Communion handling: the gravest problem

Communion handling: the gravest problem

Translation problems? Mass celebrated towards the people? Altar girls? Postures?

No, the greatest and gravest problem of the liturgy of the Latin Church - that is, of the "Ordinary form", or Mass of Paul VI - is one that transcends all this, even it is related to all of them: it is the way the Body of Christ is treated. That must be the very first issued tackled by an eventual true "reform of the reform", one that is set not by fleeting example, but by hard law.

_______________________

(1) Any human being who has ever had any experience with any edible object based on a milled product knows that crumbling is a natural part of the process of consuming it: loaves, wafers, cookies, biscuits, crackers, tortillas, nachos - it does not matter, fragmentation takes place.

(2) Catholics believe that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ are truly present in each of the Consecrated Species, and completely in every single and minute fragment of it.

Because of (1) and (2), the Church was traditionally extremely careful regarding the distribution of Holy Communion. That meant reducing to the minimal imaginable level the possibility that any Fragment of the Body of Christ, even the smallest one, might be profaned or lost - which meant only the celebrant himself touched the Body of Christ, that all Fragments could be held under control on the Altar, and that all gestures in the distribution of Holy Communion by the Priest (or Deacon) to the servers and faithful would mean that no Fragment could ever go unaccounted. (And that same process also took place with the distribution under both Species in the East, in a slightly different evolution, but with the same end result: consecrated hands distributing Holy Communion in such a way to make any loss or spillage unlikely and under strict control.)

What the liturgical innovations following the Council did was to inculcate Catholics with the notion that the Fragments of the Body of Christ do not matter - and it would be absurd to limit that only to the abhorrent practice of Communion in the hand; no, it is not just a matter of respect, but of Belief that God Himself is entirely present in each single Fragment of the Consecrated species; and Communion in the hand is only one aspect of this. In fact, all those allowances for distribution by people other than those with consecrated hands that are not purified before and after the Distribution of Holy Communion, the use of all kinds of "vessels", and all related matters - happening thousands upon thousands of times every single day around the world - also necessarily lead to abuse. Or, rather, they ARE the abuse.

All other problems with the New Mass are intimately related with this gravest of problems. If the Sacred Liturgy is the "summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed" (SC, 10), the handling of the Body of Christ by the non-ordained is the pit from which all and every single liturgical abuse ontologically flows. Because if God present in the Most Holy Sacrament is treated as "crumbs" and "dust", then reality vanishes and all that remains, in appearance, are empty and ridiculous symbolisms - and no wonder people do not respect these, change them at will, and expect them to adapt to one's own preferences.

Fr. Z & Diocese of Madison on EMHCs

D. of Madison’s newspaper’s explanation of EMHC’s giving blessings as if they were priests

Posted on 28 September 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In The Catholic Herald of the Diocese of Madison, where the great Bishop Robert Morlino exercises oversight, there is a great article on an issue we have addressed here many times: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion giving blessings to non-communicants as if they were priests.

The whole thing deserves a reading here and there is no combox over there.

My emphases, though I put the headers in bold. My comments.

Can lay ministers give blessings during Communion?
Guest column
Written by Paul M. Matenaer
Thursday, Sep. 22, 2011

If you took a vacation this summer and had the joy of participating at Mass in a church other than the one you usually attend, you may have noticed that since we belong to a universal Church, there was an incredible similarity between the Mass you attended on vacation and your usual Mass back home.

On the other hand, you may have also noticed slight variations between the two. My intention in this present article is to examine the legitimacy of one common variation, namely, the practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion giving blessings during Mass. As in all of my articles, I do not wish to give a complete historical overview or to exhaustively treat the theological reasoning behind such practices. Rather, I hope to simply and clearly explain the ius vigens, that is, the law presently in force.

What is an EMHC?

In order to properly understand the issue, we must first examine the role of the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion (hereafter abbreviated EMHC). An EMHC is a lay person who has been commissioned — typically by the bishop or vicar general — to distribute Holy Communion to those present at Mass when needed. The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the official instruction manual of the Mass, describes the function of EMHC’s in articles 162-163.

To summarize, the EMHC’s first approach the altar only after the priest has received communion. After receiving communion themselves, they then receive from the priest the proper vessels containing the Most Holy Eucharist and in turn distribute Holy Communion to the faithful gathered for Mass. When the distribution of communion is finished, they return the sacred vessels to the altar where the priest is to purify them and the EMHC’s return to their spots in the congregation.

When can EMHCs be used?

