Two Thought-Provoking Articles Every Catholic Should Read

I submit for my readers' consideration two articles which are both hard-hitting and thought-provoking.  Links to them will also be found on my Twitter account.  I will not, however, link directly to them on Facebook, as I have found that Facebook tends to become an immoderate forum for sniping and unreasoned judgment....and I just don't have the time to deal with some of my FB "friends" who may be hostile to the premises of these articles.  

The first is entitled "Church, Sex, and Society," by Jim Mahoney:

Money-quote: 

In the course of 200 years, the Revolution learned that murder makes martyrs.  Today, the Revolution mounts its final assault.  It no longer needs to shoot priests on the altar or march them to the scaffold.  It can simply force the congregation to pay for its own destruction.

The second is entitled "Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage" by Douglas Farrow:

Money-quote:

By excising sexual difference, with its generative power, it deprives itself of any direct connection to nature. The unit it creates rests on human choice, as does that created by marriage. But whether monogamous, polygamous, or polyamorous, it is a closed unit that reduces to human choice, rather than engaging choice with nature; and its lack of a generative dimension means that it cannot be construed as a fundamental building block.

As I have warned, these two articles are for people who think and reason, and who are not driven by secularist or political ideology.

Comments will be moderated, and abusive attacks will not be published.  Above all, I ask that everyone who reads these pieces commit to reading them in their entirety, and to reacting in all charity.

Divine Mercy Indulgence: GET IT STRAIGHT!

This Sunday after Easter is traditionally called “Low Sunday” or Quasimodo Sunday.  In some circles, it has becomes (almost universally) “Divine Mercy Sunday.”  Now, this is not a blog post on the Divine Mercy Chaplet, its devotion, St. Faustina Kowalska, no a commentary on Bl. Pope John Paul II’s declaration of Low Sunday to be called “Divine Mercy Sunday.”  In point of fact, this Sunday is now properly called Divine Mercy Sunday, as Bl. John Paul II initiated this on April 30, 2000, in his homily at the canonization of St. Faustina.  So, that’s just fine.  Although, it is noteworthy to point out that the third edition of Roman Missal, having been promulgated prior to that homily, and translated much, much, MUCH later, does not seem to mandate this (it says “Second Sunday of Easter [or of Divine Mercy]”)—a curious fact which I would hardly call an oversight so much as a relaxing of JP2’s proclamation, so as to permit the Church to celebrate the feast of Divine Mercy as an option. 

Whatever the case, something came across my desk that really infuriated me.  I don’t know where it came from, but apparently it’s being marketed as the granting of a Plenary Indulgence.  Here’s the text of the flyer:

“Imagine your soul being, today, as pure as the day you were Baptized!
A Special Promise of Mercy:
Our Lord promised to grant complete forgiveness of sins and punishment on the Feast of Mercy as recorded in the Diary of St. Faustina:
I want to grant a complete pardon to the souls that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion on the Feast of My mercy (Diary 1109).
 My great delight is to unite Myself with souls...when I come to a human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces which I want to give to the soul.  But souls do not even pay any attention to Me; they leave Me to Myself and busy themselves with other things.  Oh, how sad I am that souls do not recognize Love!  They treat Me as a dead object (Diary 1385, 1288).
 Divine Mercy Sunday was instituted by Blessed John Paul II in the year 2000 at the canonization of Sister Faustina on April 30, 2000.  It is celebrated on the Sunday after Easter.”

To borrow a rhetorical style from Fr. Z, “But, Father!  But Father!  If Jesus said it, isn’t that good enough?!” 

The short answer is a resounding “No!”  Here’s the thing.  The Church has canonized Sr. Faustina Kowalska.  As far as we are concerned, she is said to be most certainly in heaven, by virtue of the merits of her holy life and two posthumous miracles attributed to her intercession.  But the contents of her Diary—even if it was held in great esteem by a Pope—are not considered to be infallible, nor (to my knowledge) have they been declared to be authentic.  If they have, it still doesn’t change the argument made here:

Public revelation is what we have in Scripture and Tradition. It was completed, finished, when the last Apostle died and the New Testament was finished. So there is no more until Christ returns at the end. In this area the Church has His promise of providential protection in teaching.

