in its purpose in the way that we have outlined above, for if they need to be interpreted, then they are unclear. The same is true of the statement: ‘The Council must be understood in the light of Tradition’, for if it is in need of light, it is obscure, and therefore unclear by that token as well.

2) The phrase ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’ is itself in need of a ‘hermeneutic’ because it too is unclear. Does it only mean that the texts must be understood in continuity with Traditional Catholic doctrine, or does it also mean that the texts already stand in continuity with that doctrine?

The former proposition is true, and is simply the application of the ‘remote rule of Faith’, which determines the meaning of any official Church declaration by its conformity with Tradition.

The latter proposition, by contrast, is untrue, inasmuch as many of the said texts, in addition to a Catholic sense, have a non-Catholic sense as well: in other words a sense which is at variance, which is not in continuity, with Traditional Catholic doctrine. This discontinuity is manifest historically in the act of force majeure by which the Preliminary Schemes containing traditional Catholic teaching were abrogated at the very outset of the Council. [Rorate note: Five of nine original Preliminary Schemes, with footnotes and commentary, have been made available in English translation by Fr.Komonchak, a priest in the Archdiocese of New York known for his more liberal positions. The original Vatican II schemata available in English are: On the Sources of Revelation, On Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith, On the Christian Moral Order, On Chastity, Marriage, the Family and Virginity, and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.]

3) The phrase ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’ suggests that the only problem with the Council texts is their unclarity: as though as an effect of the sublimity of their content, or the theological sophistication of their form. It suggests that this problem may be solved simply by interpreting the texts correctly in the light of Tradition; after which they may be accepted as orthodox without demure.

The truth, however, is that the texts are not simply unclear but, as we have just observed, ambiguous, and ambiguous between a Catholic and a non-Catholic sense; it is not enough, then, simply to interpret them, but rather to evaluate them, in the light of Tradition; and to accept their Catholic sense and reject their non-Catholic sense accordingly.

4) The ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’ is offered as the definitive solution to the problem of the Council texts. As such it presents their problem as solely a linguistic one. This is however not the only problem with the texts, for there is another problem which is the deeper and underlying problem, the source of the linguistic one, and that is a problem of a moral nature.

We have noted that the texts are ambiguous between a Catholic and a non-Catholic sense. We should add that the non-Catholic sense is the prima facie sense of the texts, and is the sense, moreover, that was intended by their authors. The texts are in fact the work of the Conciliar ‘periti ’, a number of whom had already been censured for heterodoxy prior to the Council; together they constitute a body of doctrines condemned by various of the previous Popes under the name of ‘Modernism’, a body of doctrines, furthermore, which was to cause untold damage to the Church in the years succeeding the Council.

Let us look again at the declaration: ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church’. The prima facie sense of these words is that the Church of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church, (otherwise why not say so?), but this sense is non-Catholic.

5) There is a certain continuity between Tradition and the Council, that is to say between Tradition and the Catholic sense of the ambiguous doctrines; whereas there is discontinuity between Tradition and the Council in their non-Catholic sense. But because the latter sense is, as we have just noted, the prima facie sense of these, and of many of its, doctrines; because it corresponds to the deliberate intention of its authors; and because it is in this sense that the Council as a whole has been both understood and implemented, we must conclude that what is more remarkable in the Council is its discontinuity with Tradition, rather than its continuity.

6) The promotion of the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’ corresponds to the ‘pacifist’ approach to Modernism typical of the neo-conservatists: Ecumenism is good; the New Mass is good if it is celebrated with dignity; the Council is good, or some bizarre action or statement of a modern Pope is good, once we know how to interpret it.

The pacifist approach is, however, mistaken, because it places peace with others or peace of mind, above Truth: it gives precedence to the Order of Good over the Order of the True. Furthermore, in relegating Truth to second place, it is both unrealistic and irresponsible.

To illustrate this approach to the Council, and at the same time to contrast it with the Modernist and the Traditionalist approaches, let us return to the example given at the beginning of the present essay.