Lay persons who are called upon to distribute Holy Communion during Mass are not actually called “lay ministers” as the title of the article may lead you to believe. On the contrary, they are properly referred to as “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion,” which happens to be a very descriptive term.

As we have already seen above, EMHCs are indeed ministers of Holy Communion, but there is more to it than that. They are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The presence of this necessary adjective is not intended to communicate that they are wonderful people, even though most of them are. Rather, this word “extraordinary” is meant to distinguish them from the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, who are priests and deacons.

As those who have been ordained in order to serve the Christian faithful, priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers, that is, servants of Holy Communion. Priests and deacons have been set apart by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to serve the rest of the Body of Christ, especially at the altar.

In 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments promulgated an instruction entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum, which clarified certain matters regarding the Eucharist. In paragraph 88, it states that it is “the priest celebrant’s responsibility” to distribute Holy Communion, perhaps assisted by other priests or deacons who are present. Paragraph 157 of that same document notes that if there is a sufficient number of ordinary ministers present, then EMHCs should not be used.
However, article 162 of the GIRM indicates that if there are no other ordinary ministers present and there is “an exceedingly large [valde magnus] number of communicants,” the priest celebrant may then call upon EMHCs to assist him. Paragraph 151 of Redemptionis Sacramentum explains further that these EMHCs are to be used “only out of true necessity” and that when they are used, “special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a priest for the service of the community.” [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Thus, paragraph 158 summarizes that EMHCs may only be used when the priest is impeded (e.g. old age or sickness) or when “the number of faithful coming to communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.”

Can EMHCs give blessings?

With this proper understanding of the role and usage of EMHCs, we can now begin examining the question at hand. As noted in the introductory paragraph, this is one of those practices that seems to vary by community. In some places children and non-Catholics are instructed to come up with their arms crossed in order to receive a blessing from the EMHC, whereas in other parishes, they are asked to remain seated. Even the blessing given varies greatly from place to place. Whatever the practice may be, [QUAERITUR:] let us now ask whether EMHCs are permitted to give blessings during communion.

In 2008, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments received a letter asking precisely this question. The congregation responded in a private reply with five observations on why this practice is not permitted. [NOT]

But first, let me note that even though private replies do not have the force of universal law, they typically (and this one especially) contain an excellent analysis and resolution of the issue, giving us a unique look at the practice of the Roman Curia. In other words, this private reply is persuasive not by reason of authority but by the authority of right reason, to which every well-intentioned Catholic should submit. Here are their five observations:

Blessing given at end of Mass

[1] The Congregation for Divine Worship points out in their first observation that the liturgical blessing of the Mass is given to everyone gathered in the church just a few moments after the distribution of Holy Communion. This occurs when the priest, making the sign of the cross, says, “May Almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

In other words, there is no need to bless only some members of the congregation (e.g. children and non-Catholics) during communion, when the entire congregation is blessed by the priest just moments later.

Laity unable to bless at Mass

[2] In the second observation, we are reminded that within the context of Mass, blessings are the competency of the priest, not lay persons. Article 18 of the Book of Blessings [ugh] notes that even though lay persons may give some blessings, “whenever a priest or deacon is present, the office of presiding [over a blessing] should be left to him.” [And at Mass there is always a sacerdos present.]

A 1997 instruction, Ecclesia de Mysterio, on the collaboration of the lay faithful further indicates that the laity should never say prayers or perform actions during the Mass which are proper to the priest, as this may lead to a confusion of roles. Since the blessing of the congregation during Mass is reserved to the priest, lay persons must avoid doing so.

Laying on of hands discouraged

[3] The third observation addresses the practice in some places where the EMHC lays hands on a member of the congregation as a sign of blessing. The private reply states that this practice “is to be explicitly discouraged” because the laying on of hands has its own “sacramental significance” which is inappropriate here. The Catechism notes that since this specific sign commonly accompanies the administration of sacraments (e.g. Confirmation) and the succession of the apostles, the laying on of hands must not be used here.

Some prohibited from receiving blessings

[4] Finally, in the fourth and fifth observations, the private reply notes there are some who should neither approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those mentioned in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, such as those under the penalty of excommunication and those persisting in manifest grave sin. [!] Giving a blessing to these persons might give the impression that they are in full communion with the Church or have returned to good standing. In order to avoid the possibility of scandal, EMHCs should not give blessings.

Additions to the rite prohibited

[5] Finally, even though the private reply does not specifically mention this, we ought to recall that “no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in [liturgical] books” as canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law clearly states. Nowhere in the Roman Missal or the GIRM are the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion instructed to bless those unable to receive communion; therefore, this practice of blessing is one of these additions to the rite which is strictly prohibited.