 

Even though there is no new public revelation, the Church can progress in deepened understanding of the original deposit of faith--thus the Immaculate Conception, for example, was not mentioned in the first centuries, was even denied by many in Middle Ages, but could be defined in 1854. This progress is the result of the growing light of the Holy Spirit. At the Last Supper Jesus promised Him to lead the Church into all truth.

 

Private Revelation is all else. The word private is poor, but usual. Even Fatima, addressed to the world, is private. But there is a great difference. The Church does not have the providential protection in matters of private revelation. Ordinarily the decision of the local Bishop is final on authenticity of a revelation. Yet we would not have to believe any decision on private revelation--though we must obey a command, if a Bishop gives such, not to go to the place of a an alleged revelation. In obeying, we do not lose any graces. Christ saved the world by obedience--cf. Rom. 5:19. St. Margaret Mary says He told her: "Not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you

should do nothing of all that I order without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me."

 

The most the Church can do on a private revelation is: 1) say it does not clash with public revelation. If it did, that part of it would be out. 2) Say it seems to deserve human acceptance--that is in contrast to something accepted on the divine virtue of faith, which comes into play only in the area of public revelation.  (Taken from EWTN)

 

So, what’s the point of all this?  My point is that there is a great deal of misinformation going around about the nature of Divine Mercy Sunday.  Despite what flyers and popular piety and devotion, and even pastors of souls, are saying, THERE IS NO PLENARY INDULGENCE GRANTED FOR ATTENDING MASS ON DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY.  Period.  End of Discussion.  That’s all she wrote.

Now, how do we know this?  Because the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum (the handbook of Indulgences), last promulgated in 2004, states very clearly the following:

First of all, “Participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacraments is not, according to tradition, enriched with indulgences; for, in and of themselves, they hold a very high (praecelsam) efficacy as far as sanctification and purification goes” (Praenotanda, 3).

Second, that same Enchiridion Indulgentiarum lists in its index all of the specific liturgical days and feasts on which some form of indulgence is granted.  These days include participation in the Solemn Easter Vigil, the Solemnity of Pentecost, the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, the Week for Christian Unity, et al.  But it does not concede any form of indulgence for the Second Sunday of Easter, aka Low Sunday, aka Dominica in Albis, aka Divine Mercy Sunday.  And if it has not been granted by the Church, then there exists no guarantee of the conferral of the promised grace.

So, I hate to be the party pooper here.  But this "indulgence for attending Mass on Divine Mercy Sunday" does not exist! 

Now, before people go all apesnot over this entry, a few things:  I am not discouraging devotion to the Divine Mercy of Our Lord, nor to St. Faustina and her writings.  I am not saying you don’t have to come to Mass this Sunday, since you’re not “getting something extra.”  Truth be told, I love the Divine Mercy Chaplet—I think it’s a wonderful devotion.  But no nun—not matter how holy or influential, or how authentic we may believe her visions of Christ to be—has the authority to grant the full remission of all temporal punishment due to the effects of sin!  Sorry...no can do!

All this having been said, THERE IS THIS:

“a plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honour of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!");

 A partial indulgence, granted to the faithful who, at least with a contrite heart, pray to the merciful Lord Jesus a legitimately approved invocation.”  (Granted June 29, 2002)

So, before I get people freaking out all over the place, let’s get our facts straight about the Divine Mercy devotion, Divine Mercy Sunday, and everything else that seems to have been thrown into the mix.

To everyone out there, have a very blessed Second Sunday of Easter (or Of Divine Mercy)!

Blessings at Communion: A Continued Debate

In response to a developing thread on my Facebook page, I submit the following, which is featured on the website of St. Paul's Catholic Church in Pensacola, FL.