Imagine that the Rector of a seminary with 100 students decides to switch from a relatively expensive, old-fashioned bakery at some distance from the seminary to a cheaper, modern one in easier reach, and then discovers that out of the 100 buns which it delivers every day, approximately 71 regularly contain food-poisoning. What is he to do?

a) Continue feeding the seminarians contaminated goods for 50 years despite their illnesses and perhaps even death, as if there were nothing wrong with the buns, and indeed speaking euphorically of a ‘Golden Age of the Bun’ the while? or issuing some bland, conciliatory statement such as ‘The Church has a high regard for all types of bun, without discrimination. All types of bun are white, edible, and the fruit of human endeavour. With these she seeks to satisfy the inner needs of man.’

b) Continue feeding them these goods while eulogizing the 29 buns which are uncontaminated? - ‘So light! so white! so fluffy! and not poisonous either!’

c) Or as soon as he has realized his mistake, reveal the truth to all concerned and return to the old bakery, even if it requires courage to do so and sacrifices for every-one?

Such then are the various ways of evaluating the Second Vatican Council on the part of the Modernists, the Pacifists, and the Traditionalists respectively.

Conclusion

The purpose of a Church Council is to declare the Faith in a way which can change over time only by increasing in depth and clarity. Vatican II did not do so, and thereby failed in its purpose.

For this reason we cannot claim that it enjoyed the positive assistance of the Holy Spirit but only a negative assistance, in preserving the declarations of the Council from formal heresy.

The obscure texts are ambiguous between a non-Catholic sense which is primary, and a Catholic sense which is secondary. In the primary sense they represent a rupture with Tradition and the Faith, whereas in the secondary sense they represent a line of continuity with Tradition and the Faith.

The purpose of a Church Council is to exercise the Church’s munus docendi: to teach the Faith, but the Council in question is obscure. For this reason it cannot be used for teaching the faithful or seminarians, but must be set aside: an unreliable teacher must be dismissed from service.

It has the status of an incoherent body of doctrines, a mixture of Catholic and non-Catholic elements, like the output of some obscure medieval mystic: male sonans and offensivum piis auribus. If the Church desires to draw some benefit out of this body, she must consign it to such experts as are competent to evaluate it, as we have said above.

But this is not the priority. The priority is that faithful and seminarians come to know the Truth, to practice it, and so to save their souls and those of the others entrusted to their care. To this end they must have recourse to a more reliable teacher, namely that incontestable authority to which the Pope submitted the Council texts themselves: the Church’s Tradition.

As for the Council, we may treat it in the way in which it treated Tradition: with silence. And we shall call this silence the ‘Hermeneutic of Forgetfulness’.

Rest in peace, Mario Palmaro

Mario Palmaro
(Jun. 5, 1968 - Mar. 9, 2014)

Mario Palmaro, the great Italian traditional Catholic lawyer, bioethicist and professor, who due to the current circumstances in the Church was compelled to become a forceful opinion writer (often with his close friend Alessandro Gnocchi) and radio presenter, died late yesterday at the age of 45, following months of suffering.

Palmaro, whose writing and words had been a sunny presence in the years of Benedict XVI, had been dismissed from Radio Maria for an article on the current pontificate published in Il Foglio. His last major article, published in January, was a call to arms: "Who am I to judge?" Our problem is the Catholic Church and her silence. You may read many of his translated texts clicking on the label below.

He leaves wife and children.

Requiescat in pace

Sermon for the First Sunday in Lent

From the Gospel for the First Sunday in Lent:  “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.”

__________________________

We never have to think too hard about what the gospel for the Mass of the First Sunday of Lent will be. It is always the same:  the three temptations of Christ.  The Baptism of Christ begins his ministry, and it begins by his obedience to the Father to be baptized by John in the Jordan river.  And in this act of obedience the heavens open and the Spirit appears above his head and the Father’s voice is heard from heaven identifying Jesus as his Son.  And now in obedience to the Spirit Jesus goes into the desert to fast and pray for forty days, that number recalling Jewish salvation history in the persons of Noah, Moses and the Israelite people wandering in the wilderness on their way to the Promised Land.  It is true that this is a preparation for his ministry, but the heart of this preparation is to speak to his Father in prayer in the barren silence of the desert, the Son communing with the Father, the Word communing with the Source.   This period of fasting and prayer comes to an end with his being tempted by Satan, that confrontation that is inevitable, for it is the confrontation with the world that is dominated by the "Lord of the World", who exults in the fall of man and his predicament of bondage to sin.