Making use of the sacramentals

Sometimes we may be tempted to think that since something is not part of the Mass it has no spiritual importance. But this would be to neglect the power of the sacramentals, such as blessings, which are liturgical actions signifying spiritual effects obtained through the intercession of the Church. Done properly and in the right context, these blessings better dispose us to receive grace and sanctify various occasions in life.

[NB] One such sacramental that lay persons may administer is the blessing of sons/daughters, which can be as simple as praying over your children: “May the Lord keep you and make you grow in his love, so that you may live worthy of the calling he has given you, now and for ever. Amen.”

Therefore, even if EMHCs are not permitted to give blessings during Mass, the desire to bless is good nonetheless and can become a fruitful aspect of our faith when done in accordance with the Church’s rites. As a parent, I have always enjoyed the practice of blessing my young children before bed and teaching them to reverence the Eucharist with a simple bow of the head as they walk past the minister of Holy Communion at Mass.

Paul Matenaer holds a M.T.S. from Ave Maria University, teaches for the Seat of Wisdom Diocesan Institute in the Diocese of Madison, and is currently studying canon law at St. Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario, where he lives with his wife and three children.

We have seen Mr. Matenaer’s excellent work before on the posture and manner of receiving Communion.

This is a good and comprehensive explanation.

A Taste Of Heaven

A Taste Of Heaven

When I enter my parish church and prepare myself for Mass, I don't want the world to follow me in. I want to leave all my cares of the world "out there" and rest my soul in His presence. I want my senses flooded with what is good and holy. I want my ears to hear the Word, my eyes to see His body on the cross: the flicker of votive candles. I want my fingers to feel the missal I hold. I want to smell the incense last burned a few days ago and I want my lips to sing along with angelic choirs while my soul is lifted and is given a taste of heaven, but what I see and hear instead, is the world that has followed me inside the sanctuary.

I see people wearing their everyday clothes, whispering to each other, with a muffled laugh here and a chuckle there...and I hear guitars tuning up. I can close my eyes and not see the clothes and I know when Mass starts the voices will hush, but the guitars...I have a big problem with that, along with the songs that will be sung.

I am a guitar player and have played for decades. Playing guitar is a love of mine and I have had my own blues bands off and on over the years. So what's the problem you ask? It is this: when I hear a guitar in church, the first thing I think of however briefly, is entertainment. I have always thought of a guitar as the instrument of choice when it comes to being entertained, and so it is this feeling of being entertained that comes to me when I hear it in Mass.


Over the years I've been asked to join in the parish folk group and I have always refused except for one time over 25 years ago. I played at an outdoor Mass and from the get go, I was back on a 'stage' again, entertaining, and it was then and there that I decided never again. Along with the guitar is the modern liturgical music that is played in Mass. I want my soul and spirit to soar in worship to God when I sing and hear beautiful religious hymns and chants, but the modern liturgical music I hear grounds my soul to the world.

To be sure, the music now played at Mass has come a long way from the Peter, Paul and Mary wannabe that was presented to us in the early sixties as sacred music, but it still leaves much to be desired. I don't want to sing to the mountains...or to the sea. I want my soul to sing to God. I want to sing to His Holy Face and I want the words I sing to reflect this. I don't want to try to find the rhythm and cadence that is lost when one singer in the folk group unexpectedly decides to ad lib in his or her exuberance, leaving me without a melodic rudder.

Instead, I want to join my voice to the many, in unison, in rhythm and with order in praising God, so that one does not have to think about what is sung next, leaving our hearts and minds to pray: much like praying the prayers of the rosary while meditating on the mysteries. I want to be connected to the ancient Church by the hymns and chants we sing, along with the celebration of the Eucharist.

Yes, I've heard some beautiful songs in the last few years, but I don't think they should be intended for Mass. Though beautiful, they do not reflect the sacredness of the Mass or the mystery that is before us on the alter. I would prefer to hear these songs in gatherings, prayer groups and such, rather than at Mass. We have two thousand years of liturgical music to choose from so we are not wanting for something to sing. We need to reopen this treasure chest of sacred music that has been thrust aside since Vatican II and reintroduce this treasure to a whole generation that has only heard chant in movies, usually as a backdrop in a darkened scene when the evil bishop is conspiring to overtake the Vatican. The hymns and chants long lost truly praise, edify and place our focus on God in our worship of Him, and the world should not be intruding.

