10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia

CRISIS E-LETTER

The media, egged on by a small group of dissenting Catholics, have been having a field day over the tragedy of priests involved in sexual abuse. And the reporting has been littered with falsehoods and outright fabrications. So Crisis has put together a list of the ten most common false media claims — along with fact-filled responses to them.

1. Catholic priests are more likely to be pedophiles than other groups of men.
   
   This is just plain false. There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. The use and abuse of children as objects for the sexual gratification of adults is epidemic in all classes, professions, religions, and ethnic communities across the globe, as figures on child pornography, incest, and child prostitution make abundantly clear. Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.
   
   Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).
   
   In the wake of the current crisis in the Church, other religious denominations and non-religious institutions have admitted to having similar problems with both pedophilia and ephebophilia among the ranks of their clergy. There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children.
   
   
2. The celibate state of priests leads to pedophilia.
   
   Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it's difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described. The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence (Fred Berlin, "Compulsive Sexual Behaviors" in Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, "Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders" in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O'Leary, "Homosexuality and Abuse").
   
   
3. Married clergy would make pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct go away.
   
   Some people — including a few vocal dissenting Catholics — are exploiting this crisis to draw attention to their own agendas. Some are demanding a married Catholic clergy in response to the scandal, as if marriage would make men stop hurting children. This flies in the face of the aforementioned statistic that married men are just as likely to abuse children as celibate priests (Jenkins, Pedophilia and Priests).
   
   Since neither being Catholic nor being celibate predisposes a person to develop pedophilia, a married clergy wouldn't solve the problem ("Doctors call for pedophilia research," The Hartford Currant, March 23). One has only to look at similar crises in other denominations and professions to see this.
   
   The plain fact is, healthy heterosexual men have never been known to develop erotic attractions to children as a result of abstinence.
   
   
4. Clerical celibacy was a medieval invention.
   Wrong. In the Western Catholic Church, celibacy became universally practiced in the 4th century, beginning with St. Augustine's adoption of the monastic discipline for all of his priests. In addition to the many practical reasons for this discipline — it was supposed to discourage nepotism — the celibate lifestyle allowed priests to be more independent and available. This ideal also called diocesan priests to live out the same witness as their brothers in monastic life. The Church hasn't changed her directives for celibacy, because over the centuries she has realized the practical and spiritual value of the practice (Pope Paul VI, On the Celibacy of the Priesthood;, Encyclical letter, 1967). Indeed, even in the Eastern Catholic Church — which includes a married clergy — the bishops are chosen only from unmarried priests.
   
   Christ revealed the true value and meaning of celibacy. Catholic priests from St. Paul to the present have imitated Him in their total gift of self to God and others as celibates. Although Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament that reveals the love and life of the Trinity, He was also a living witness to the life of the world to come. The celibate priesthood is for us a living witness to this life in which the unity and joy of marriage between a man and a woman is surpassed in the perfect, loving communion with God. Celibacy properly understood and lived frees a person to love and serve others as Christ did.
   
   Over the past forty years, celibacy has been an even more powerful witness to the loving sacrifice of men and women who offer themselves in service their communities.
   
   
5. Female clergy would help solve the problem.
   
   There's simply no logical connection between the deviant behavior of a tiny minority of male clergy and the inclusion of women in their ranks. While it's true that most statistics on child molestation show that men are more likely to abuse children, the fact is that some women are also child molesters. In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center showed that the second most common form of child sexual abuse involved women abusing boys. For every three male abusers, there's one female abuser. Statistics on female sex offenders are more difficult to obtain because the crime is more hidden (Interview with Dr. Richard Cross, "A Question of Character," National Opinion Research Center; cf. Carnes). Also, their most frequent victims (boys) are less likely to report sexual abuse, especially when the abuser is a woman (O'Leary, "Child Sexual Abuse").
   
   There are reasons why the Church cannot ordain women (as John Paul II has explained numerous times). But that is beside the point. The debate about women's ordination is completely unrelated to the problem of pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct.
   
   
6. The Catholic hierarchy has done nothing to address pedophilia.
   
   While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn't done enough, this claim is nevertheless false. When the Church's Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2).
   
   But that certainly isn't the only thing the Church has done. The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope's encyclical letter, "On the Celibacy of the Priests," addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual "freedom." The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for "fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have." He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.
   
   In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.
   
   In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation's then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn't mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.
   
   In response to the recent scandals, some dioceses are setting up special commissions on child abuse, as well as victims' advocacy groups; and they are officially acknowledging that any legitimate allegation of abuse must be dealt with immediately.
   
   
7. The Church's teaching on sexual morality is the real problem, not pedophilia.
   
   The Church's teaching on sexual morality is rooted in the dignity of the human person and the goodness of human sexuality. This teaching condemns the sexual abuse of children in all its forms, just as it condemns other reprehensible sexual crimes such as rape, incest, child pornography, and child prostitution. In other words, if this teaching were lived out, there'd be no pedophilia problem at all.
   
   The notion that this teaching somehow leads to pedophilia is based on a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of Catholic sexual morality. The Church recognizes that sexual activity without the love and commitment found uniquely in marriage undermines the dignity of the human person and is ultimately destructive. As far as celibacy is concerned, centuries of experience have proven that men and women can abstain from sexual activity while living fulfilling, healthy, and meaningful lives.
   
   
8. Catholic journalists have ignored the pedophile problem.
   
   As any reader of CRISIS knows, this claim is patently false. Our October 2001 cover story featured "The High Price of Priestly Pederasty," an expose on the scandal that wouldn't erupt into the mainstream press for another three months. You can read our full article at: http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2001/index.html.
   
   And we weren't the only ones who have covered the pedophilia/pederasty problem. Charles Sennot, author of Broken Covenant, Rod Dreher of The National Review, CRISIS co-founder Ralph MacInerny, Maggie Gallagher, Dale O'Leary, the Catholic Medical Association, Michael Novak, Peggy Noonan, Bill Donohue, Dr. Richard Cross, Philip Lawler, Alan Keyes, and Msgr. George Kelly have all covered the issue exhaustively.
   
   Just because the mainstream media have chosen to ignore our work doesn't mean the work hasn't been done.
   
   
9. Requiring celibacy limits the number of men as candidates for the priesthood, resulting in a high number of sexually unbalanced priests.
   
   First of all, there isn't a "high number of sexually unbalanced priests." Again, the vast majority of priests are normal, healthy, and faithful. Every day they prove themselves worthy of the trust and confidence of those entrusted to their care.
   
   Secondly, those who do not feel called to a life of celibacy are ipso facto not called to be Catholic priests. Indeed, most men are not meant to be celibate. However, some are — and of those, some are called by God to the priesthood.
   
   A priestly vocation, like a marriage, requires the mutual and free consent of both parties. Thus, the Church must discern that a candidate is indeed worthy and fit mentally, physically, and spiritually to commit to a life of priestly service. A candidate's desire for the priesthood does not constitute a vocation in and of itself. Spiritual and vocation directors are now even more attuned to the character flaws that would make an otherwise qualified man an unfit candidate.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

Roman Conference on Summorum Pontificum - Day 2

by Gregory DiPippo

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/index.html#4076648551716700910

The second day of the recent conference on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was dedicated to a series of eight talks given in the Aula Minor of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, (also known as the Angelicum). The talks ran for four hours in the morning and four in the afternoon, with breaks, lunchtime, and a Rosary. Obviously, it will not be possible to give more than a fairly brief summary of them here; the texts of the last conference were made available at this one, and there are of course plans to publish the texts of this conference in time for the next one, if not sooner. (My apologies to our readers for the delay in getting this out; I have been laid low by a serious allergy season!)

The first four speakers at the conference; from left to right, Bishop Schneider, Bishop Aillet, Cardinal Canizares and Cardinal Koch. Photo courtesy of Orbis Catholicus.

