A Catholic headed toward Orthodoxy thinks twice

Jay Dyer, "My Retraction of Eastern Orthodoxy" (Nicene Truth, June 25, 2008), is a long discussion by a Catholic who decided not to follow the path of Rod Dreher into Eastern Orthodoxy. Here he tells us why. Substantively.

[Hat tip to Fr. Al Kimel]

The "Question" of Lutheran Orders

Rorate Caeli posted a wonderfully provocative article, "The 'Question' of Lutheran Orders" (Rorate Caeli, June 26, 2008) yesterday, which speaks to a heartfelt concern of many of my erstwhile colleagues at Lenoir-Rhyne College in North Carolina and its circle of "Germano-Catholic" Lutherans associated -- either closely or loosely -- with the Center for Theology, its monthly colloquia, and its annual Aquinas-Luther Conference, founded by the late ELCA Bishop Michael C.D. McDaniel. Rorate Caeli's article begins thus:

One of the bugaboos of advanced Catholic ecumenists is the widespread "misperception," as they might put it, that the Council of Trent declared Lutheran orders to be invalid. Their ultimate goal is for the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation to officially declare themselves to be in full communion, without any reordinations of Lutheran ministers by Catholic bishops. They lament that too many Catholics still automatically assume the absence of true holy orders in the Lutheran church. So they are at pains to point out, and in fact correctly, that Trent did not declare Protestant orders to be invalid. It only said that those who were not "rightly" (rite ) ordained and not sent by canonical authority, are not lawful ministers of the Word and sacraments. Notice that the end of the passage does not conclude saying these men are not valid ministers. Rite in this passage does not have to refer to the sacramental validity of an ordination, but can signify its having been conferred in accord with the canons or with the authorization of a legitimate superior. Our modern enthusiasts for the validity of Lutheran orders conclude therefore that the ordinations conferred by early Lutheran leaders were at most illicit, without prejudice to their possible validity.

You really must read the rest of this very good article, as well as the spirited and sometimes quite substantive discussion that follows in the comment box. The position articulated in Rorate Caeli's article comes in for some heated if predictable criticism from some non-Catholics, as well as some solid defense, before those backed into their corners revert to a bit of ad hominem muck-slinging in good, 16th-century Lutheran tradition.

News roundup

Item 1: The SSPX

We do not have the text of the official letter from the SSPX yet, but from all information points, it looks like the intent of the letter is, in effect, to offer a non-response to the Holy See's five conditions spelled out by Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos on behalf of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

• "SSPX spokesman: Letter was sent on Thursday; SSPX 'has no intention to respond to the ultimatum'" (Rorate Caeli, June 27, 2008)
  
  
• "Galarreta: 'We will not follow it'; Let us 'follow the steps'" (Rorate Caeli, June 27, 2008)
  
  
• "Lefebvrites - no intention of 'responding' to Vatican ultimatum" (WDTPRS, June 27, 2008)
  
  
• "Williamson: 'Our answer will be negative'" (Rorate Caeli, June 26, 2008)
  
  
• Then there's this: Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "2001 - Bp. Fellay: 'If he calls me, I go.'" (WDTPRS, June 27, 2008)
  
  
• And this: Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "Thoughts on the SSPX opportunity" (WDTPRS, June 27, 2008)

Item 2: Archbishop Burke to leave St. Louis

• "Curial changes in motion - II" (Rorate Caeli, June 27, 2008)
  
  
• "Goodbye, St. Louis: Holy Father Taps Archbishop Burke as Prefect of Apostolic Signatura" (St. Louis Catholic, June 27, 2008) [Good detail on Abp. Burke]

Item 3: Church of England defection(s)

This just in:

• Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "Anglican Bishop(s) - swimming?" (WDTPRS, June 27, 2008)

And now ... financial incentives for teens to come out

Mark Price, "Scholarship for gay, lesbian, bi teens" (Charlotte Observer, June 16, 2008):

Juan Vazquez graduated from Garinger High Friday, still unsure whether he'll be able to afford his dream of becoming a high school English teacher.

But he is $2,500 closer this week, thanks to an unusual new Charlotte-based scholarship dedicated to students who have come out as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Called The Griffin Scholarship, it is believed to be the first college fund in the Carolinas awarded on the basis of sexual orientation.