Congregation for Divine Worship -
On Giving Blessings During the Communion Rite
 What about giving blessings to people who come forward in the Communion line but who are not receiving Communion? Should a priest, deacon or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion give the person a blessing instead?
 What if a person who is not receiving Communion presents himself with arms crossed over the chest, during the regular administration of Communion?
 Two men wrote to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) asking about this practice. Their query asked if there are "particular guidelines or restrictions" concerning the practice of a minister or extraordinary minister giving the person a blessing.
 The response from the CDW was in the form of a letter (Protocol No. 930/08/L), dated November 22, 2008, signed by Father Anthony Ward, SM, Under-secretary of the Congregation.
 The letter said that "this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation", so "for the present, this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations":

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.
 2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
 3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
 4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, "forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry". To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
 5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church's discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

 The Congregation's clarification that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (always laity), cannot give sacramental blessings within Mass is very helpful; and could be especially useful to pastors in parishes where inappropriate blessings during Communion have become common.
 Although the CDW letter did not mention young children, we often see little children who have not yet received first Holy Communion accompanying their parents in the Communion line, with their arms crossed over their chests — both as a signal to the minister that they are not receiving Communion, and as an expression of the child's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
 This reverent gesture of a young child is laudable and appropriate. But sometimes a minister (or extraordinary minister) interprets the child's gesture as an implicit request for a special blessing as a sort of "substitute" for Communion. While the intention of blessing the child may be good, it should be made clear to all that the priest's blessing at the conclusion of Mass includes everyone, and that there should not be separate blessings for any person during the Communion rite.
 Yes, Jesus says let the children come to me. So if you bring children up in the communion line that is fine, teach the respect for Christ’s presence in the Eucharist not to expect a blessing from the priest. It is not about the people in line (it is not about you) or about the priest, the deacon, or the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. It is all about the presence of Christ and only about the presence of God, in Jesus Christ, His Son. The Communion line is about the presence of Christ, respect for the presence of Christ, and the reception of Christ.
 So, is this sort of punishment that children should not be blessed in the Holy Communion line?  No!  It is not!   What we are emphasizing is why anyone is in the Communion line.  We are approaching Christ to receive Christ.   If we are not of age, or are in RCIA, we should approach with reverence and teach your children that as they stand before the body and bold of Christ, they are in the Holy presence of God Almighty’s Son Himself!

Just Gotta Make it to Sunday

Well, we're nearing the First Sunday of Lent, and already I hear people saying things like "I can't wait for Sunday so I can eat X again," and "Just a couple more days and I can take a break from Lent."  

WHAT THE HECK, PEOPLE?!?!

Now, I know that it seems to be the modern custom to "take a break" from Lent on Sundays, but have we ever really stopped to examine what we're doing and why?

Josef Jungmann, the eminent liturgical scholar (who eventually went a little nutty--too much progressive liturgical theology can do that to a person!), has the following to say:

Even before the introduction of Lent it had been customary to fast before Easter: one day, two days, even a week.  But even when Lent was generally accepted, not all of its forty days (from the First Sunday of Lent until Holy Thursday) were at first regarded as fast days.  In Rome toward the end of the fourth century a fast of three weeks was usual; and even when people began to fast on all the other days of Lent they still made an exception of the Sundays.  Because Lent contains six Sundays, there thus remained thirty-four fast days leading up to the ancient paschal triduum.  But if Good Friday and Holy Saturday (which were also fast days) were counted as well, that made thirty-six days in all--just one tenth of a year.  In this fashion, as was observed with a certain satisfaction (for example, by John Cassian and Gregory the Great), one paid a tithe of one year to God.

But since the seventh century considerable importance began to be attached to the idea that in Lent there ought to be the full number of forty fast days.  It became necessary, therefore, to take in four days from the preceding week; and thus Ash Wednesday came to be the beginning of Lent.