That is the theological and historical context of this gospel passage.  But what of the context in which the gospel is heard by us today and by all Catholics throughout the world?  It is quite important that we understand the context of the hearer of the Word as well as the context of the Word that is proclaimed.  I do not know what to call the man of today, what the descriptive adjective for man is as he lives in this world in 2014.  We talk about ancient man, medieval man, modern man and post-modern man.  Someone chastised me recently for thinking that man is still in his post-modern phase. Alas! There is so much that I have missed and misjudged.  But whatever we call man today, it is obvious that man today thinks that he is autonomous, a law unto himself.  Whereas medieval man believed he could rule over the world, he at least saw this as a gift from God.  Whatever one thinks of the divine right of kings, at least it was believed to come from God.   Today’s man believes as well that he has sovereignty over the world, but he believes that this is so simply because this is his right.  This is what he is meant to do, and the source of that meaning is himself. 

There was a time when we spoke of Providence as God’s gracious care for us.  No longer does man look to God for providing what is necessary.  That now falls to governments.  It is now the job of government to plan for its people, to plan what is good for them in all areas of their lives so that they have nothing to worry about.  The judgment of good and evil and the establishment of moral values was believed to be, in the words of Romano Guardini, “the prerogatives of the Supreme Being”.  But this is no longer the case, for we live in a world in which moral values and moral judgments are made without any reference to God or to any objective standards but instead are handed down by judges or government officials or world organizations, all of which believe that it is man who must decide these things on his own, and that decision is based on an ever changing view of right and wrong that ultimately depends on what most people seem to want.  And finally, despite Pope Francis’ references to the Devil, most people, and this includes many Catholics, have abandoned belief in a personal power of evil that works for the spiritual destruction of man.

So that is the context in which Catholics hear this gospel passage today.  And let us not fool ourselves:  most Catholics have no problem practicing their faith and at the same time believing that God has nothing to do with contemporary moral problems. Many of them have no problem accepting the decisions made by those who are empowered to do such things in this culture, decisions that go contrary to God’s law and the teaching of the Church.  So what do Catholics in this context hear or think about when they hear this gospel on the First Sunday in Lent?  Some don’t think about it at all and hope the priest will just get on with the Mass.  Some accept it as part of what one does and hears on this Sunday, part of the Catholic scenery.  Some wonder, and I think this is the majority, what this can possibly have to do with them.

Satan attacks Jesus with the first temptation at the end of his long fast, challenging him to use the power of God to change stones into bread to allay his hunger.   When the Word of God became man, he was without sin, but he took on our weakness, our human weakness, our frailty that comes from our bodily nature.  His body cried out for food after the long fast and the Devil sneaked up at this point of weakness.  And he challenged the Word made flesh, through whom all things were made, to turn the stones of the desert into bread to feed himself and allay his hunger.  And notice the words he uses:  “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones turn into bread.”  “If you are,” not “if you were” in the subjunctive, but using the challenge of the indicative here.  And he goes on:  “command that these stones be turned into bread”. Here  Satan mocks God’s words at the creation:  And God said: "Let there be light."  And it is only the Word made flesh who could answer:  "Man does not live by bread alone."  And he could answer this only because he had spent forty days communing with his Father, eating the presence of God in the solitude of prayer in the silence of the desert.

But what can all this mean to a man who has forgotten the relationship between Providence and God?  Or to a man whose very self defines what the morality of an act is?  Don’t we say to ourselves: "I know, I know, this is about spiritual things versus material things. But what harm in the end would it have been if Jesus had turned the stones into bread and ate that bread. After forty days--, come on, would God care?"  Or to a man for whom the essence of things is not important, in a world where a neutron becomes an electron and a proton, and in a world where a man can become a woman, or a woman can become a man, if this is what he or she wants, by the magic of surgery?  What would it matter if the Lord of creation did not respect the stone for being a stone, did not respect the “stoneness” of a stone,  and refused the temptation to deny its reality by changing it into bread by some sort of cheap magic?  Finally, what does this mean to a man who identifies radical change as a sign of real progress, exulting in change, reveling in the inevitable journey to the omega point of infinite change?