One good reason to quit blogging

There are, of course, some reasons to keep blogging. Yet, if I ever thought this had become a personal problem for me, I'd quit in a heartbeat.

Leonard Pitts in his nationally syndicated column, worries that he's forgotten how to read ("Help! My brains' stuck in the Web," Charlotte Observer, June 16, 2008):

I had thought it was just me.

In reading the cover story in the new issue of The Atlantic, however, I have learned that I am not alone. There are at least two of us who have forgotten how to read.

I do not mean that I have lost the ability to decode letters into words. I mean, rather, that I am finding it increasingly difficult to read deeply, to muster the focus and concentration necessary to wrestle any text longer than a paragraph or more intellectually demanding than a TV listing.

My idea of fun has always been to retire to a quiet corner with a thick newspaper or a thicker book and disappear inside. But that has become progressively harder to do in recent years. More and more, I have to do my reading in short bursts; anything longer and I start drowsing over the page even though I'm not sleepy, or fidgeting about checking e-mail, visiting that favorite Web site, even though I checked the one and visited the other just minutes ago.

I've tried to figure out why my concentration was shot, but no explanation satisfied: I watch less television than most folks and am no more busy than I was 10 years ago.

Our hard drives altered?

Now, author Nicholas Carr posits a new theory. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he notes that he and many of his literary friends report the same experience, leading him to wonder if the Internet is rewiring our very brains, altering the hard drive of the human computer. The culture of hyperlinks, blogs and search engines that return more results than you could read in a lifetime is, he argues, changing the way we read and, indeed, think.

You hardly need me to sell you on the benefits of the Internet. Sitting at her desk, the average human being now has instant access to a vast universe of information.

But what if the very vastness of that universe, the very fact of so much to know and so little time to know it in, requires a tradeoff in concentration and focus? We may have more options, but we're still dealing with the same 24-hour days we've always had. The Internet does little to filter or prioritize the information it retrieves – it simply dumps it on your head and leaves it to you to figure out. So perhaps it is to be expected that we learn to skim and scan information, but lose the ability to absorb and analyze it.

A couple of weeks ago, I read Scott McClellan's book, What Happened for this column. Deadlines being what they are, I had to wolf down the last 200 pages in a single day. I chose an uncomfortable chair, to minimize the danger of dozing off, and allowed myself only one Internet break.

I would read this book. Nothing else. Just read.

It was difficult. I felt like I was getting away with something, like when you slip out of the office to catch a matinee. Indeed, I'd have felt less guilty sitting in a matinee. I had to keep reminding myself that this was OK, that, indeed, this was work.

Read the rest of the article. It will make you think.

Of related interest:

• Nicholas Carr, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google( (W.W. Norton, 2008)
  
  
• Nicholas Carr, Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business School Press, 2004).

Update: Rome's conditions for SSPX omits any Vatican II reference

Update:

Andrea Tornielli, the respected Vatican-watcher for Il Giornale, reports that he has now obtained a copy of the correspondence from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos outlining the Vatican’s proposal. The cardinal’s letter does not specifically mention the requirements that the SSPX affirm the validity of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, he says; “these are prior general conditions” that have been understood during the dialogue between the Holy See and the traditionalist group.

Cardinal Castrillon’s letter does say that the SSPX should agree to avoid personal attacks on the Pope, and to avoid any public responses that would offend against “ecclesiastical charity.” The Vatican further asks the SSPX to avoid portraying itself as a rival magisterium, superior to the Holy See, to respect the legitimate authority of the Pope, and to adhere to the deadline-- set at the end of June-- for a positive response to the Vatican offer. ("Vatican proposal to SSPX (updated)," CWNews.com, June 24, 2008).

I have said in other venues that these are the most generous conditions the SSPX could ever hope for. The Fraternity loses nothing and gains everything: the licit canonical status of its own prelature. Nobody is being silenced, as some radical traditionalists allege. Fr. Brian Harrison criticizes the "Skeletons in the Conciliar Closet" with impunity because he does so with due respect and submission to Rome. There is no reason why the SSPX cannot do the same. Fr. Zuhlsdorf observes:

"I can’t help but think that Michael Davies, a great gentleman who died a couple years ago, would have strongly supported the gesture of the Holy See made to the SSPX.