Now, there are a few things we need to get clear here.  First of all, prior to Paul VI's liturgical reform of 1969, there existed in the Roman Calendar what we called the season of Septuagesima, a pre-lenten season to help ease the Faithful into the "Great Fast of Lent," as the Proclamation of Moveable Feasts calls it (even today).  Septuagesima takes its name from the number 70--a symbolic countdown of 70 days until Easter.  Of course, anyone with half a brain and a few pages of a calendar can quickly see that Septugesima Sunday is not 70 days prior to Easter.  Nor are the subsequent Sexagesima and Quinquagesima Sundays respectively 60 and 50 days away from Easter.  They are merely symbolic--and beautifully Roman in that the Roman love of symmetry and order would far prefer to count in blocs of 10's, rather than name the Sundays something not-quite-so-elegant as Dominica Sexagesima-tertia,  Dominica Quinquagesima-sexta, and Dominica Quadrigesima-quinta.  They just don't have the same ring as Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima.  So maybe, just maybe, the reference to the First Sunday of Lent as "Quadrigesima" is not necessarily literal.  So much for Jungmann...

Keeping with the numerical gradation, Quadrigesima seemed both logical and reasonably appropriate as a number, both symbolic and more-or-less actual, given the parallel to Christ's forty days in the desert, the Hebrews' forty years of wandering in the desert, etc.  A quick glance at the calendar shows that from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday is 47 days (as Romans count them).  Without counting the Sundays, indeed there are 40 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday.  Except that Jungmann completely overlooks the existence of the pre-lenten season, which is, of its own right, very ancient and of a dignity that belies the manner in which it was so cavalierly chucked from the calendar like dross.  But I digress.

Now to the heart of the matter.  What Jungmann is talking about is Lent as a season comprised of days of fasting.  It might seem nit-picky, but here's the point.  The practice of fasting during the aptly-named Great Fast of Lent used to be quite severe--as we can still see in our Eastern brethren.  It was not merely a season in which we "give something up," as if the removal of soda pop or candy will somehow lead us to greater spiritual purity.  [As a friend of mine pointed out, about the only impact this seems to have is to inflate one's Pride.]  Rather, it included the removal of ALL extravagances, including meat, cheeses, butter, eggs, confections...and the list continues. But, this isn't fasting--this is simply abstaining.

Fasting, as it exists in the law of the Church, consists in taking one normal-sized meal per day, with the inclusion of up to two smaller snacks (collations) that, combined, do not amount to a full meal.  While the distinction between fasting and abstinence currently exists in the Church, that was not the case in previous generations.  Once upon a time, they were one and the same.  When you fasted, you abstained.  When you abstained, you fasted.  Which means you both cut certain things out of your diet, AND decreased the amount you were consuming.

What Jungmann is describing seems to make the fasting/abstinence distinction, and to speak far more about the lessening of the fasting restriction in terms of the amount of food to be taken, rather than the actual foods that are consumed.  It would be more in keeping with a proper historical understanding of the Church's understanding of the Lenten season as it developed to suggest that the Faithful continued to abstain from the various foods prescribed, but ate their fill of other foods on Sundays so as to help keep up their strength during the week.  Otherwise, what would have been the point?  Even the most compulsive over-eater or junk food junkie can give something up for six days.  And it rather defeats the purpose (spiritually, theologically, and physically) of a Lenten fast if one is going to gorge himself and fall into the sin of gluttony just because "Sundays are not part of Lent."  (I would be willing to grant that, if people actually kept a proper Lenten fast in accordance with our tradition, a "pig-out" day might be allowable...but the almost sinful with which a jelly bean addict dives into the bowl on Sunday morning is both sickening and horrific.)