The second temptation:  the Devil whisks Jesus to the top of the Temple in Jerusalem.  He brings him to the top of his Father’s house, the place of the presence of God in the Holy of Holies.  And again he starts: "If you are the Son of God", again the use of the indicative showing that Satan knew Jesus was the Son of God:  “Hurl yourself off this pinnacle and your angels will rush to rescue you”.  Saying this, Satan uses Scripture itself to taunt Jesus.  And Jesus’ words of refusal to this temptation are also scriptural:  "You shall not put the Lord your God to a test." To demand a miracle to test God’ s power is a denial of his Providence, of his love for us.  And it is a denial of what faith means, faith in God to do what we want or to not do what we want:  all because he cares for us and loves us.  What does this mean for a man who links truth to empirical evidence;  a man who has put his ultimate faith in science for his answers, believing that credence should be given only to something that can be shown to be true by empirical means?  What does this mean for a man who is excited by the thrill of dangerous games, excited by seeing how much he can get away with and who thinks he is too smart to be caught?  What does this mean for a man who lives his life on the edge and is blind to the abyss that yawns before him?

The third temptation:  Satan brings Jesus to a very high mountain and shows him all of the kingdoms of the world, the world of power and earthly glory, the world of success driven by selfishness and greed, the world over whom Satan is king.  And Satan looks down on this world and relishes his authority over this world. We can see him smiling with pride.  He knows what power is because he has it.  And he says to Jesus: “ I will give you all of this if you bow down to worship me.”  The ultimate temptation. Ultimate because it is the temptation for Jesus to forget who he is:  the one who emptied himself of his Godhead to take on the weakness of mortal flesh so that he could empty himself out totally by dying a shameful death to break the power of Satan over mankind.  And here we cannot know what went on in Jesus’ mind, his heart, his soul, as he was confronted with the temptation to forget what his mission was and therefore who he is. And remember that the temptation was real. These temptations of Christ are not some sort of play -acting by God pretending to be man, as if his body, his humanity, were a mere costume thrown over his divinity. It had to be real, involving human weakness, or it means nothing. The ultimate temptation: for God to deny himself.  Jesus’ answer: "You shall worship the Lord your God
 and him only shall you serve.” The fundamental definition of God: He who alone is to be worshipped: worship at the heart of man’s relationship to God.

What can this mean to a man whose view of his relationship to the world is to amass as much money and goods as he can in his life,  whose single purpose on earth is to make money out of money, simply to have it?  What can this mean to a man who confuses power with authority, who uses his power to try to gain authority, not understanding that authority is something that comes from how he lives his life and not from his office?  What can this mean for a man who no longer understands what the worship of God is and why He should be worshipped?  And here we speak not only about the man who claims that he can worship God in the woods or on the golf course.  But we speak also about the contemporary Catholic for whom worship of the community is indistinguishable from worship of God, where the totally otherness of God, the absolute transcendence of the God who became flesh and who chooses to be immanent in the Sacrifice of the Mass and Holy Communion is absent:  where the objectivity of ritual that makes present the Real and the Holy, sanctified by two millennia, is set aside and in its place are flailing and futile attempts to make God “happen” by “planning liturgies”, where the priest and people stare and talk at each other, where in despair it is said that man today is incapable of worship?   

What we must do, you and I, is to work hard, and it is work, it is labor, to make sure as much as possible that we do not hear the words of the Gospel through the filters of an age that essentially denies the reality of God in all practical ways and at best relegates him to what some people do on Sunday morning.  And how do we do this?  We can start in this Lent by doing what Tradition tells us to do:  fast, pray harder and give alms.  That is, we can practice denying our body what it naturally wants and gain that self-control that can come only from the denial of what is naturally good for us.  It is a very good way to remind ourselves that man does not live on bread alone.  We can protect ourselves from the confusion of a world that refuses to know truth by increasing our time spent in prayer, for prayer is contact with God, is talking to God, and if we do not talk to him often and deeply, how can we ever know Him, and if we do not know Him who is Truth, how can we distinguish what is true and what is false in this world?  And alms-giving, an old fashioned word. What this means is giving of ourselves to others, acts of charity, acts of kindness especially when it is difficult to do this.  For if we do not forget ourselves by attending to the needs and wants of others, how can we overcome that selfishness, that self-centeredness that is the source of the power that the Father of Lies has over us? 