"I met Michael Davies and remember what a tremondous bulldog he was on points he was convinced about. However, you could have an amicable discussion with him and, if your arguments were good, he would shift his position. Also, he was careful not to go over the top with his rhetoric and, when something was pointed out to him that was too harsh, he would make changes.

"I think Michael Davies – sorely missed today – would have been thrilled by the election of Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum and this recent gesture of the Holy Father to resolve the divisions that sadly wound the Church."

Of related interest:

• Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, "SSPX prospects and my ruminations" (WDTPRS, June 25, 2008)
  
  
• Rorate Caeli, "For the Record" -- SSPX intransigence & yet reason for hope (Rorate Caeli, June 25, 2008)
  
  
• Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, "PRAY! PRAY NOW!" (WDTPRS, June 25, 2005)
  
  
• Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, "Msgr. Guido Marini: Communion kneeling and on the tongue will be the standard for papal Masses" (WDTPRS, June 25, 2008)

[Hat tip to A.S.]

Newt Gingrich: Detroit collapse should be centerpiece of Fall campaign

I sometimes wonder whether Detroit -- this decimated wreck of a once magnificent city, which was once hailed as "the Paris of the Midwest" -- is an icon of the future of America; whether there could be anything to the notion that as Detroit goes, so goes America. ... Nawww, I tell myself. Surely not:

"The collapse of Detroit from 1950 to 2008 should be the centerpiece of the Fall [presidential] campaign.... If we can't have an honest conversation about how big a disaster Detroit is, we sure can't have an honest conversation about poverty in America, and we sure can't have an honest conversation about what needs to change. It's that simple ... And I think that virtually no one on the left is prepared to talk candidly about Detroit, because it is their institutions and their culture which has caused the collapse of one of America's great cities. You may think I'm exaggerating, but consider the folilowing. An entrepreneur offered 200 million dollars to develop charter schools in Detroit and was rejected on the ground that he was obviously a white racist attempting to overturn the black power structure. 'I am disappointed and saddened by the anger and hostility that has greeted our proposal,' exclaimed Thompson to the Associated Press. 'Because of these contentious conditions, we are not going to move forward with our planned charter high schools. Our proposal to build a number of new, very small charter schools in Detroit was intended to increase options for Detroit parents and children. The proposal was meant to be for kids and not against anyone or any institution. Now what does it tell you about pathology when you can have a system failing ... and remember, if you're an African-American male, and you drop out of high school, you face a 73% unemployment rate in your 20s, and a 60% chance of going to jail. And you have to ask yourself, by what moral authority did the Detroit school bureaucracy block 200 million dollars from saving young men from going to jail, from giving them an opportunity to go to college, from offering them hope; and why did no one speak out against it?"

Newt Guingerich, "Liberals and the fall oF Detroit." (YouTube)

[Newt Gingrich is author of Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works (Regnery, 2008). Hat tip to Carolyn Binder-Scapone.]

The Hammer Drops

by Dale Vree

Leon J. Podles, in his new book Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (2008, Crossland Press, www.CrosslandFoundation.org), hammers the point home that most Catholic bishops "hate confrontation." This goes a long way toward explaining their reluctance to discipline predatory priests. It also goes a long way toward explaining the sorry state of the Church today. Fortitude, one of the four cardinal virtues, is sorely lacking among the current leaders of the U.S. Church.

This cowardly attitude also explains why several U.S. bishops shrugged off the recent and numerous invalid attempts at priestly "ordination" of women by the rogue Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement. As we wrote in our New Oxford Note "A New Catholic Community" (Oct. 2006), Bishop Patrick McGrath of San Jose, California, "has no plans to reprimand or excommunicate or in any other way acknowledge" the woman in his diocese who claims to have been "ordained" a Catholic priest and who has been offering an invalid "mass" at San Jose State University. In our New Oxford Note "The Beat Goes On" (Oct. 2006), we noted that then-Bishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh took no action against the "ordination" ceremony on the Pittsburgh rivers or its participants, and that Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston "has not sanctioned" and has "imposed no penalty" on his former archdiocesan director of Healthcare Ministry who was "ordained" a Catholic womanpriest in Canada. These bishops, it seems, were willing to wink at the unlawful simulations of the conferring of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the public rejection of the de fide doctrine that female ordination is invalid, rather than risk confrontation and -- God forbid! -- bad press.