The first speaker was His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Canizares-Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who spoke on “The Sacred Liturgy as the Life of the Church.” In the well-known words of the Second Vatican Council’s very first decree, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the liturgy must be at the center of the Church’s life, its source and summit. According to the Cardinal, the post-conciliar liturgical reform brought certain advantages, such as the more active and fruitful participation of the faithful, and an enriched use of scriptural texts, but also saw “deformations of the liturgy at the limits of the tolerable,” (and indeed, we might add, beyond tolerable,) citing the words of the Pope himself in the letter to the Bishops that accompanied the 2007 motu proprio.

The Cardinal also insisted very strongly on the relationship between the motu proprio and a correct “hermeneutic of continuity of the Council.” The two forms of the Roman Rite are not in conflict with each other; each shares in the unity of the church, even though some of the post-conciliar reforms have gone far beyond the letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium. As he sees it, the current problem of the liturgy and of future reform lies not in the particular form of the liturgy itself, but in its sense and spirit; the Church needs to return to the true sense of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the original liturgical movement.

The second speaker, His Excellency Marc Aillet, Bishop of Bayonne, France, entitled his talk “Spirit of the Liturgy, Liturgy of the Spirit”, discussing the question of the “mutual enrichment” of the two form of the Roman Rite. Bishop Aillet is a member of the Communauté Saint Martin, a group who have used the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in a very tradition-minded way for many years, with much Latin and gregorian chant. He spoke of the use of Latin in both forms as a veil which covers the sacred mysteries celebrated in the liturgy, just as the Ark of the Covenant, the holiest object in the Jewish Temple, was not to be seen or touched by ordinary hands. A comparison may be made with the Byzantine use of the iconostasis, which also veils the sacred mysteries in such a way that can be heard but not seen. (This comparison was also made by Fr. Calvin Goodwin F.S.S.P., in his homily at the Mass broadcast on EWTN on the day the motu proprio went into effect.)

Bishop Aillet also cited the words of Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritatis that active participation can be found in silence and meditation, an interior participation which does not require gesture and speech. His Excellency repeated the Pope's observation that the post-conciliar reform has introduced two moments of silence into the rite of Mass, one after the homily, and one after communion. Of these two, the former has not been a success, since the faithful just wait for the priest to “start up again”; the silence after the communion, on the other hand, has been successfully incorporated into the rite. (I would add that such a silence exists de facto in the traditional rite as well, since the faithful normally have time for silent prayer during the ablutions and re-stacking of the chalice.)

Quoting a Muslim who said that if Christians really believed in the Real Presence, they would prostrate themselves before it, His Excellency noted that this is hardly practicable, and prostrations are used for other things in the Latin Church, such as the ordination rites. However, a return to the reception of communion kneeling and on the tongue, already seen in the Papal Mass, would be a good step to restoring greater reverence for the True Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. He concludes by citing the words of the Pope again, written before his election, that at some point in the future, the Church must return to having a single rite, but one more firmly anchored in tradition.

The third speaker was Kurt Cardinal Koch, the recently named President of the Pontifical Council for the Unity of Christians, formerly bishop of Basel, Switzerland; His Eminence spoke on “The Ancient Liturgy of the Church, an Ecumenical Bridge.” Rejecting the idea that the broad permission for use of the older form of the Roman Rite is in some way an attack on the ecumenism of the post-conciliar period, he ascribed such an idea to a series of falsely construed oppositions. Thus, for example, the Sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist should not be set against the idea of the Eucharist as a Sacred Banquet in commemoration of the life of Christ; Sacrifice unites the Eucharist and Eucharistic piety to the sacrificial life of Christ Himself. The unification of thanksgiving and sacrifice is not a medieval relic, but a necessary part of the liturgy, richly expressed by the traditional Roman Canon; His Eminence very rightly suggested that the Roman Canon needs to be put to greater use in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Likewise, the widespread rejection of Eucharistic Adoration on “ecumenical” grounds after the Council is entirely contrary to the tradition of the Fathers. Eucharistic Adoration should be seen as a prophetic foreshadowing of the heavenly liturgy described in the Apocalypse; in Heaven, Sacrifice and Consecration will cease, but Adoration will not.

The Cardinal described the recovery of Tradition as a way towards renewed understanding with other Christian confessions. For example, celebration towards God, or, as detractors of the practice say, with the priest’s back to the people, is a very ancient Christian liturgical tradition, in which all the faithful and clergy turn together towards the Lord. Practices of this sort are common not only to other Christian denominations, but to many other religions; turning the altars was not foreseen or supposed by the Council. The priest facing the people does not “show respect for the(m)” in any meaningful way: when the Cardinal said that “no-one complains that the driver of a bus is looking at the street and has his back turned towards the passengers!”, the lecture hall exploded with applause.

The morning’s last talk was given by His Excellency Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Maria Santissima in Astana, Kazakhstan, on “The Minor Orders and Service at the Altar.”

He began by noting how from the very earliest times, the threefold Christian hierarchy of bishop, priest and deacon was compared to the threefold Jewish hierarchy of the high priest, priest and levite. Such a comparison is frequently made in the traditional rites of ordination, and deacons are called levites already by Pope Clement I in the first century.

The deacon’s role in the liturgy is one of the service to the priest, and this role is proper to his office, and not to the faithful as a whole. In ancient times, there were very few deacons, (Rome itself had only seven at any given time), who fulfilled only the most important roles; from the second century on, the Church began to associate other “orders” with the diaconate, the subdiaconate, the lectorate etc. These roles were always called “orders” until the 1972 decree Ministeria quaedam, in which the proper roles of the minor orders were attributed to the common priesthood of the faithful, and hence, the remaining two minor orders, now called “munera" (duties), opened to women. His Excellency noted that in Rome, women still do not serve in Papal liturgies, but outside Rome, women have in fact acted as servers in Papal liturgies, even though this is in theory prohibited by the Code of Canon Law.

From this arises the proposal made during the Bishops’ Synod on the Word of God to admit women to the lectorate; at which point, according to Bishop Schneider, the next logical step would be to admit women to the diaconate. (It should be noted that at least one cardinal has proposed that women be admitted to the diaconate, on the grounds that Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio sacerdotalis only spoke about the priesthood.) Such an act would however be contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent and the common tradition shared by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches; Trent accepted the idea of admitting married men to the minor orders, but never women. (His Excellency, a graduate of the Augustinian Patristic Institute in Rome, also noted that modern historical research has shown conclusively that there were never deaconesses in the modern sense of sacramental deacons in the Church.)

In the kingdom of Christ, there can be no race or contest for “power” in the act of Divine Worship; all must be filled with a spirit of humility and self-denial. His Excellency concluding by stating that we should ask the grace from God that the Holy Father issue a motu proprio to restore the minor orders in accord with the traditional discipline still maintained by the oriental Churches. (This statement was followed by thunderous applause.) No council, and certainly not Vatican II, ever asked for the abolition of the minor orders, or for any change to their arrangement or nature. Such a motu proprio would be a necessary compliment to Summorum Pontificum, a gift to the Church, and an enhancement of the sacred character of the liturgy.

A small part of the crowd in attendance at the conference in the Aula Minor of the Angelicum. Photo courtesy of Orbis Catholicus.

The Church Must Endure This Anger

Posted by Stuart Chessman

Freedom is restored to the Old Rite: Martin Mosebach on the recent papal letter on the Latin liturgy
By Paul Badde
(Die Welt, May 23, 2011)

Four years ago, Pope Benedict XVI, against the opposition of the great majority in the Catholic Church, restored the old Latin liturgy to equality with the new vernacular form of the celebration of the mass, which had been mandated since 1969. (The Latin liturgy substantially dates back to Gregory the Great (540-604) and was finally authoritatively fixed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).) A week ago, the Vatican, in a papal letter, reaffirmed its determination of 2007 and clarified some disputed questions regarding its practical application. Martin Mosebach, the recipient of the Büchner prize, is one of the most fervent admirers and defenders of the old Liturgy.