May we all keep a strenuous, vigorous, and holy Lent.

Father Richard G. Cipolla

Cardinal Dolan, in this age, it is keeping the faith that deserves a "Bravo"

For those who may not have heard of it, Courage is a spiritual support group aimed at helping Catholic men and women to live in accordance with the Catholic Church's pastoral teaching on homosexuality. It was founded in 1980 by Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s predecessor as Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Terence Cooke, who placed it under the direction of Father John Harvey, OSFS.

In the ensuing years, from its New York foundation, Courage has established approximately fifty chapters throughout the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. In 1994, the Pontifical Council for the Family (under what was apparently a more “judgmental” pontificate) gave its support to the apostolate “for helping homosexual persons to live in accordance with the laws of God and the teaching of His Church.”

A brief perusal of the Courage website will reveal two things. The first is the magnitude of the cross borne by our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters who wish to live their lives in accordance with God’s will. In these days when secular society is doing everything in its power to push such persons out of the closet and into a sinful state, when what the Vatican document on seminary admission mentioned as "the so-called 'gay culture'" is dominant, one can only imagine how heavy their burden has become. The second thing one sees is the outstretched hand of the Church and its promise to stand by the afflicted for the duration of their temporal lives with spiritual direction, the Sacraments, and both pastoral and fatherly support.

The Catechism tells us that same-sex-attracted persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” I’ve yet to see a better example of this teaching being applied than the way it is by Courage. As they explain in their excellent "coming out" article, this action has a specific purpose of strict self-identification that prevents psychological growth (including Christian maturity) and advertising availability and belonging to an unchaste community:

The pro-gay movement in fact prepares young people very thoroughly for this step of coming out, for this is a key moment. It’s a rite of passage into a large, enthusiastic, and seemingly attractive movement, and this is how one joins that community and that movement.

...

"Coming out" serves a double purpose for the person who decides to take that step: 

1. Psychological and social identification with the homosexual life by going public, an act of self-labeling which effectively blocks other possibilities for growth.

2. The delivery of a challenge to those who might question that life. The person delivering the challenge adopts a victim posture, when actually he or she is very much on the offensive. "Coming out" is at the same time an act of vulnerability and an act of aggressiveness.

... 

Anything More?

Yes. You must come out too...as a Roman Catholic! (Unlocking the Coming Out Trap)

I have to wonder how it felt for members of Courage – especially those in Cardinal Dolan’s archdiocese, where the movement was born – when they heard His Eminence confront the news of a University of Missouri football star’s decision to “come out” as “gay” with the festive and celebratory expressions of “Good for him” and “Bravo.” Why, with the myriad “difficulties they may encounter from their condition,” does the Cardinal feel the need to add what amounts to blatant derision of their daily struggle to move beyond this reductionist and self-congratulatory self-labeling, imposed by the "pro-gay movement" and their cultural enforcers, coming from the lips of a shepherd? I think it’s time for His Eminence to step forward and hold up as the true example all of those afflicted with same-sex-attraction who struggle day in and day out to live in a state of holiness in spite of their condition and refusing reductionist self-labeling and say to these people, “Bravo. Good for you!”

Cardinal Dolan can’t have it both ways. The clock is running. He and his brother bishops are going to have to pick a horse and ride it. 

Cardinal Dolan says "Bravo!"

"Who am I to judge?" makes a triumphant entry in the American subset of the College of Cardinals, in an interview granted to the highest-rated political debate program on US television, to be broadcast tomorrow:

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York praised University of Missouri football star Michael Sam for coming out as gay, saying he would not judge the athlete for his sexual orientation. "Good for him," Dolan said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" airing Sunday.

"I would have no sense of judgment on him," Dolan continued. "God bless ya. I don't think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, 'Bravo.'" [Source]

OK, then. Naturally, the Cardinal did not have to say anything at all regarding a specific individual, even if asked. But silence and discretion are one thing, explicitly refusing moral discernment is another, and raising such refusal to the status of "good" and "bravo" is quite noteworthy for a Prince of the Church, because it is in itself a moral judgment, a positive moral judgment.