So when Roman Catholic Womenpriests made another attempt at "ordaining" female Catholic priests in St. Louis, Missouri, we perked up, with an inkling that Archbishop Raymond Burke wouldn't allow this travesty to take place in his archdiocese without repercussions.

As we reported in our New Oxford Note "Archbishop Burke Has Courage" (Jan. 2008), Archbishop Burke "reacted strongly" to the November 11, 2007, attempt by "bishop" Patricia Fresen of Germany to "ordain" Elsie Hainz McGrath and Rose Marie Dunn Hudson at a Jewish synagogue in St. Louis. He "sent letters by courier to Elsie and Rose warning them to 'renounce your intention to attempt to receive priestly ordination…. Should you refuse to comply…you will automatically in­cur…the censure of excommunication.' He warned them that they have placed 'in danger the eternal salvation of your soul and the souls of others,' and that their ceremony is a 'grave spiritual deception.'" He warned them that they risked the penalty of interdict (the withholding of the Sacraments) unless they publicly acknowledge their errors.

Archbishop Burke then ordered Elsie and Rose to defend themselves before a Church tribunal. But Elsie called the tribunal a "canonical kangaroo court," and Rose said of Archbishop Burke, "He loves to do this. But nobody's paying attention." Both women indicated that they would not appear at the tribunal.

According to Msgr. John Shamleffer, the chief canon lawyer of the St. Louis Archdiocese, Burke sent three letters to Elsie and Rose between November and March, asking them to meet with him "to give them the opportunity to recant, hoping that through pastoral means this could be resolved" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 14) -- to no avail.

Then, on March 12, Archbishop Burke dropped the hammer on Elsie and Rose, and on Patricia Fresen: He issued a "Declaration of Excommunication of Patricia Fresen, Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath," which he ordered published in the St. Louis archdiocesan newspaper, St. Louis Review (it appeared on March 14). Archbishop Burke explicitly states in the Declaration that the three women have incurred a latae sententiae (i.e., automatic) censure of excommunication "by reason of the crime of schism." Schism is defined in the Catechism as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with members of the Church subject to him" (#2089). Archbishop Burke also imposed a ferendae sententiae censure of interdict on them "for having pertinaciously rejected a definitive truth of the Faith [i.e., that female ordinations are invalid] after having been admonished by the Ordinary." (A latae sententiae censure is automatically incurred with the committing of a canonical crime; a ferendae sententiae censure is "imposed" by the lawful Church authority, in this case the Ordinary, and adds greater solemnity to the sentence.)

Archbishop Burke also writes that "the faculty to exercise the right of defense" was "delivered to each of the three women…requiring them to appear before" him at the tribunal. "All three accused," however, "failed to appear."

Archbishop Burke writes that "after having weighed all of the proofs and arguments," and "with God alone before my eyes, I, by this my definitive sentence, consigned to writing, declare and pronounce" that Elsie and Rose are "guilty of the canonical crimes" mentioned above, and that Patricia is further guilty of the crime of "simulation of the administration of a Sacrament." Archbishop Burke therefore also imposed on Patricia a feren­dae sententiae censure of excommunication for her additional canonical crime.

Archbishop Burke explains in his Declaration that Patricia, being the "leader of a schism" -- i.e., as a founder of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement -- who "has publicly stated that her sect is outside the hierarchy of the One True Church willed by the Savior Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ," and Elsie and Rose, by attempting to receive "priestly ordination" from Patricia, have all "thereby demonstrated their consummate disobedience, and their withdrawal from full communion with the Roman Pontiff, the local Archbishop, and the faithful loyally subject to them."

The full force of the Declaration is that "all three of the guilty parties have lost membership in, good standing in, and full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, which bond each and every baptized Catholic is obliged to maintain." Elsie, Rose, and Patricia are henceforth forbidden from entering the grounds of "any property of any parish or other institution of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, until they have formally and publicly withdrawn from their contumacy." Further, "all three of the guilty are forbidden to…receive any Sacraments," and "no ordinary or extraordinary minister may lawfully administer Holy Communion to any of the guilty parties." The three "may not receive absolution from their sins as long as they have not repented, publicly retracted their rejection of a truth of the Faith, made amends for their commission of the delict of schism, and had the censure of excommunication lifted from them." They are also "barred from burial in blessed ground, and are deprived of a funeral in the Church."

Heavy stuff.