Die Welt: In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI, in a special motu proprio (an apostolic letter), freed the ancient Gregorian liturgy for the Catholic Church. Why does the Vatican publish instructions four years later on how the will of the pope is to be implemented?

Martin Mosebach: The enemies of the great liturgical tradition of the Roman Church in many cases have not accepted the permission given to the Old Rite. They often tried to ignore the pope’s motu proprio and sought to maintain obstacles. They tried with bureaucratic methods to render ineffective the pope’s generosity. Therefore, the Vatican had to be clearer if it wanted to maintain the motu proprio.

Die Welt: The Instruction speaks of “two usages of the one Roman rite.” Doesn’t this open the door to a creeping new schism?

Martin Mosebach: There’s already a schism, not between supporters of the new and old rites, but between those Catholics who adhere to the old sacramental theology of the Church as was solemnly confirmed by Vatican II, and those who assert that Vatican II founded a new Church with a new theology and new sacraments. This latter doctrine has been diffused wholesale and against the better knowledge of its promoters, in the seminaries, universities and Catholic academies. This is what has fostered the danger of a schism.

Die Welt: “What was sacred for prior generations remains sacred and great also for us as well; it cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.” The Instruction cites here the pope. But wasn’t this the intention of the overwhelming majority of the Catholic bishops in the last 40 years?

Martin Mosebach: Yes, it is regrettably true that a not small part of the Catholic bishops, in a suicidal frenzy, attempted to separate from the Catholic Tradition and to cut the Church off from the source of her vitality. In the sentence you have cited, the pope has given them some tutoring in ecclesiology.

Die Welt: How can the Roman liturgy in the “usus antiquior “ be offered today “to all the faithful “ if only a fraction of the faithful understand Latin?

Martin Mosebach: At all times only a few Catholics have been able to follow the Latin Mass word for word. Europe looks back on well over a thousand years of glorious Catholic culture without the people being able to understand Latin. They understand something more important: that in the rite the Parousia – the mystic presence – of the Lord takes place. Without this understanding, a person has understood nothing of the Mass, even if he thinks he understands every word. Moreover, for a long time there have been wonderful bilingual missals with which we can pray the mass with the priest. But it is indeed correct: the Old Rite requires a certain effort, a readiness to learn.

Die Welt: And how will precisely the promotion of the “older” rite further “reconciliation within the Church” after it has led to so much conflict until now?

Martin Mosebach: The conflict essentially is due to the misunderstanding, so perilous for the Church, that Vatican II established a new Church. The struggle surrounding this misunderstanding must be endured to the end. Covering it up with peaceful phrases doesn’t help the Church.

Die Welt: Pastors are invited to show “a spirit of generous welcome” to groups of faithful who would like to celebrate the Old Mass in Latin. Isn’t this naïve after the last few decades, in which such faithful were considered hopelessly old-fashioned and retrograde?

Martin Mosebach: Indeed, the faithful, who have adhered to the Old Rite or have discovered it just recently, were reviled in manner that, I hope, is not revealing of the spiritual worth of the reform. Karl Rahner’s words have not been forgotten: the opponents of the reform of the mass are “tragicomic fringe elements, frustrated by humaneness .” Today, however, one surprisingly finds a great deal of understanding for the cause of Tradition among younger priests.

Die Welt: That the pope personally changed the old Good Friday petition for the Jews satisfied hardly a single critic or opponent. Doesn’t the new Instruction stir up the fire once more?

Martin Mosebach: The critics of the Good Friday prayer perceive the insistence of the Church that Christ is “the Truth” as creating scandal. But the Church must endure this anger. She cannot deviate from this conviction.

Die Welt: Now priests can once more celebrate mass by themselves (or with the assistance of a single server). Isn’t that a leap back into the age when the concept of “communio” had only a shadowy existence in the Catholic Church?

Martin Mosebach: The concept of “communio” never had only a shadowy existence in the Church. The “communion of Saints” is , after all, even an article of faith. The community of which the Church speaks, however, is much more than the people actually present. It is a community with the dead and with the angels – but it is especially a community with Jesus Christ. Experience teaches that this community can be intensively experienced in the old form of the mass and even especially in the low mass – in any case, for many people better than in the post-conciliar form, characterized by incessant talking and the singing of questionable songs.

Die Welt: The training of priests is supposed again to “offer the opportunity of learning the extraordinary form of the rite” to theology students. But who will teach it? There are, after all, almost no teachers left.

Martin Mosebach: There are a number of Traditional priestly societies which view as their mission the imparting of the old liturgy to young priests. One only has to turn to these priestly societies and ask. They are happy to provide information, but until now have been impeded by many bishops.

Die Welt: What surprised you the most in the new Instruction?

Martin Mosebach: What surprised me is how determined the pope is in the question of liturgy. In any case, he has created the legal prerequisites for returning the Old Rite to complete freedom. No bishop who would like to impede the Old Rite can cite legal reasons any more.

Die Welt: And what disappointed you the most?

Martin Mosebach: It was disappointing for me that the great rite of the old ordination ceremony can from now on only be celebrated in Traditional monasteries and priestly societies. It is a pity that this spiritual treasure, which defines the priesthood so exactly, is to be lost to the universal Church – at least for the time being.

Die Welt: How do you respond to the criticism that the debate over liturgy overlooks the plight of the Church and the world?

Martin Mosebach: The plight of the Church is precisely that she has forgotten where her center lies. Her mission is to proclaim the living Christ and the living Christ appears in the liturgy. If the liturgy is made subject to the fashions of the day, the living Christ becomes invisible. Then the Church is truly in a crisis.

© Paul Badde
(Translation by kind permission of Paul Badde; translated by Stuart Chessman.)

Published in Essays, Martin Mosebach

http://sthughofcluny.org/2011/05/the-church-must-endure-this-anger.html

Muti sides with pope against Church 'sing-songs'

Benedict right to want traditional music, says conductor

26 May, 13:12

Guarda la foto 1 di 1

 

(ANSA) - Vatican City, May 26 - Italian conductor Riccardo Muti is backing Pope Benedict XVI's drive to discourage guitar ''sing-songs'' from Catholic masses.

The traditionalist German pontiff has called for an end to the use of pop-inspired religious music that many Catholic churches have used in different parts of the world to attract the faithful.

''It is possible to modernize holy music,'' he once said at a concert at the Sistine Chapel. ''But this cannot happen outside the great traditional path of the past, of Gregorian chants and sacred polyphonic choral music.

''(The Church supports) new expressive means (in music, as in art and architecture) without denying the past, the history of the human spirit, which is also the story of its dialogue with God''.

Critics have said the use of modern music helps the Catholic faith remain relevant and vibrant for young people and that it is better to have guitars and tambourines during mass than empty churches. But those objections have been rejected by world-famous conductor Muti.

''The pope is right when he says it is necessary to bring our great musical heritage back into churches,'' said Muti, a former director of Milan's La Scala who is now in charge of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

''The history of great music was determined by what the Church did.

''When I go to church and I hear four strums of a guitar or choruses of senseless, insipid words, I think it's an insult.

''I can't work out how come once upon a time there were Mozart and Bach and now we have little sing-songs. This is a lack of respect for people's intelligence''. Although many disagree with Benedict's views on music, there is no doubt that the pope speaks about the subject with authority. An accomplished pianist, he comes from a musical family and his brother, Georg Ratzinger, was for many years choir master in Regensburg, home to one of Europe's most famous boys' choirs.

Benedict's line on modern music is part of his bid to take the Church back to its roots.

This has also led to him reviving the use of the Latin Mass, which had been abandoned after the 1962-1965 Vatican Council introduced masses in local languages. In May the Vatican issued an ''instruction'' telling bishops to allow priests to say the old-style mass in Latin - the language of Benedict's beloved Gregorian chants - following a 2007 papal decree authorizing the wider adoption of it.