It is quite easy to see that no moral debate in which the Catholic Church takes part, of any kind and on any level, can ever anymore advance even one inch if the parameters become simply an isolated reading of "not judging" - and much less if "not judging" is elevated to the positive judgment of "good" and "bravo." Politicians quote a pontiff when casting immoral votes, and what can the Church say, from now on, on any legal matter (that presupposes a moral order)? It can always be used to stop any social debate. What can poor pastors and vicars say regarding any sin, even personally to a parishioner, when the isolated presentation of "no sense of judgment" becomes normative? Or even regarding, for instance, an inclination that our judgmental Catechism of the Catholic Church defines as "objectively disordered" (regardless of the practice or not of the "intrinsically disordered" acts attached to it)?

And if you do not like this post, who are you to judge us?...

[Op-ed update: Cardinal Dolan, in this age, it is keeping the faith that deserves a "Bravo".] 

The true enemies of the Church are bad Catholics

It is a well-known account. Sister Marie Bernarde (Bernadette) Soubirous is in the convent of the Sisters of Charity in Nevers, it is 1870, war is raging throughout northern France as the Prussian-led German armies march towards Paris. The first printed version of the account,* published while she was still living, is the following. A visitor came to Bernadette at that time and made her the following questions:

- Did you receive, in the grotto of Lourdes, or after then, any revelations related to the future and fate of France? Did not the Blessed Virgin deliver any warning for France, any threats?

- No

- The Prussians are at our gates; does that not cause you any fear?

- No.

- There is thus nothing to fear?

- I only fear bad Catholics.

- You do not fear anything else?

- No, nothing else.

Words of great wisdom from the Saint.

The true enemies of the Church, those who can cause Catholics great harm and peril of damnation, are instead those who are within, the "bad Catholics" Saint Bernadette feared so much. And they are more dangerous the more powerful they are and the more empowered they feel, their fury, deception and bold vulgarity unleashed.

_______________________

* Edmond Lafond, La Salette, Lourdes, Pontmain: voyage d'un croyant, Paris, 1872, p. 238.

"Who Am I to Judge? Pope Francis T-Shirt Celebrates Diversity"

NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- ...Executive Chairman, Tom Gallagher, unveils iconic "Who Am I to Judge?" Pope Francis T-shirt. This universal message is especially timely with the recent news about Michael Sam and Ellen Page coming out. However, "Who Am I to Judge?" goes beyond the gay, lesbian and LGBT community. It's a global message that applies to communities and Archetypes everywhere. "We created this T-shirt with a nod to Pope Francis and introduction to the concept of wanting people to be known for who they are according to their Archetypes, not based on someone else's stereotype," stated Gallagher.

The "Who Am I to Judge?" T-shirt celebrates Pope Francis' response to a reporter's question about gay priests in the church. With those five words, Pope Francis stepped away from the disapproving tone and showed a gesture of openness, which startled many in the Catholic world. "Scolding is out in Rome; hand holding is in," according to NBC News. "Pope Francis, also known as Time's Person of the Year and Twitter's #bestpopeever has rebranded the church as a welcoming, compassionate church for the poor as opposed to a church that nags people and is worried about rules and regulations."

[They] tapped New York City-based graphic designer Glenn Wolk for his compelling imagery of iconic figures like the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. The result: A powerful combination of Francis' image, his words and a Scripture quote (Luke 6:37) about "judging not, and you will not be judged." ...[The] gallery of people wearing the iconic T-shirt [includes] models, social workers, a Jesuit university president, newsmakers and students. The white, long sleeve "Who Am I to Judge?" T-shirt is available in five sizes (S, M, L, XL, XXL) for $25.00 [in an online store].

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time for a clarification of this phrase, “Who am I to judge?”  Perhaps, just perhaps, the official explainer, Fr. Lombardi, should tell  the world what this means.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the Bishop of Rome, should tell the world what this means in the context of Jesus Christ’s words “Judge not and you will not be judged” in the Gospel of St. Luke.  Perhaps the important distinction between sinful condemnation of a person in one’s heart and making a valid moral judgment could be pointed out. Perhaps there can be a clarification of these words within the context of the teaching of the Church on human sexuality as clearly set out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  

The store includes a gallery of photos showing different people wearing this t-shirt. The photo that most touched me was the one above of a geography class in a Catholic school with some of the students wearing this T-shirt ("Holy Names Geography Club in their orange Z Day ribbons, supporting Mark Zmuda. More photos to come! ‪#‎zday‬"). The smiles on the faces of the kids are real and touching.  The context is their support of a teacher in the school who was fired for "marrying" another man. For these Catholic kids what is most important is being nice to other people and being open to "alternative" life styles. The questions of salvation, of truth, of sacrifice, of faith with content:  how can these compete with a smiling Pope and “Who am I to judge” on a T-shirt?  And there is the real tragedy.  But we live in hope.  And perhaps, just perhaps, someone, even the Bishop of Rome, will let those kids and the world know what that now famous question means.