Archbishop Burke does express his "most sincere hope" that the "application of the due canonical penalties" of excommunication and interdict "will lead the parties to seek the cure of their most grievous sins and canonical crimes." This is why excommunication is often referred to as a "medicinal" penalty. It calls the excommunicated party to a full realization of his errors and to seek the "cure" of repentance and conversion, for the health of his eternal soul.

In a brief statement accompanying the publication of the Declaration in the St. Louis Review, Archbishop Burke says that it is "my responsibility to safeguard the unity of the Catholic Church and protect the souls of the faithful." He also notes that the "situation is sad for the whole Church," and is "a cause of great concern for me as an archbishop." He asks that we join him in praying that the three "will be reconciled with the Church and that the great harm which has been caused to the Church, with the help of God's grace, will be healed."

But in a statement released on March 13, Elsie and Rose say that they "and all Roman Catholic Wom­en­priests, reject the penalties of excommunication, interdict, and any other punitive actions from church officials. We are loyal daughters of the church, and we stand in prophetic tradition of holy (canonical) disobedience to an unjust man-made law that discriminates against women." We can only pray that Elsie, Rose, and Patricia avail themselves of the medicine of repentance and conversion.

The excommunication of the "St. Louis 3" is the first official censure against Roman Catholic Women­priests since the 2002 excommunication of the "Danube 7" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Bridget Mary Meehan, spokesman for Roman Catholic Womenpriests, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that there are 53 "ordained" women in North America alone. Why have Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Ratzinger been the only ones to act? It's that old "fear of confrontation."

Archbishop Burke has done what his brother bishops have hesitated to do. He has dropped the hammer on the heads of heretics. Archbishop Burke does indeed have courage, and he has set a sterling example of leadership in defense of the Faith.

[Dale Vree is Editor of the New Oxford Review. The present article, "The Hammer Drops" was originally published as a "New Oxford Note" editorial in the New Oxford Review (June 2008), pp. 25-27, and is reproduced here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706.]

Where is our country headed?

(1) William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn, "10 Concerns about Barack Obama" (National Review, June 24, 2008):

1. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history.
2. Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists.
3. Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel.
4. In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues.
5. Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling.
6. Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe.
7. Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy.
8. Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices.
9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life.
10. Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate.

(2) Thomas Sowell, "An Old Newness" (Townhall.com, April 29, 2008):

... There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom.

... Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

... Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

[Hat tip to E.E. and Carolyn Binder-Scapone]

SSPX reconciliation with Rome in sight?

"Tornielli: SSPX-Rome Agreement near" (Rorate Caeli, June 23, 2008), reports:

Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli reports today in Il Giornale that an agreement of the Holy See with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) may be very near. Some days ago, the Superior General of the Fraternity, Bishop Bernard Fellay, met with the President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" and, before June 28, the Fraternity should decide to accept the five conditions proposed by Rome.

In English translation by Gregor Kollmorgen, for The New Liturgical Movement, the article reads as follows:

The Ultimatum of the Vatican to Lefebvre's rebels: peace, if you accept the Council

by Andrea Tornielli

In exchange, they will receive a Prelature. But they must choose before June 28.

ROME -In the relations between the Holy See and the Lefebvrians the countdown has begun: by this 28 June, the Fraternity of St. Pius X, founded by the French Archbishop who would not suffer the post-conciliar liturgical reform, will in fact have to decide whether to accept the five conditions proposed by the Vatican in order to reenter into full communion with Rome. Some days ago, the superior of the Lefebvrians, Bishop Bernard Fellay, met with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, which deals on behalf of Benedict XVI with negotiations with the traditionalist group. Fellay, who previously had written to the Pope asking for the revocation of the excommunication imposed by John Paul II in 1988 to Lefebvre and the four new bishops that he had wanted to consecrate without the consent of the Holy See (among them Fellay himself), has received a letter with the five points set by the cardinal [Castrillón] and will discuss them during the next chapter of the fraternity, to be held at the end of the month.

Never like at this moment the negotiations have come close to an agreementwhich would heal the mini-schism which had been created now two decades ago, allowing the full reentering of the Lefebvrians into the Catholic communion. Among the points that the Holy See asked to sign there would be, according to the indiscretions gathered, the acceptance of the II Vatican Council and the declaration of full validity of the Mass according to the reformed liturgy: two conditions that Lefebvre had already signed with the then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1988. The Vatican, for its part, offers the traditionalist group a canonical framework similar to that of Opus Dei, namely a [personal] "prelature", which would allow the Fraternity to continue its activities and to train its seminarians.