Many Catholics are uncomfortable about the resurrection of the Latin Mass as they see it as a partial reversal of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which is widely viewed as having brought the church into modern times.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2011/05/26/visualizza_new.html_845088652.html

 

Beauty in the life of the Church

A reflection on how liturgical vestments, symbols should lead faithful to God

Monday, May 23, 2011
Father Richard Vigoa - The Archdiocese of Miami

MARLENE QUARONI | FCArchbishop Wenski lights the Easter fire outside the cathedral at the start of the Easter vigil. Father Richard Vigoa, the archbishop's priest secretary is pictured to his left.

The earth is resplendent with the beauty of God. The civil calendar indicates that it is indeed springtime and a look at nature reminds us of this reality made manifest. Our liturgical calendar draws us into the Easter season.

Symbols, in our tradition, point to something outside of ourselves, to a greater reality, a reality of truth and beauty. We are reminded of the Easter Vigil, replete with symbols of light and darkness, life and death, refreshing waters, smells of fragrant incense and sublime music — reaching our every sense with the glory of our Risen Lord.

The 19th Century English Romantic poet John Keats once wrote: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know on earth or ever need to know.” Keats was not exposing readers to a new, earth-shattering perspective on the world, but rather reflecting a long tradition that is echoed through the annals of history from the foundation of the world.

We find the concept of beauty in a privileged place in the works of Plato and the ancient Greeks, the Israelites in the Old Testament and into the Christian period in the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo. Our Lord is quoted by St. Matthew when he says: “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these” (Matt 6:28-29). It seems Jesus is trying to point to a natural, objective reality concerning beauty. Indeed, beauty is an innate part of the human spirit.

As human beings, we experience God in very tangible ways, for beauty is a hallmark of our encounter with God. Beauty allows us to transcend and see God in our everyday experience.

As Catholics we see this quite clearly in the sacramental life of the Church. In No. 35 of Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI writes: “Like the rest of Christian Revelation, the liturgy is inherently linked to beauty: it is ‘veritatis splendor.’”

The beauty referred to by the Holy Father is not simply relegated to the domain of the sacred arts, but rather points beyond to the beauty that lies in the community united heart and soul in prayerful celebration. It is the beauty of celebrant and congregation in “fully conscious, and active participation” that the Council Fathers invite us to in Vatican Council II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium).

Liturgically speaking, beauty is of the highest order. Our sacramental “actio” is rooted in beauty. The liturgical arts, whether in the form of sacred music, architecture, art, vestments or vessels, should move us beyond the superficial and mere aesthetics and encourage us to plunge ourselves more deeply into the mystery of our faith.

Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us of the “need to involve, in the experience of faith, not only the mind and the heart, but also the senses through those other aspects of aesthetic taste and human sensitivity that lead man to benefit from the truth with his whole self, ‘mind, soul and body’” (Wednesday General Audience, June 3, 2009).

FILE PHOTOArchbishop Wenski lifts up a chalice given to the archdiocese by Blessed Pope John Paul II during a Mass in celebration of his beatification. Father Richard Vigoa writes that "The liturgical arts, whether in the form of sacred music, architecture, art, vestments or vessels, should move us beyond the superficial and mere aesthetics and encourage us to plunge ourselves more deeply into the mystery of our faith."

It is important to note the importance of continuity in our tradition. In Book XI of his “Confessions,” St. Augustine notes that the fluid interaction of time means that none of the three moments are in isolation but rather in interaction with each other — the past, present and future.

Recently, the pope’s master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, noted the following: “...The hermeneutic of continuity is always the precise criterion by which to interpret the Church's journey in time. This also applies to the liturgy. As a pope cites in his documents popes who preceded him in order to indicate continuity in the magisterium of the Church, so in the liturgical sphere a pope also uses liturgical vestments and sacred objects of the popes who preceded him to indicate the same continuity also in the lex orandi. The important thing is not so much antiquity or modernity, as the beauty and dignity, important components of every liturgical celebration” (Interview given to L’Osservatore Romano, June 26, 2008).

In other words, there is a stream of consciousness that tethers us as Catholics with those gone before us in an unbroken tradition. The vestments and vessels we use, the words we say and pray, the music we sing, the buildings we worship in and the art we craft and display are all a part of the sacred patrimony that connects us as a People of God.

Beauty calls forth the best in us and leads us to a search beyond ourselves and to the transcendent reality of our faith. Many times, we find a struggle in the modern world between the sacred and the profane. We are called to be careful to not allow the profane to replace the sacred mysteries we celebrate.

Pope Paul VI noted: “The secular, the cheap, the inferior, and the inartistic are not meant to cross the threshold of God’s temple” (Address to the Italian Society of St. Cecilia, Rome, April 15, 1971).

What then will we leave as a legacy of our generation? Will we continue to follow Prosper of Aquitaine’s maxim Lex orandi, Lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) and allow it to be the benchmark of beauty, goodness and truth?

Every time we make the sign of the cross, genuflect, kneel, bow we are invited to remember that beauty is indeed, “ever ancient, ever new” (The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book X).

Father Vigoa is priest-secretary and master of ceremonies for Archbishop Thomas Wenski.
http://miamiarch.org/ip.asp?op=Article_1151616634163