The fact is, Sunday IS a part of Lent.  Otherwise, we couldn't call them the Sundays of Lent.  The nature of Sunday as the Day of Resurrection does not lose any of its significance, but if Sundays were not a part of Lent, we'd be singing Gloria in excelsis Deo (and possibly even the forbidden A-word)--the same as we do on Solemnities like that of St. Joseph--left and right, wouldn't we?!  By the same logic, we would no longer be bound to observe abstinence from meat on Fridays during the Easter Season, when penitential practices are discouraged--and yet, the law still foresees the observance of certain penitential acts on all Fridays throughout the year (cf. canon 1250).  [Don't freak out, US readers--you're not required to abstain from meat every Friday of the year, but you are most certainly required to abstain from something in its place--and space exploration, root canals, and Christianity DO NOT COUNT!  Again, canon 1250.]

My point--insofar as I have one to make--is this: during the Great Fast of Lent, we must concern ourselves not just with "giving up something," but also with cutting back on the amounts of what we consume (thereby helping us to reduce the risk of committing gluttony).  There is nothing penitential about giving up candy or cookies or soda pop unless you are helplessly addicted--you'll know if this is true because you'll start going into withdrawal.  Can the joy of Easter, experienced both in the Liturgy as well as on the dinner table, be fully appreciated if we continue to stuff our faces as we consistently do throughout Lent, just avoiding one particular ingredient in our daily bucket of slop?  This makes absolutely no sense.  It would be far more reasonable, and far better in keeping with the long-standing traditions of the Church, to work toward once again partaking of the seasonal fast, in the truest sense of the word--a general scaling-back of the amount that we consume, as well as a continued practice of denying ourselves certain foods, and not merely one thing that we can most certainly live without--and probably should!

As my dear friend over at Casa Santa Lidia said, if you want to give up something for Lent, how about giving up talking about what you've given up for Lent?  (see Matthew 6: 16-18 for details)  [Incidentally, CSL has a great article right now on a different type of Lenten fasting.  Have a look!]

Homily Special Edition: The Right to Life

Below are notes from a homily given this weekend.  

*******

This day, for the thirty-ninth year, a cold shiver runs down the back of our great nation as, once again, we commemorate the supreme failure of our government to uphold the most fundamental—and dare I say, inalienable—right that has been endowed upon our race by Almighty God: the Right to Life.  I am speaking, of course, of the US Supreme Court’s 1973 decision which resulted in the legalization of abortion in the United States.

Contrary to what many think—and what I’m sure many sitting in these very pews today believe—issues of Life are not...I repeat...ARE NOT a political issue.  Government does not give life.  Politics does not give life.  In our time, fueled by pundits claiming to support the “health” and “rights” of women, lawmakers and politicians have placed human life in a strangle-hold, ransoming it for their own designs, and, in the process, denying the citizenry of the possibility of any longer adhering to a consistent Ethic of Life that Thomas Jefferson defined so eloquently in our own Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”  And yet it is that same government, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” that restricts the very life that is ours by Divine Right.  For who but God alone can create life?  Who but God alone endowed humanity with the ability to procreate, that we might share in our Master’s joy of creating that which is good?  Who but God alone?  No man.  No woman.  No politician.  No government.  Who, but God alone?

The promotion of a consistent Ethic of Life, then, is neither the purview, nor the responsibility, of elected officials, but of those who do the electing.  And I dare say that, in no small manner, we—Catholics—are partially responsible for permitting the atrocities of abortion, euthanasia, contraception, and unjustified execution to prevail in our society.  Do the math.  Almost 25% of the electorate in this nation is Catholic.  The largest single constituency in the United States of America consists of baptized, confirmed, and professed Catholics!  

Now before anyone decides to start writing letters to the Bishop or the IRS, this is NOT a politically-driven homily.  I am not advocating one political party’s platform over another, nor offering criticism of the present or past administrations.  Because, as I have said, Issues of Life are not political issues.  They are MORAL issues.

It is the moral obligation of every Catholic to form his or her conscience according to the precepts of the Gospel and the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.  This foresees—and, dare I say, requires—the assent of believing Catholics to the doctrine of the Church.  I have yet to figure out where it is written, or who started saying, that it’s OK to pick and choose which teachings of the Church you want to believe in.  It’s not OK.  In fact, it might even be said to be sinful. 