There is very little silence in our world today, especially when it comes to music in our everyday lives. Hardly a minute passes when we do not hear a radio or TV playing a song. Much of what passes as liturgical music today reflects the rhythms and beats present in secular music that we hear every single day, instead of immersing us in the sacredness and reverence of the Mass. Maybe the lyrics have been changed, but the overall flavor of pop music remains.

Mass is not about us or the world outside the church doors. It is about God and the worship of God. Mass should reflect heaven and not the world we have lived in for the six days prior to Sunday Mass. Mass is public worship and we all need to be on the same page, where there are no distractions so the focus remains on God in the Eucharist. Everything in Mass should remind us that while we may be in the world, we are not of this world, yet that is very difficult to do when the world invades the sanctuary.


I realize many people like the music which was introduced forty years ago, but liturgical songwriter Micheal Talbot is not Palestrina, nor is Palestrina, Michael Talbot. Each has his own place and purpose and they both serve that purpose very well indeed. I may walk around during the week humming a Michael Talbot melody, but let me hear chants and Palestrina in Mass while I lose myself in our Lord in the Eucharist...without worldly distractions.

http://petersbarque.blogspot.com/2011/07/taste-of-heaven.html

 

A Modest Proposal

Sep 26, 2011

Leroy Huizenga

 

A major reason I became Catholic concerned the Church’s profound theology of the Eucharist, which I (as a New Testament scholar) found squared well with the biblical witness, once certain modern lenses fell like scales from my eyes. Paul speaks of our real participation in the body and blood of Christ as that which unites the Church (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) and soon thereafter remarks that some of the Corinthians have fallen infirm and dropped over dead because of their eating and drinking unworthily (11:27-32). One doesn’t die from mishandling symbols; one dies from mishandling that in which God is found, as readers familiar with Uzzah’s demise in 2 Samuel 6 and viewers of Raiders of the Lost Ark know.

In Luke 24:30-31 the risen Jesus vanishes from the two disciples’ sight precisely after Jesus “took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them” to signal that Christ is to be found thereafter in the Eucharist. John 6 presents a view of the Eucharist as high as any, bringing to mind the famous description of St. John’s disciple, St. Ignatius, of the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality.” Having done the exegetical work, I must confess with true charity I don’t understand how some can strain out the gnat of transubstantiation in John 6 (or some other high view, such as the Lutheran) having swallowed the camel of the Incarnation just a few chapters prior. Indeed, we Catholics believe so strongly in both the Incarnation and transubstantiation that we engage in the real “Worship of the Eucharist” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1378) as if it’s God, because we believe it is.

Or at least we’re supposed to. As a new Catholic, I’m beginning to wonder if the way we receive the Eucharist at Mass has served to undercut our particularly Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Lex orandi lex credendi, after all. Liturgy teaches. A Pew survey of religious knowledge taken last year discovered that 45 percent of Catholics “do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ.” (Of course, regular mass-goers seem better informed.) And of course the liturgy does more than just teach, as if religion were merely a matter of propositional doctrine; liturgy ought also inspire deep reverence for the Eucharist, because, again, we believe it’s God.

Now, in most Novus Ordo masses I’ve attended the congregation is dismissed pew-by-pew to approach the ministers of communion in a relatively fast-moving line. Some, like Archbishop Conti of Glasgow, think that this procession “beautifully expresses the way in which we are a people journeying towards the Lord.” Others, speaking sotto voce, mention they sense the semiotics of a drive-thru. My experience is that the process can feel rushed and perfunctory, even with a large team of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion on hand. I find I time my act of devotion (a quick genuflection or nod of the head, for instance, depending on how fast the line moves) with the prior communicant’s reception. Then I step forward to receive. Having received, I’m all too aware of the queue behind me and feel pressured to make way for others, and so I depart quickly, striding briskly back to my pew—while chewing Almighty God. I find the mechanics do not encourage reverence in me, at least.

How can I rightly savor the awesome moment of communion when I’m concentrating on making my way back to my seat? And so the past couple Sundays I’ve simply received the host, stepped a bit to the side of the priest while facing the altar and crucifix, and consumed it slowly and reverently. It’s a simple solution for me, and no one seems to mind; the front of the nave is so busy anyway it’s hard to be in anyone’s way, or to notice if someone was.

The few Tridentine masses I attended back in Chicagoland were different, of course. Communicants kneel at the rail while waiting for the priest to make his way to them, giving them time to prepare mentally and spiritually for what should be, theologically, the most profound moment they will experience until their death. Having received, time remains for them to consume the host slowly and reverently, and then depart for their pew at a reasonable pace.