Tracing the Glorious Origins of Priestly Celibacy

Written by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

May 24, 2010

Self-appointed reformers always arise in times of crises offering “brilliant” solutions that attempt to demolish the Church’s most venerable traditions. Priestly celibacy, a glorious trait of the Latin Church, has been a constant target of these so-called reformers. Curiously enough, abolishing priestly celibacy comes hand-in-hand with destroying the indissolubility of marriage. This is easy to understand since it is based on the idea that chastity is impossible to observe. Thus, not only celibate continence is cast aside but also conjugal chastity and fidelity in marriage. Historically this happened with Eastern Orthodox schismatics, Protestants, Anglicans and others. The total or partial abolition of priestly celibacy either came together with or was preceded by permission to divorce. Pseudo Arguments Against Celibacy The present sex scandals, so trumped up by the media, have served as a pretext to intensify the campaign against priestly celibacy. Sectors of the media, as well as organizations of married priests and liberal Catholics, are insisting on this matter. In addition to pseudo-scientific arguments used to prove the impossibility of observing chastity, we often find the claim that celibacy is a purely disciplinary policy introduced only later in Church legislation. It can therefore be abolished. Others say that it should at least be made optional.     Actually there are many studies, some very recent, totally debunking this supposedly historic-canonical argument.     Let us cite three among the most important studies: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).   Early Church Tradition Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate, priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even cohabitation under the same roof.     Let us limit ourselves to the short yet substantial book by the late Cardinal Stickler (1910-2007), a well-respected Canon Law historian, expert on Roman Congregations, and former head of the Vatican Library.     He explains that both the apostolic and early Church did not require that a man be single or widowed in order to be ordained priest or designated bishop.     Since a large number of Christians were adult converts, (a typical example is Saint Augustine, who converted at 30), it was common for a married man to be ordained priest and made bishop. However, the Epistles of Saint Paul to Titus and Timothy clearly state a bishop had to be a “man of only one woman” (I Tim 3:2; 3:12; Titus 1:6). According to the interpretation commonly adopted in the early Church (and attested to by the Fathers of the Church), a candidate could not be married more than once. Thus, a widower who remarried was ineligible.     Moreover, Church officials believed a person in those conditions would hardly have sufficient strength to halt marital relations and live under the same roof. Cardinal Stickler emphasizes that because of the mutually self-giving nature of matrimony; a separation would always take place only with the full consent the wife, who, for her part, would make a commitment to live in chastity in a community of women religious.   The Apostolic Tradition Among the Apostles, only Saint Peter is known to have been married due to the fact his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels. Some of the others might have been married but there is a clear indication that they left everything, including their families, to follow Christ.     Thus, in the Gospels, one reads that Saint Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life” (Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21). Saint Augustine   Early Church Councils Reaffirm Practice This brief overview does not allow us to look at the whole history of celibacy amply documented by Cardinal Stickler. Let us present some of the most outstanding cases. The Council of Elvira in Spain (310) dealt with priestly chastity (canon 33), and presented perfect continence as a norm that must be maintained and observed and not as an innovation. The lack of any revolt or surprise attested to its widespread practice.     At the Council of the Church of Africa (390) and above all at the Council of Carthage, (419), which Saint Augustine attended, similar norms were adopted. These councils recalled the ecclesiastical praxis of the obligation of perfect chastity, affirming that such praxis is of apostolic tradition.     Pope Siricius answering a specific consultation about clerical celibacy in 385 affirmed that bishops and priests who continue marital relations after ordination violate an irrevocable law from the very inception of the Church that binds them to continence.     Several other popes and regional councils, particularly in Gaul, present day France, continued to recall the tradition of celibacy and punish abuse.     Saint Gregory VII (1073-85) when struggling against the intervention of the Holy Roman Emperor in church affairs, had to fight simony – the purchase of Church posts – and Nicolaitism – the heresy that preaches, among other things, priestly marriage. While many attribute priestly celibacy to Saint Gregory the Great, there is evidence to suggest that it dates back to apostolic times.     Some mistakenly conclude that Saint Gregory VII introduced the law of celibacy into the Church. Quite the contrary. What Saint Gregory VII, and later the Second Lateran Council (1139) did was not to “introduce” the law of celibacy but simply confirm that it was in force and issue regulations for its observance. Since most recruiting for the priesthood was already among the unmarried, the Second Lateran Council forbade priestly marriage, declaring it null and void in the case of priests, deacons or anyone with a solemn vow of religion.   The Case of Paphnutius The main argument of those who deny the apostolic tradition of priestly continence comes from an incident during the first Council of Nicea (325). Paphnutius, a bishop from Egypt, was reported to have protested in the name of tradition when the Conciliar Fathers tried to impose priestly continence. Because of his protest, the Council is said to have refused to impose such continence.     Cardinal Stickler adeptly deals with the case. He points out that Eusebius of Cesarea, the Council’s historian, was actually present during the whole event. He makes no reference to any such protest, which he certainly would have noted had it really happened.     The story of Paphnutius only appears almost a century after the Council of Nicea in the writings of two Byzantine authors, Socrates and Sozomen. The first cites as his source his conversation as a young man, with an elderly man who claimed he was at the Council. The veracity of this story is questionable since Socrates was born more than fifty years after the Council. His interlocutor had to be at least seventy years old when he was born and practically in his nineties at the time of the supposed conversation.     The story of Paphnutius’ protest was also always held in suspicion because his name was not on the roster of Fathers who came from Egypt to participate in the Council of Nicea. This was affirmed by Valesius, editor of the works of Socrates and Sozomen in the Greek Patrology of Migne.     However, Cardinal Stickler claims the decisive argument against the Paphnutius story comes from the second Council of Trullo (691). During this council of the Eastern Church, the Council Fathers, under pressure from the Emperor, allowed matrimony for priests (not for bishops) – going against the tradition both in the East and West. These same Fathers failed to present the testimony of Paphnutius to justify their break with the tradition of priestly continence even though they had everything to gain by doing so. Instead of citing Paphnutius, they sought to justify their position, never recognized by the Western Church, by invoking the Council of Carthage.     However, this Council clearly ruled in defense of the apostolic tradition of continence. Thus, they resorted to falsifying its decrees, a fact even schismatic historians now recognize.     Cardinal Stickler laments that historians of weight like Funk, at the end of the nineteenth century, accepted the story of Paphnutius as valid even as his contemporaries had already rejected it as false. One of the people responsible for spreading this error was the Frenchmen, E. Vacandard, through the prestigious Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. An Identity Crisis Finally, Cardinal Stickler argues that the reason for priestly celibacy is not a functional one. Unlike the Old Testament, where the priesthood was merely a temporary function received by way of inheritance, the priesthood in the New Testament is a vocation, a calling that transforms the person and confiscates him entirely. He is a sanctifier, a mediator.     Above all, the priesthood in the New Testament is a participation in the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the High Priest. And, therefore, the priest has a mysterious and special bond with Christ, in whose name and by whose power he offers the bloodless sacrifice (in persona Christi). The most profound reason for priestly celibacy comes from this supernatural bond with the Savior.     The Cardinal points out that the main reason celibacy is in question today is because the clergy faces an identity crisis. Only by restoring the true identity of the priest, can the profound reasons for celibacy be understood and practiced. This identity crisis cannot be resolved by returning to “the origins of the Church,” a solution proposed by proponents favoring married priests and their sympathizers. Those origins would simply not allow them to cohabit with their wives and continue to exert their priestly ministry. Let us hope that, with the help of grace, the true identity of the Catholic priest will be restored soon so that all the present-day madness may come to an end. http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/tfp-recommends-books/tracing-the-glorious-origins-of-priestly-celibacy.html

New Catholic bishop ‘a people person’

By Liz Monteiro, Record staff

Sat May 14 2011     

Bishop Douglas Crosby It's been a busy week for Bishop Douglas Crosby, who presided over two confirmation ceremonies at St. Clement’s Catholic Church in Cambridge this week. He was also at St. Aloysius parish in Kitchener Friday for confirmation.

Peter Lee/Record staff

CAMBRIDGE — The new leader of the Roman Catholic diocese of Hamilton has a lofty goal.
He wants to visit every parish — and that’s 123 of them — in the diocese in his first year as bishop.
It’s a purposeful goal that most newly appointed bishops make every effort to meet. For Bishop Douglas Crosby there’s little doubt he won’t succeed.
“He’s very much a people person. He’s sociable and an extrovert,’’ said Msgr. Vincent Kerr of the Hamilton diocese. “That’s his style.’’

This week alone, he will have visited Waterloo Region three times, presiding over two confirmation ceremonies at St. Clement’s Catholic Church in Cambridge, where he confirmed about 80 Grade 7 and 8 students from St. Michael’s and St. Joseph’s schools. He was also at St. Aloysius parish in Kitchener for confirmation on Friday.

Since Crosby officially took over the job on Nov. 8 after Bishop Anthony Tonnos retired, he has visited many parishes, including St. Louis and St. Agnes in Waterloo. Earlier this month, Crosby was in Kitchener, speaking to the Waterloo Region Catholic Schools Foundation at St. Mary’s Parish Hall.
“I’m exhausted,’’ jokes Kerr, who tags along with Crosby on his visits. “He has a busy schedule. He’s out every day. He doesn’t get to bed until midnight and he’s up at about 6:30 in the morning.’’

For practising Roman Catholics, he’s the Most Reverend.

The bishop’s title gives him authority, and parish priests from as far as Tobermory to Oakville and stretching through to the region look to him for guidance.

Catholics also revere him as the one to lead the diocese and the faithful.

At St. Clement’s Church this week, the bishop walked through the church dressed in his liturgical vestments with a mitre, a head covering, and a pastoral staff known as a crozier, which he received when was appointed bishop in Newfoundland-Labrador in 1997.

For many of the youth in the congregation, it was the first time meeting the bishop and it could be intimidating.

“So are you ready to answer questions?’’ he asked the group. Instead of eager students nodding their heads, there was silence.

“Don’t worry, I won’t ask you questions,’’ he reassured them. With ease, Crosby explained in simple terms the significance of the sacrament and what it meant for the students.

He told them he would lay his hands on them, signifying the Holy Spirit, and place aromatic oil on their foreheads.

“It will drip on the side of your face and run down your nose and if you have a Justin Bieber hairstyle, get ready for greasy hair,’’ he said as congregants chuckled.

On a serious note, Crosby reminded the students that they had gifts given to them by the Holy Spirit and it was their responsibility to share those gifts with others.