True, on certain issues, the Church concedes a tiny bit of latitude.  But “Catholic” is not just a label that we slap on a variety of different “belief packages” so as to include as many people as possible.  That’s not our mission!  And it is not for individuals to tailor the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Faith to their needs, desires, lifestyles, and political opinions.

To be Catholic is to uphold the dignity of all human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.  This is a moral imperative given to us not by a pope or bishop or pastor, but by God Himself.  The Church continues to grow in her understanding of social issues, but always toward a more consistent position in favor of human life.  For if we are not in favor, then we must be against!

We must never permit ourselves to be duped into submitting to political agendas, for we have a higher calling—a calling to holiness, a calling to true Christian charity, a calling to love our neighbors, and to build up the Body of Christ.  Our goal, as Catholics, must be step back from the political arena, and to decide for ourselves, based on the clear, non-negotiable, and infallible teaching of the Church that all human life is sacred.  This is our Faith.  This is the Faith that Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, handed on to his Apostles, and that has been transmitted to us throughout these 2,000 years of Christendom! 

Three points, and I’m finished.

First of all, the Catholic Church is not a hate-filled institution.  Our mission is to focus on the Gospel of Life, of Mercy, of Justice.  We must vehemently oppose sin at all times—most especially those sins which are inflicted upon the most vulnerable of our society—but always with love, compassion, and pity for the sinner.  For we, too, are sinners, and have no right to judge.

Second, we must work to dispel the myths that are propagated by opponents to the Pro-Life movement through sound reasoning and true charity.  There are so many slogans that float around that make abortion seem so reasonable and tolerable.  For example, the term “Pro-Choice” is constantly bandied around, as if “choice” is a viable alternative to “life.”  But choices can be both good and bad, right?  Not all choices are healthy, nor are they safe, nor are they moral.  Some choices, while they might exist, ought not be choices at all!  The phrase “Pro-Choice” certainly doesn’t point to that which is being chosen, and it would never be applied to child abuse or violent crime.  Some choices have victims.  And isn’t it a simple and fundamental matter of justice that the desires of one must end where the rights of another begin? (h/t to Priestfor Life for these observations)

Third, to consider Issues of Life, we, as a society, must look to our past.  We have overcome so many injustices in our nation, all in favor of the dignity of the human person.  Women’s suffrage.  Abolishing child labor.  Civil Rights and the end of slavery. 

Let's look at Slavery just briefly...the enslavement, buying, selling, trading, and abuse of an entire race of people just because of the color of their skin, devalued and treated as objects and commodities, stripped of all semblance of human dignity.  Are we not doing the same thing now, with regard to the unborn, the elderly, the terminally ill, and those who do not seem to be “valuable” to society?  Can it really be said that we, as a people, have truly progressed that much at all?

I close with the words of Harriet Beecher Stowe, from her “Concluding Remarks” in Uncle Tom’s Cabin:

But what can any individual do?...There is one thing that every individual can do—they can see to it that they feel right.  An atmosphere of sympathetic influence encircles every human being; and the man or woman who feels strongly, healthily and justly on the great interests of humanity, is a constant benefactor to the human race.  See, then, to your sympathies in this matter!  Are they in harmony with the sympathies of Christ?  or are they swayed and perverted by the sophistries of worldly policy?

A day of grace is yet held out to us.  Both North and South have been guilty before God; and the Christian Church has a heavy account to answer.  Not by combining together, to protect injustice and cruelty, and making a common capital of sin, is this Union to be saved—but by repentance, justice, and mercy; for, not surer is the eternal law by which the millstone sinks in the ocean, than that stronger law by which injustice and cruelty shall bring on nations the wrath of Almighty God!

*******

Today, tens of thousands of people from all races, religions, economic backgrounds and demographics will march on Washington DC in the March for Life.  We owe them our prayers, that their witness will not go unnoticed.  The mainstream media will not cover this event because it does not serve their purpose or agenda.  But we know that they are there...over 200,000 of them, peacefully demonstrating on behalf not just of the unborn, but of the terminally-ill, the mentally handicapped, and all our fellow human beings who are marginalized and devalued as human persons because they are not "productive" or "valuable" to our society.  We owe them our prayers, because they speak for those who have no voice.  We owe them our prayers because they are standing up for Truth.  We owe them our prayers because we should be there with them!