Father Richard G. Cipolla

"Francis Effect" analysis: Confessions in sharp declineWhy? Saint Thomas Aquinas explains

As we first reported yesterday, Pew's poll on the first anniversary of the new pontificate revealed several stagnant trends, both in Catholic self-identification and church attendance. Jeff Culbreath has a particularly sharp analysis of one trend that cannot be overlooked: one that went sharply down.

Nearly six in 10 American Catholics in the poll said they expected the church would definitely or probably lift its prohibition on birth control by the year 2050, while half said the church would allow priests to marry. Four in 10 said it would ordain women as priests, and more than two-thirds said it would recognize same-sex marriages by 2050. Large majorities of American Catholics said they wanted the church to change on the first three matters, and half wanted the church to recognize same-sex marriages.

This is highly significant. Pope Francis is wildly popular, but that popularity seems to be rooted in what is perceived as a papal blessing for moral laxity and doctrinal indifference. Furthermore, the pope appears to be encouraging false expectations that the Church will soon be changing her moral teachings. Also significant is that Pope Francis seems to be having a negative effect when it comes to the most fundamental disposition of the Christian life – repentance.

As for confession, only 5 percent of Catholics said they went more in the past year, compared with 22 percent who went less.

Let’s be clear: enthusiasm for Pope Francis is directly correlated with a sharp decline in Catholics going to confession. Before Pope Francis, the numbers were already dismal with only 26 percent of Catholics confessing even once a year – the bare minimum. That Pope Francis has influenced Catholics in this way should not be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The Holy Father has consistently lambasted what he calls “rigorism”, “legalism”, and “small-minded rules” but without specifically identifying which rules he has in mind. Following the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have come to view the requirement to confess mortal sins as just another a “small-minded rule”, and Pope Francis appears to have confirmed them in this perspective. His own dismissal of rules he doesn’t like, such as his washing the feet of a Muslim woman on Holy Thursday last year, also sets a powerful example.[Source.]

How to explain this apparently strange disconnect, especially regarding confessions? How is it that despite so much talk of confession in theory, in practice this is the only part of Catholic life in America that has collapsed so low in one year that its downward movement was measurable in the poll? We could try to explain it, but why do it, when we can leave it up to the Saint of the Day, the Common Doctor:

[S]hamefacedness is fear of some disgrace. Now it may happen in two ways that an evil is not feared: first, because it is not reckoned an evil; secondly because one reckons it impossible with regard to oneself, or as not difficult to avoid.

Accordingly shame may be lacking in a person in two ways. First, because the things that should make him ashamed are not deemed by him to be disgraceful; and in this way those who are steeped in sin are without shame, for instead of disapproving of their sins, they boast of them. Secondly, because they apprehend disgrace as impossible to themselves, or as easy to avoid. On this way the old and the virtuous are not shamefaced. (S. Th., II-II, q. 144, art. 4)

If there is no "fear of disgrace," in this life or in the next one, out of a sense of acceptance or normalization of sin, even if that sense is unwarranted, a major psychological incentive disappears, and with it the urge to confess.

Since usually the path to conversion is a longer one (and, perhaps, considering the very large total number of nominal Catholics, statistically difficult to measure by polling in the United States), it will take some time before the effect is noticeable there, too. We tend to believe there is bound to be a smaller inclination to join the Church if there is an increased sense that the future of one's soul (if one believes in an immortal soul...) is not affected by one's religious beliefs and practices.

This is the Mass

Solemn Requiem Mass

for the 220th anniversary of the death of Louis XVI

Parish Church of Saint Eugene,  Arch. of Paris
January 21, 2014

For the record: College respondsBoth Board and President release statements

For Rorate, this isn't about defense of a college -- it's about the Mass and the precedent being set (read here).