“Believe me, the world needs you. This community needs you,’’ he said. “Share your gifts and talents and then the world will be a great place. All kinds of good will spill out.’’

Rev. Phil Sherlock of St. Clement’s, who had dinner with the bishop before the confirmation ceremonies at his church, said the bishop comes across as “one of the folks,” making people feel relaxed when speaking to him.

When the bishop recently phoned Sherlock, he casually said “Doug Crosby” rather than his title.
“He’s very competent and has authority but he doesn’t show it. He’s down-to-earth,’’ Sherlock said, who added the bishop is anxious to return to St. Clement’s and visit the congregation at a Sunday service.

Crosby’s appointment to the Hamilton diocese was announced last September, a final decision made by Pope Benedict XVI. The apostolic nuncio, who is based in Ottawa, is the Pope’s representative in Canada and he makes suggestions to the Congregation for Bishops in Rome, who then present the names to the pope.

Crosby was first appointed a bishop to Labrador City-Schefferville and then went to the diocese of St. George’s Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Crosby, who turns 62 next month, was ordained a priest in 1975 and served mostly in Eastern Canada, although often coming to the Hamilton diocese as a visiting bishop, assisting with confirmation ceremonies for the past eight years.

Born and raised in Marathon, Ont., a small town between Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, Crosby is the oldest of seven children who at first thought he was going to be a lawyer. He had his application ready for the University of Western Ontario in London but then decided he would give the priesthood a try, at least for a year.

He entered the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and never looked back.

As a new bishop, Crosby said he’s humbled to serve as the leader of the second-largest English-speaking diocese in the country. He expects an auxiliary bishop will be appointed within the year to assist him with his duties.

“When you are new, you take things for granted less. You are impressed,’’ he said of the many parishes he has visited.

“I’m wide-eyed about it all. I’m experiencing the church in a much larger kind of context,’’ Crosby said in an interview before the confirmation ceremony this week.

Crosby said it’s his responsibility to get to know parishioners in his diocese, and so far he’s been impressed.

“I’m inspired by the many, many good people I have met and the remarkable work that goes on in the diocese,’’ he said.

So far, Crosby has found Catholics in the Hamilton diocese to be loyal followers of their parishes.

“The practice of the faith is high in this diocese. It can always be better, but the churches are filled and the congregations seem to be lively and active,’’ he said.

And as for the priests who lead the parishes, Crosby praises them, too.

“There is a very good group of priests. The guys are pretty good. They work hard. Essentially they are very good to the people,’’ he said.

“If I can do anything to support that, that’s what I would like to do,’’ he said.

Crosby adds that he wants his diocese to know that he is happy as a priest and a bishop, a position he never thought he would hold.

“I have been very happy as a priest and as a bishop. It’s not that I haven’t had hard decisions to make, but fundamentally I’m a happy person,’’ he said.

“My faith is important to me. It gives me a firm foundation and a good vision about life and people,’’ he said.

http://www.therecord.com/living/faith/article/532211--new-catholic-bishop-a-people-person

Outlawing Abortion: Making the Case for an Incremental Approach

May 23, 2011 by Gerard M. Nadal

There is a discussion on FB about Texas passing a sonogram bill that does not protect certain groups of preborn babies, such as those conceived in rape, incest, or those with fetal anomalies. My friend Juda Myers is a pro-life warrior who was conceived in rape, and is understandably let down by these exceptions. This has reignited the ongoing debate within the pro-life community regarding incrementalism vs. unconditional surrender. I believe that we can all get to the finish line together.

What follows are modified comments I left on FB this morning:

One abortion is one too many. On this all pro-lifers agree. I’ve been party to this discussion with several pro-lifers from around the country, so let me explain the incrementalist’s position and its internal logic.

First, the proaborts do the two-step, one-step. They push their agenda forward two steps, and when we raise hell, they retreat one step (remaining a step ahead. When things calm down, they repeat the cycle again, and again; always advancing one step with each cycle. It’s a brilliant and effective strategy.

With every round, they establish a new norm from which they operate.

The pro-life incrementalist’s position does much the same thing. Nobody is saying that they value some babies more or less than others. This tactic is the proabort’s own strategy turned on them. It allows society to begin to value humans in the embryonic and fetal stages of development by giving them the protection of the law. In a word: PERSONHOOD.

Being successful in re-calibrating societal attitudes about the rights and dignity of most babies allows the pro-life movement to bridge the gap for society to accept the dignity of those conceived in rape, incest, or with fetal anomalies. The argument in favor of abortion began with rape and incest, then generalized outward to claim scores of millions not conceived in rape or incest. In regaining lost ground, we’ll win it back in reverse order.

As things stand, holding out for the whole enchilada has not worked, and has consigned millions to their deaths, where they might otherwise have been saved.

No war has ever been won in one giant stroke. It is won a battle at a time, with the conquered ground then used as the staging area for the next battle. Think of MacArthur’s Island-Hopping Campaign across the Pacific in WWII.

For almost forty years the camp demanding all-or-nothing has held sway, and little has changed.

Incrementalism can make huge immediate inroads, saving hundreds of thousands of babies per year, and in the process build a pro-life ethic where it never before existed. This can then make it easier to argue that certain classes of the preborn are the victims of discrimination.

I’m with Juda all the way, but the logic of incrementalism seems to save far more babies’ lives than all of the sidewalk counseling ever has. It sucks the huge profits out of the abortion industry, forcing many to close, and allows us to focus and marshall our resources against an ever-diminishing enemy until we completely obliterate their deadly industry by using their own weapon against them: Government.

To not accept this is to play high-stakes, winner-take-all poker with the lives of millions of babies who would otherwise have been saved.

Thoughts?

http://gerardnadal.com/2011/05/23/outlawing-abortion-making-the-case-for-an-incremental-approach/

Alcuin Reid Commentary on Instruction Universae Ecclesiae

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/05/alcuin-reid-commentary-on-universae.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewLiturgicalMovement+%28The+New+Liturgical+Movement%29

by Shawn Tribe

Dr. Alcuin Reid offers his commentary on Universae Ecclesiae in today's online edition of the Catholic Herald: The Pope has made clear the older rite is here to stay

It may seem rather odd that Pope Benedict XVI has expended so much energy on rules about the use of the old “Latin Mass” – after all, it would appear that most Catholics are content with the modern liturgy in the vernacular. Why, then, yet another set of rules from Rome in this Instruction?

The answer is found in the fact that, as the Instruction insists, the older rites are a “precious treasure to be preserved,” and that the Holy Father wants to offer this treasure “to all the faithful”, not as a quaint museum piece but as a living source of life and grace for the whole Church of today and into the future. All laity, clergy and religious should have access to its diverse riches.

These latest rules envisage the inclusion of recent saints and some new texts in the older liturgy. They even foresee new editions of the missal and other liturgical books of the older rites: the older liturgy will continue to exist and develop as it has over the centuries up until the Second Vatican Council. But it cannot, however, now have certain modern practices (altar girls, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, etc) imposed on it. Its integrity is guaranteed.

Of course, there are historical realities behind this Instruction and the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum which it clarifies. In the first place there is the controversy over the liturgical changes that followed the Council. Were they a legitimate development or did they involve a rupture with tradition? Neither of these documents settles that question, but the Instruction does, significantly, speak of the development of the Missale Romanum “until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII” and of the “new Missal” approved for the Church in 1970 by Paul VI. This authoritative recognition of a clear distinction between the two – both of which, the Instruction maintains, must be seen to be legitimate and valid – does admit a clear “difference” between that of Paul VI and what came before. Discussion of the implications of this will continue.

And then there is the more recent historical reality of widespread opposition to the use of older liturgical rites (not just the Mass, but the sacraments and the blessings and so on, as the Instruction makes clear) on the part of bishops, religious superiors and priests. That is why the Instruction was necessary: even after Summorum Pontificum established that in Church law everyone who wants the older liturgy is entitled to it, this opposition continued, sometimes from high-ranking prelates. This Instruction underlines these rights and makes explicit what was implicit in Summorum Pontificum, namely that if these rights are denied Catholics, be they laity or clergy, have the right of appeal (“recourse”) according to the norms of canon law. It is unusual for Rome to advertise this in an Instruction, but in the light of the opposition it seems necessary.