The march of rapprochement was started in 2000, when the Lefebvrians made a Holy Year pilgrimage to Rome. It was followed by a brief audience granted by Pope Wojtyla to Monsignor Fellay and the beginning of the long and laborious negotiations with Cardinal Castrillón. Many things have changed since then however. The Lefebvrians asked, before making any step towards an agreement, that the old preconciliar missal, which fell into disuse after the liturgical reform, be liberalised. The new pope, Benedict XVI, particularly sensitive to these issues, a year ago published the Motu proprio declaring the full citizenship of the old Mass allowing it in every parish, in fact stripping the bishop of the possibility of prohibiting it. The application of the new papal directives has not been easy, there are a lot of cases of resistance - some blatant, as is known - but it is beyond doubt that by declaring the existence of an extraordinary Roman rite (the old one) and an ordinary (the reformed one), the Pope has authorized throughout the Church and without restrictions the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Moreover, Ratzinger has reintroduced the Cross at the centre of the altar, has begun to distribute communion to the faithful kneeling, has restored ancient vestments: all signals that go in the direction of emphasizing the continuity of tradition.

Conditions this favourable for a reentering into full communion will in all likelihood not repeat themselves. Many faithful, now that they have obtained the Mass according to the ancient rite, do not understand why the Fraternity does not definitively make peace with Rome. The Lefebvrians have come to realize what is happening, even if Fellay has some problems of internal resistance. The choice is whether to make an agreement and reenter into full communion with the Holy See, or rather to remain a small separate body with the risk of turning into a little sectarian and uninfluential group.

To my knowledge, the "five conditions" have not yet been published, nor has this report been vetted by independent sources.

Related reading

• "Le bilan du Motu Proprio sur la messe traditionnelle: Entretien exclusif avec Mgr Bernard Fellay" [An assessment of Motu Proprio on the traditional mass: An exclusive interview with Mgr. Bernard Fellay]
  
  
• "SSPX Confirms Existence of Vatican Offer"
  
  
• George Weigel, "Latin Days Are Here Again? Pope Benedict wants to revive the Latin mass in Roman Catholic worship. But what exactly does that mean?" (Newsweek) [See Fr. Zuhlsdorf's commentary under "Update" links below.]
  
  
• [This site has everything!!!]

Action points

Pray for (1) Pope Benedict and his advisors, and (2) for Msgr. Bernard Fellay and his advisors. It's high time for reconciliation.

[Hat tip to Rorate Caeli and Gregor Kollmorgen/The New Liturgical Movement, and Anthony Sistrom for the links immediately above.]

Update

• "Important: What Fellay said about the ultimatum -- Updated" (Rorate Caeli, June 24, 2008)
  
  
• Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "The Holy See’s 5 conditions for the SSPX - my comments and a prayer" (WDTPRS, June 24, 2008)
  
  
• Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "George Weigel on the return of the TLM" (WDTPRS, June 19, 2008)

I do not see how the impasse with the SSPX can be resolved without much prayer.

[Hat tip to Mr. Borealis, and Mr. Sistrom]

L'Osservatore Romano article calls for end to Communion in the hand

"Historical argument favors Communion on the tongue" (CWNews.com, Apr. 22, 2008):

The American magazine Catholic Response has published an English translation of a provocative article, originally published in the official Vatican newspaper, calling for an end to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand.

The article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L'Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

... Kneeling to receive Communion was also a pattern established early in Church history, Bishop Schneider reports.

... The article published in L'Osservatore Romano, and now translated in Catholic Response, summarizes the more complete argument that Bishop Schneider put forward in his book, Dominus Est. That book, released in Italy earlier this year, drew special notice for two reasons. It was published by the official Vatican press, and a preface was contributed by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who said it was "high time to review" the policy of allowing laymen to receive Communion in the hand.

Bishop Schneider offers a thoughtful reflection on his book in an online interview available on Gloria.TV. A written summary of his remarks can be found in the Catholic News Agency article, "Bishop calls receiving Communion on the tongue more reverent."