While we were sleeping, our Religious Liberty went out the window...

In Washington, Fridays are typically reserved for publicizing those news-worthy items that one hopes will get lost in the weekend news cycle and that people will forget about by Monday morning.  The current administration's Department of Health and Human Services did just that this past Friday.

Many know that I am not the most vocal supporter of Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles.  However, his blog post on this bit of news hits the nail on the head.  I post it here in its entirety.  The original may be found here.

In probably the most expansive decision on the part of the US Federal government ever, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued an "interim final rule" to require virtually all private health plans to include coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptives, female sterilization procedures, and related "patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." 

These are listed among "preventive services for women" that all health plans will have to include without co-pays or other cost sharing--even if the insurer, the employer or other plan sponsor, or the woman herself object to such coverage. 

This decision from the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] is from the highest level of Federal government, and I cannot imagine that this decision was released without the explicit knowledge and approval of President Barack Obama. 

And I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience than this ruling today. This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic Community can muster 

For full information on this issue, please go to the website of the U.S. Catholic Bishops: http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-013.cfm 

For me there is no other fundamental issue as important as this one as we enter into the Presidential and Congressional campaigns. Every candidate must be pressed to declare his/her position on all of the fundamental life issues, especially the role of government to determine what conscience decision must be followed: either the person's own moral and conscience decision, or that dictated/enforced by the Federal government. For me the answer is clear: we stand with our moral principles and heritage over the centuries, not what a particular Federal government agency determines. 

As Bishops we do not recommend candidates for any elected office. My vote on November 6 will be for the candidate for President of the United States and members of Congress who intend to recognize the full spectrum of rights under the many conscience clauses of morality and public policy. If any candidate refuses to acknowledge and to promote those rights, then that candidate will not receive my vote. 

This is a sad moment in the life of our country where religious freedom and freedom of conscience led to the formation of this new Nation under God. 

Let us all pray that the power of the Holy Spirit will come upon all elected officials of our country, and that all will make decisions based upon God's revealed truth.

This simply cannot stand, folks!  I try so hard not to get entangled in politics--secular or ecclesiastical--on this blog.  But, no one can deny that this is an affront to basic religious freedom.  The Catholic Church remains committed to fighting for quality, affordable healthcare for all people--but we WILL NOT violate our consciences to do so!  This cannot stand! 

Brief Rant

I have noticeably refrained from issuing any commentary on the new translation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal, which took effect this past Sunday in most of the English-speaking world.  I am only posting this because several people have commented on my absence from the debates.

To be honest, at this stage the question is moot.  The new translation is in effect.  It is law.  Deal with it.  

It will take time to get used to it.  It will involve more catechesis than what seems to have been done in most parishes I've had contact with.  And it will require us all to open our minds a bit.

But if our hearts and minds are open to the new texts, we may be surprised that--even in the midst of complicated syntax and unfamiliar terms--we just might find ourselves paying attention to the deep, beautiful theology contained in the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  And even if it becomes commonplace and compels us to relapse after a few weeks into the state of auto-pilot that most Catholics tend to slip into, then at least for a short time we may be given a little food for thought.

Nit-picky and whiny so-called progressives, ignorant secular pundits (that means you, HuffPo writers!!!), and the like have their place in the debate.  But they won't be happy until the Church conforms to their own, individual tastes and ideologies.  So it's really not worth the effort even to listen to them.  

The bottom line is so simple: let the Church be Catholic.  If you're into that, welcome aboard!  If you're not, leave the rest of us alone--we just want to worship God in peace and quiet with words that are dignified, accurately-translated, and firmly based in solid Catholic theology.  That shouldn't be so much to ask!