One of the principal areas of dispute has been what constitutes the “stable group” that is required to request regular public celebrations of the old liturgy. The Instruction dismisses the various straw men put up since Summorum Pontificum in order to block requests for the older liturgy and insists that these groups can be small, can come from different parishes or even dioceses and that they can exist only for the purpose of worshipping the old rites.

This generosity of interpretation, which runs throughout the Instruction, is a fundamental principle in interpreting canon law: when ecclesiastical authority (the Pope in Summorum Pontificum) grants a favour for the good of people (the continued use of the older liturgy) it is to be applied generously and not restrictively.

One issue not resolved by this Instruction is what the older rites are to be called. It uses “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” as well as “Antiquior Usus” (the “more ancient use”) of the Roman rite. Some commentators have insisted on an interpretation of “extraordinary” that is quite pejorative: the older rites have been regarded as an eccentric relative, mention of whose existence brings about a knowing smile and with whom close contact is seen as a risk. There is no foundation for this in either Summorum Pontificum or this Instruction. The terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” are used in a sense of what is statistically normative, that is all. Indeed, in the Latin text “ordinaria” and “extraordinaria” are not capitalised, whereas “Antiquior Usus” is. Given the derogatory use to which “extraordinary form” has been put, it is probably time to set it aside in favour of “the more ancient rites” or some such terminology.

There are, I suggest, two areas in which the Instruction is weak. The first is in its assertion that seminarians should be given the opportunity to learn the older rites “where pastoral needs suggest it”. Some bishops will use the latitude permitted here to exclude such formation from seminaries. That will only serve to impoverish seminarians’ overall liturgical formation, for regardless of whether a diocese has a clear “pastoral” demand for the older rites, experience and knowledge of them on the part of future priests cannot but serve to enrich their grasp of liturgical theology and spirituality, and lay a good foundation for their liturgical ministry, even – perhaps especially – in the new rites.

The other weakness is the Instruction’s curious restriction of the older rites of ordination to those communities supervised by the Ecclesia Dei commission in Rome. This denies diocesan bishops the pastoral freedom to judge which rite of ordination is best; it may discourage vocations. Priests have this freedom in respect of celebrations of the Mass and other sacraments: why this ungenerous restriction on bishops? Also, communities who are not under the Roman commission but who permanently use the older liturgy in accordance with Summorum Pontificum could find themselves having to use the new ordination rites. This is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.

These concerns aside, the Instruction Universæ Ecclesiæ underlines the fact that the older Roman rites are here to stay. When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope I wrote that “there is little doubt that we shall see freedom granted to the traditional Latin Mass”. That has now more than come to pass, and decisively.

It may seem strange that this matter is a priority for Pope Benedict. But we need to remember, as he wrote in 1997, that “the true celebration of the sacred liturgy is the centre of any renewal of the Church whatever”. In the Holy Father’s judgment, free access to the Usus Antiquior is a necessary component of such renewal.

Dr Alcuin Reid is a cleric of the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France, and editor of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described

John Allen’s strategy for legitimizing Catholic dissent

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

• Thu May 19, 2011 19:55 EST
• Comments (9)
• Tags: john allen jr, pro-life, taliban catholics

May 19, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In recent months, media celebrity John Allen has been on a campaign to legitimize the dissenting, anti-life and anti-family views embraced by his publisher, the “National Catholic Reporter” (NCR). Let us call it the “Allen Strategy”.

John Allen Jr. during Salt & Light television interview

Salt & Light video frame

The Allen Strategy hearkens back to the 1990s, when Chicago’s Cardinal Bernardin sought to co-opt orthodox Catholics with the “common ground” and “seamless garment” initiatives. His apparent intent was to induce the faithful to compromise with liberal dissenters in order to promote “unity” in the Church. Inevitably he failed, although the Common Ground Project maintains a postmortem presence at Chicago’s Catholic Theological Union.

Allen incorporates this element into his overall approach with his claim that the Catholic Church has been splintered into numerous “tribes” during the “postmodern” period, due to the cultural fragmentation of society. His model presents a multipolar world inhabited by what he calls “pro-life Catholics, peace-and-justice Catholics, liturgical traditionalist Catholics, neo-con Catholics, church reform Catholics, feminist Catholics, and on and on”. Not coincidentally, “peace-and justice” “feminist” and “reform” are the labels that NCR uses to sugar-coat its dissenting ideology.

In Allen’s universe, the Catholic Church is not polarized between those who are faithful to its perennial teachings and those who oppose them—an inconvenient notion that highlights the unacceptable and increasingly marginalized position of NCR. Rather, the Church is “tribalized” among various groups that have legitimate differences in perspective. This permits Allen to smuggle in his assumption that those who write for his newspaper are in an analogous position to “pro-life Catholics” and “traditionalist Catholics” in their differences with the others. In other words, liberal dissenters are only one Catholic “tribe” among many.

Allen’s term “pro-life Catholic” speaks volumes about his own distorted perspective on the faith. He seems to regard “pro-life” as a mere type of Catholic, rather than an essential element of the faith. However, the deeper significance of Allen’s “tribal” model of modern Catholicism lies in the proposed solution to his contrived problem.

Writing about the divisions among his “tribes” in a recent article, Allen opines that “Such diversity is healthy in principle, but destructive in practice if these tribes come to see one another as the enemy, and in many cases that’s precisely the situation. Compounding the problem is that these tribes have spent so much time moving down separate paths that they often have completely different senses of what the issues facing the church actually are, so on those rare occasions when they do rub shoulders, they often lack a common set of points of reference to sustain a conversation.”

So, for example, when the disgraced “theologian” Charles Curran is given space on NCR for long and convoluted essays attacking the bishops’ pro-life teachings and defending the “pro-choice” position, and then is praised for it by NCR itself we must not react with outrage. And when NCR’s openly homosexual columnist Kate Childs Graham rejects the Church’s condemnation of sodomy—an article of the natural law recognized by virtually every society and religion in history—we are not to see her publisher as “the enemy.”

When we find NCR writers defending nuns who are excommunicated for authorizing abortions, or trashing the homosexual ministry group Courage for encouraging its members to remain celibate, we should not raise our voices in objection. Nor should we grimace with indignation when we read NCR legitimizing heretical nun Jeannine Gramick’s campaign to legalize homosexual “marriage.” Rather we need “common points of reference” with such people, accepting them as just another species of Catholic.

As Allen uses very euphemistic language in his own columns to refer to the NCR agenda, and takes pains to present himself as “balanced,” one might easily conclude he doesn’t share in the anti-Catholic perspectives of NCR and its other columnists. However, his own words in a recent NCR fundraising campaign leave little to doubt about the matter. He calls NCR a “precious gift, a gift to journalism, and a gift to the Catholic Church” and an “incredibly important vehicle for keeping Catholic conversation alive.” He adds that NCR is “about the only outfit” where “it is theoretically possible” to write objective, accurate stories.

The real problem for Allen and NCR: “evangelical Catholicism”
Later in the same article, Allen identifies the true source of the conflict between the “tribes” that he so laments. It is caused by what he calls “evangelical Catholicism,” which is creating “pressure” on “Catholic identity.” Even more alarming for the dwindling faction of sixties radicals that Allen represents is the fact that this movement is coming from both the upper and the lower levels of the Church.

“Whether anyone likes it or not, pressure related to Catholic identity is here to stay,” he writes. “This is not only because a fragmented, post-modern world always makes identity contentious, but because one key trend in today’s church is precisely the rise of ‘evangelical Catholicism.’”