The full title of Bishop Schneider’s book, recently released by Vatican Editing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana) and not yet available in English translation, is Dominus Est: Meditations of a Bishop from Central Asia on the Sacred Eucharist. Shawn Tribe provides an unofficial translation of the Introduction by Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith in "Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion during the liturgy and Communion on the Tongue" (New Liturgical Movement, January 27, 2008).

I have previously briefly addressed the history of the controversy concerning Communion in the hand in my "Liturgical Position Statement: For the Record" (Musings, December 1, 2007) [N.B.-- scroll down to "Problems of licit innovations not mandated by Vatican II" under "Examples of legitimate criticism"]. While early examples of it may be found, it was soon replaced by Communion on the tongue as a nearly universal organic development in Eucharistic piety and law. As I state in the aforementioned reference:

It is also a fact that reception in the hand was seen by certain sixteenth century Protestant Reformers as a demystifying gesture by which the laity could be disabused of their 'superstitious' Catholic belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. An example of this is the Censura of Martin Bucer (not to be confused with Martin Luther), which condemned Anglican Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's 1549 Prayer Book for retaining the Catholic practice of administering Communion on the tongue for the reason that it might cause individuals to persist in their Catholic 'superstitions' about the Real Presence.

Hence, when the practice of Communion-in-the-hand was first re-introduced in Catholic circles in modern times in Belgium by Leo Jozef Cardinal Suenens in violation of the rubrics then in force under the Holy See, Pope Paul VI, although eventually lifting the ban against it, warned that the practice carried "the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine" and that the vast majority of bishops at the time believed that the discipline "should not be changed, and, that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful" (Pope Paul VI's instruction Memoriale Domini, 1969).

Note that these criticisms were raised by Pope Paul VI (as well as by the majority of the Church's bishops at the time in their voiced reservations). Of course it is true that the practice has been subsequently mainstreamed and sanctioned by the Vatican, albeit not without unmixed signals. [See the original for extensive footnotes and documentation]

[Hat tip to The Reverend James Miara, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Bronx, NY, who preached on this subject in this morning's homily at St. Josaphat Catholic Church in Detroit.]

Is this the Daily News or Monty Python?

I first read something about this in Rita L. Marker's Newsletter for the International Task Force on Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide, and it seemed just so far off the edge that I decided to Google it and see what turned up. Lo and behold, there it was: "State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead" (World Net Daily, June 19, 2008).

Happily, the story appears to have a favorable ending, not, however, thanks to the State of Oregon: Tim Christie, "A GIFT OF TREATMENT: When the Oregon Health Plan fails to cover a cancer drug, the drugmaker steps in" (The Register-Guard, June 3, 2008).

More questions answered by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Developing ...

On Friday, May 30th, 2008, the Feast of the Sacred Heart, Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, was in Denton, Nebraska, at the invitation of Father John Berg, the Superior General of The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the foundation of the Fraternity, and to ordain four young men for the Fraternity. EWTN apprently televized the ordinations.

During his brief visit, the Cardinal consented to grant an interview to the media. The Fraternity has expressed the hope to publish very soon the full contents of the conference, but offered a few highlights in "A Special Report from the American Seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter to all Readers of The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition" (dated June 2, 2008)

Excerpts:

In discussing the origins of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, the Cardinal mentioned the special relationship between the Commission and the Fraternity. When asked the reason for his presence at the ordination, the Cardinal replied, "Well, this is my responsibility! I have the responsibility for the groups of the Ecclesia Dei. This [the ordination day] is an important day for the Fraternity because this is the first ordination after the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum and the Fraternity has been engaged in a very important work for the various dioceses, developing a course to prepare priests in numerous dioceses to celebrate the Gregorian Rite and this is a very good collaboration with the bishops in the United States."

The Cardinal spent some considerable time explaining the attention which the Holy Father has devoted to the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. As he stated, "He [The Holy Father] gives special importance to this form of the Latin Rite."

The Cardinal indicated the basis for the Holy Father's attitude when he remarked that, "The theology of the Immemorial Rite is very rich." He explained that this richness consists not principally in the use of the Latin language which is, after all, common to both forms of the Latin Rite, but especially in the profound theological content and character of the prayers in the Traditional Missal. And he further noted the rich cultural elements of the Extraordinary Form such as those to be found in Gregorian Chant: "In it [the Gregorian Rite] was born the Gregorian Chant as a form of piety, and a very high expression of the Faith."