That being said, it's certainly newsworthy that Fisher More College has now officially responded to the allegations made by many, including a former chancellor. Click here to read the statements from the school's Board and the President. We link it here for the record of events.

The Francis Effect, Continued

Three months ago we reported on a Pew Research Center study on the so-called Francis Effect.  The data compiled from April to October 2013 showed no measurable effect in Catholic identity and Mass attendance (in fact, Mass attendance dropped slightly).

The well-respected firm conducted a follow-up with a survey through January 2014. The new polling indicates there has been no increase in either Catholic identity or Mass attendance in the United States during the papacy of Francis.

Evidence of a “Francis Effect”?

Many commentators have speculated about Francis’ effect on Catholics in the U.S. and around the world. The survey finds he is widely admired, but has his leadership sparked increased devotion among the faithful or inspired former Catholics to return to the church?

Pope Francis: "Priests, do you weep? In the Ancient Missal..."

“Tell me: do you weep? Or have we lost tears? I remember that in the Ancient Missals, those of another time, there was a very beautiful prayer to ask for the gift of tears. It began thus, the prayer: 'Lord, You, who gave to Moses the mandate of striking the stone so that water would come of it, strike the stone of my heart, so that tears...': it went like this, more or less, the prayer. It was very beautiful. But how many of us weep before the suffering of a child, before the destruction of a family, before so many people who do not find the way? The weeping of priests... Do you weep?"

Franciscus

Meeting with the priests of the diocese of Rome (in Italian)

March 6, 2014

It is the collect ad petendam compunctionem cordis, in the traditional Roman Missal (Orationes diversae):

Oratio: Omnípotens et mitíssime Deus, qui sitiénti pópulo fontem vivéntis aquae de petra produxísti: educ de cordis nostri durítia lácrimas compunctiónis; ut peccáta nostra plángere valeámus, remissionémque eórum, te miseránte, mereámur accípere. Per Dóminum nostrum.... [“Almighty and most merciful God, Who, to quench the thirst of Thy people, didst draw a fountain of living water out of a rock, draw from our stony hearts tears of compunction, that we may be able to weep for our sins and win forgiveness for them by Thy mercy. Through Our Lord ... .”]

Cantuale Antonianum (in Italian) says that in the 2002 typical edition of the Paul VI Missal a similar prayer was included. But it was obviously the Ancient Missal that in its poetic beauty and own personal experience (as an altar boy... as a seminarian), became ingrained in the Pope's memory forever.

Note: in 2010, we posted this translation of a text dedicated to traditional collects, including the collect pro petitione lacrymarum, by Dom Gérard Calvet, of most venerable memory, founder and first abbot of Saint Mary Magdalen of Le Barroux, the great Traditional Abbey in southern France.

Novenas, on the go -- and a new price for Lent

Update to our original post in May:

The developers of this novena app having special Lenten pricing at only 99 cents to download. Click here to get it in the App Store.

Original post below:

A wonderful new, lost-cost app has been made available to Catholics, enabling them to take their novenas on the go with no need to lug along books or printouts.

In a time of mass communications and very little of it good and holy, we're very happy to pass this wonderful tool along to our readers.

The novena app has a plethora of great novenas, arranged to easily navigate based on need: health, occupations, situations, states of life, etc. You can also say novenas based on who you want to pray to, if not what to pray for. You can search for those by: angels, evangelists, holy people, martyrs and mystics.

And it's more than just the great novenas so many of us turn to -- and rely on -- for various needs throughout life.

When you click on the pictures of the saints, mystics, etc. you want to pray a novena to, or you go to the vertical glossary that is listed alphabetically by intention/need, you see not only the novena to pray but also the history of the novena. 

The only negative about the app, and it's a slight one, is that it uses the Novus Ordo calendar. That being said, the effects are minimal, as it's just a very small mention of the feast day of the saint associated with the novena, and not a criteria of the search functions. For most, the novena you pray doesn't coincide with the actual feast day, but your needs at the moment. If you do it based on the calendar, then you would just look at your traditional calendar for the day, see whose feast day it is, then search by the saint's name.

Click here for the homepage of the app maker and to download the app.