Allen informs us that “evangelical Catholicism” is “premised on recovering a strong sense of Catholic identity (including traditional markers of Catholic thought, speech and practice, such as Eucharistic adoration and Marian devotion) and using that identity as a lever to transform culture - beginning with the culture of the church. This evangelical wave comes from the top down, in the sense that policy-makers are understandably concerned to defend Catholic identity vis-à-vis secularism. Yet it also comes from the bottom up, in the form of strong evangelical energy among younger priests, religious, theology students and lay activists.”

What are aging radicals to do in the face of this youthful fidelity to the Catholic religion? If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em—or co-opt them, to use the more precise term. It is impossible to reconcile NCR’s dissenting positions with the teachings of the Catholic Church, to which they stand in stark contradiction. However, if orthodox Catholics can be induced to join organizations or movements that include dissenters, they are likely to stop fighting and cooperate, giving the dissenters the legitimacy they need to continue their subversion of the faith.

“What the church needs instead are spaces in which relationships among Catholics of differing outlooks can develop naturally over time,” Allen opines. “The plain fact of the matter is that such spaces have been badly attenuated by the ideological fragmentation of both the church and the wider world.” Within such zones, liberal dissenters and faithful Catholics would work together, creating a “hybrid vigor” through synergistic action.

Among the groups he names to perform this amalgamating function is Canada’s Salt and Light Television, run by Allen collaborator Fr. Thomas Rosica. In a recent Salt and Light interview with Rosica (beginning at 19:49), Allen promises viewers that there will be a “new spiritual awakening” where “we realize the sterility of this dead-end street of importing the culture wars into the Church” and names Salt and Light as an institution that conforms to his “zones of friendship” concept.
“One of the things that has always struck me about you personally and the Salt and Light network generally is that it genuinely is open to all of the different tribes of the Catholic landscape. that is you are not speaking from one side of the street, you are not speaking for one constituency, you are speaking for, and to, and about the entirety of the Church,” Allen gushes to an affirming Rosica.

Unfortunately, Allen’s “tribal” model is shared by many other Catholic leaders as well, who see themselves not as protectors of the faith and morals of the laity, but rather managers who balance competing factions against each other in order to maintain a peaceful equilibrium in the Church. Those who take this view seem to care little for the essential message of the Gospel— conversion from error and sin to the light of truth and of love. They are fundamentally politicians rather than leaders, and they are among the most useful allies of heretics, dissenters, and other malcontents who undermine the Church’s salvific mission.

Ironically, the true source of the “polarization” in the modern Church is arguably to be found in the same relativistic concept of the faith pushed by Allen, which leads so many into a deluded sense of Catholic identity. A truly charitable approach to discipline would not permit those who promote an anti-life, anti-family agenda to deceive themselves into believing that they are authentically Catholic. The accompanying divisions owe their existence to a fundamentally uncharitable laxity of discipline on the part of many bishops, which permits confusion and strife where there should be clarity and harmony, an authentic unity based on the truth.

Allen’s Plan B
If the “common ground” aspect of the Allen Strategy fails, however, Allen has a backup plan, which we shall call “Plan B.” In Plan B all pretense of reconciliation and syncretism is dropped. Faithful Catholics are tar-brushed as extremists, while NCR’s dissenting viewpoints are portrayed by implication as the reasonable middle ground in the Catholic Church.

Allen’s choice of smear-term, “Taliban Catholicism,” has become standard fare in his talks since he first used it in a 2006 speech, in which he expressed his concerns about new movements to restore “Catholic identity.” Despite his protests that he doesn’t apply the term to any particular person or group, there is little doubt of its meaning within the NCR paradigm.

Allen warns of a “defensive and polemic Catholic traditionalism that depends upon enemies, perceived or real, to give it strength. This reaction too fudges the identity question by attempting to define Catholicity in terms of the narrow borders of one or another Catholic tribe, which amounts to an artificial limitation of our universality.”

The universality of the Church, therefore, depends on an inclusiveness that contains all of Allen’s “tribes”—both those that defend the faith and those that distort and undermine its teachings. The latter are not to be seen as “enemies,” lest one fall under the rubric of extremism. All must be included, and those who oppose this “universality” are the moral equivalent of Muslim fanatics who engage in terrorism, oppress women, and prohibit kite-flying.

The answer to the wicked Catholic Taliban, Allen assures us, is to be found in St. Thomas Aquinas’ concept of the “just mean,” which he regards as the veritable essence of Catholicism.

“In the long run, what almost always prevails in the Church is what Aquinas called the ‘just mean’ between such extremes,” Allen assures his readers. “Assuming this pattern holds, it suggests that the future will belong to those voices able to articulate a robust sense of Catholic distinctiveness, but one which does not shade off into a Taliban Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the idols of ‘the other.’”

Fr Rosica in Rome calling for Church oversight of the Catholic Internet

Salt & Light video frame

The “just mean” of Aristotle and St. Thomas is a favorite theme of Allen’s when he addresses the issue of conflict in the Church, but the star journalist has somehow forgotten that Thomas regarded virtue as a mean between extremes only in the case of the moral and intellectual virtues, which are directed to the created world. With regard to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, which are directed to God, Thomas writes that there can be no excess, no extreme too great. Perhaps the Angelic Doctor himself is in danger of Allen’s “Taliban” smear.

If we wish to see an example of the Allen Strategy in action, we have no further to look than Salt and Light’s Fr. Thomas Rosica. Without a hint of irony, Rosica has launched his own campaign to tar-brush pro-life and pro-family groups with Allen’s “Taliban Catholicism slur” and other similar epithets, while simultaneously calling for civility and moderation.

Although Rosica can count on the backing of many bishops as well as chancery and episcopal conference bureaucrats, his actions reveal an increasing frustration with the liberal establishment’s inability to control the flow of information. Rosica has gone so far as to call for “oversight” of the Catholic internet by the hierarchy—a concept discarded at the Vatican’s recent meeting held for bloggers.

What the Allen Strategy really means
And it is here that we arrive at the deeper meaning of the Allen Strategy. Although it is distressing to witness such a famous and capable reporter putting his talents to ill use, Allen’s words can only inspire hope, if read in their proper context. The Allen Strategy, which has no real possibility of succeeding, is nothing less the swan song (if swans will excuse the comparison) of a dying movement that has no recourse left but to silly subterfuges and weak protests against “extremism.”

The defeat of NCR’s phony, neo-modernist “peace and justice Catholicism” is in large part the product of lay movements exercising the very functions that liberal dissenters hoped to expropriate for their own ends following Vatican II, a council for which the latter professes a profound reverence. Although the legitimacy of lay movements to protect orthodoxy has always been recognized in the Church, the concept was engraved in stone in the new Code of Canon Law, which explicitly recognizes the right and even the obligation of Catholics to inform their prelates, and one another, of their concerns regarding the faith.

To the dismay of NCR and the movement it represents, this new emphasis on lay involvement in the Church did not spawn a proletarian army to carry out their “peace and justice” revolution. It produced instead the “evangelical Catholicism” that so troubles Allen and his publisher. In recent years, “evangelical Catholicism” has made increasing use of the Internet as well as television, augmenting its influence dramatically. The Church’s establishment, so accustomed to controlling the Catholic means of communication, is finding that modern communication is a two-way street.

The response it is hearing is a clear “no” to the culture of death and sexual perversion, and to compromise and laxity with regard to the truths of the faith. It is a voice that will only grow louder until the Catholic faith, in all its integrity, is fully upheld and protected in the Church.
John Allen and his unfortunate patron are facing an inexorable imperative of Catholicism: the tribe of life must prevail over the tribe of death. Then, and only then, will authentic justice and peace reign among Christians.
——————-
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman is LifeSiteNews’ Latin America correspondent. His award-winning articles have appeared in many major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Sunday Times of London, Christian Science Monitor, Detroit News, and Nicaragua’s La Prensa. He can be reached at mhoffman@lifesitenews.com.