The Cardinal took the media gently to task for the way in which the Holy Father's recent Mass in the Sistine Chapel had been reported. He said, "when the Pope celebrated the Mass in the Capella Sistina [ad orientem at the high alter] they spoke about his 'back to the people.' This is ignorance! When a general is leading his troops, he does not walk backwards in order to avoid turning his back on his soldiers. It's not back to the people -- It's face to God! It's a sacrifice to God."

Asked to comment on the distinctions between the two forms of the Roman Rite, the Cardinal acknowledged that, "It's not easy to make comparisons between the two Rites"; but he spoke very directly in noting that, "Certainly the accent in the Gregorian Rite is the sacrifice ... this Rite considers the sacrifice. It's not necessary to have many other things, but to put all the intensity, the contemplation, in this mystery of salvation."

One member of the press asked, "Does the Pope believe, do you believe that we are moving to a time when the Gregorian or Traditional Rite will be celebrated once a week in most parishes? Would that be a goal?" The Cardinal replied, "Yes, the Pope is aware that this is a richness which he wants to offer not only to those who ask for it but to make it known to all people of God so that the new generations can know and can experience the sanctity, the powerful force of the old Rite. It is not only a privilege for the Fraternity of Saint Peter! It is a treasure for all the Church. The Holy Father would like to have it grow." He went on to note that, "The Holy Father is convinced that this is important for piety and sanctity. He is exercising his duty as the Sanctifier of the Church [munus sanctificandi]. He's making efforts to preserve this marvelous means for the sanctification of the Church."

Another questioner asked if this explained the principal motivation for Summorum Pontificum or whether the motivation includes the reconciliation of the Society of Saint Pius X with the Vatican. The Cardinal explained that the latter was an important but secondary motivation saying that, "The main point is the importance of the sanctity contained within the Gregorian Liturgy."

Among the last questions was this one: "Long-term, do you think that the Holy Father intends the two forms of the Roman Rite to coexist or is he stillthinking of the goal as the Reform of the Reform?"

The Cardinal replied, referring to the possibility of an amalgamation of the two forms, "No, I don't think so. No, I think they are different." He went on to explain that a particular goal would be the elimination of abuses in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but he added with some humor that even in the old days, priests, being human, could lapse into occasional abuses in the way that they celebrated Mass. And most important, in his exhortation of the Ordinandi he emphasized the lofty goals of the Catholic Priesthood in which always and everywhere, in all celebrations of any approved Catholic Rite, there should be nothing other than a humble fidelity in the liturgy to what Christ, the High Priest, does at the Altar.

The Report concludes with the following petition:

We of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, during this year of our 20th anniversary ask all the readers of the Latin Mass magazine to join their prayers to ours as we continue the work of forming priests in the Fraternity for a life devoted to the Church's traditional liturgical prayer. And we ask for your prayers as we continue the important work of extended training in the Extraordinary Form to priests throughout North America. May our efforts advance the honor of God and the good of souls.

Decline of British Catholicism

John Haldane, "God doesn’t guarantee that the British Church will last" (Christendom Awake), offers a depressing account of the decline of contemporary British Catholicism. Haldane identifies three features of British Catholicism that suggest loss of faith:

• a pervasive inclination to neo-pelagianism
• becoming sentimentalist about matters that call for hard, reasoned thought, and
• becoming accommodationist, preoccupied with means of forestalling secular criticism, rather than engaging confidently with it, in part by means of ingratiating ourselves with dominant groups and classes.

Haldane concludes:

The decline of Catholicism in Britain will continue until such time as it is defended and promoted for what it is, not a social teaching or a cultural lifestyle, but the truth that without grace we cannot be saved, that grace comes by Christ’s salvation, and that what Christ himself taught is that no one comes to the Father save through Him. Serious re-education in this teaching, through home, school and parish, would transform the condition of Catholicism in Britain and equip it to embark on the necessary tasks of engaging the faithless, and missioning to the unfaithful.

[Hat tip to E.E.]

Refreshing political sense

"'Joe, American' Challenges the Presidential Candidates" offers -- wonder of wonders -- a coherent vision on national energy and the war in Iraq, and, by implication, economy. 'Joe' doesn't address other issues of specific concern to Catholics, such as abortion, but it's refreshing to see somebody thinking in a coherent and systematic way about political issues. This is probably more than we can say about the political candidates this year, at least on many of the issues.