Now many have neither ready access to nor desire for a Tridentine mass, and none of us should hold our breath waiting for altar rails and kneeling to return to celebrations of the Novus Ordo, Benedict’s desires for reverent liturgy notwithstanding. But drawing on (of all things) my experiences as a Lutheran preacher and liturgist serving a small German service in Naperville, Illinois, I would suggest a simple solution. When we celebrated Holy Communion, the congregants would come up in groups of about 15-20 and stand in the front of our small sanctuary. I as Pfarrer would shuffle from communicant to communicant and distribute the elements: Christi Leib, für dich gegeben / Christi Blut, für dich vergossen. Each communicant having received, they would commune together, and having communed, I would dismiss them: Gehet hin in Frieden. Then the next group would approach.

Something similar could easily be done in Catholic churches. People could line up across the front of the nave in front of the sanctuary, standing, if they wish, kneeling, if they choose, as is permitted. Then the priest—with a server holding a paten, perhaps—could shuffle from communicant to communicant and distribute the host. The Precious Blood could be brought as well by a second priest or some authorized minister of Holy Communion. Communicants would have time to prepare, receive and commune, no architectural renovations would be necessary, and fewer Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion would be involved. (As the 1997 document Ecclesia de mysterio points out in Article 8, such Ministers are supposed to be truly Extraordinary, not routine, lest confusion regarding the nature of the priesthood and the sacrament result.)

Of course, even the slightest changes in How Things Are Done can arouse fear and loathing in the faithful, and thus any changes would need to be implemented slowly with due explanation and preparation; that said, perhaps the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal this fall provides a ready window.

Given what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, reverence matters, for God’s sake and our own. In any event the Catechism makes clear that the liturgy is “the privileged place for catechizing the People of God” (1074). Indeed, Pope Benedict emphasized in Sacramentum Caritatis 64 that “the best catechesis on the Eucharist is the Eucharist itself, celebrated well.” It’s God, after all.

Leroy Huizenga is Director of the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota. His most recent article in First Things is “The Collins Bank Bible.”

The priest who chronicled the North

Joe O'Connor Sep 24, 2011 – 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 23, 2011 8:05 PM ET

Image by Father Mary-Rousseliere

Eulalie Angugasak with Bernard in her amauti Repulse Bay September 1953

Strangers who met him, for the first time, often described Father Guy Mary-Rousseliere as being aloof, detached and a little bit lost in his own inner-self.
A gangly limbed Roman Catholic priest, with a lean and upright bearing, Father Mary’s quiet reserve, like the priest’s collar he wore, was partly a disguise. The outer costume of a devoutly religious, yet also profoundly progressive man, who was living elbow to elbow with an Inuit culture dynamically different from the Western one in which the good Father, from Le Mans, France, was raised.

Archives

Father Mary fishing at the stone weir Repulse Bay August 1951

Father Mary lived and worked in Pond Inlet, and parts thereabout in the Central and Eastern Canadian Arctic, from the 1940s until his death, at age 81, in 1994.

During that time he was an artist, an anthropologist, an archeologist, plus a preacher and a missionary. He was a complicated man and, above all, a witness — with a camera, tape recorder, sketchpad and a pen.

Largely unknown outside of his beloved North and beyond the office walls of the odd academic, Father Mary’s body of work — writings, recordings, drawings and the photographs seen here — are poignant snapshots depicting the Inuit people at a moment of transition.

“In his drawings and photographs you can see the proximity he had with the Inuit, the scenes he depicts, perhaps inside an igloo — these are quiet moments and they show how intimate he was with them and he was appreciated by them because of the man he was,” says Frederic Laugrand, an anthropologist at Laval University.

“But also what he showed in his work was a time period where Inuit were starting to live in settlements, and starting a new life. And he showed the tension between this life and the more traditional camp life that was away from the settlements. His work is extremely important.”

Father Mary’s photos, for example, of an Inuit family sitting on a bed in a shack with newspaper wallpaper, convey a story. There are tin cups on the table beside the bed. But the family members wear handmade sealskin boots on their feet.

Image by Father Mary-Rousseliere

Alain Maktar with his family (Leo, wife Therese, Rene and Joanie) in a qarmaq shelter

Here then was a culture with a foot in the past and a foot on the treadmill of what we, and what many of Father Mary’s contemporaries, called progress.

Father Mary understood exactly what was taking place, and while he spoke from the pulpit, and sought converts, he also spoke to the Inuit in their own language. Far from a colonizing priest, he went North in the 1940s and spent the next 50 years listening.

“I don’t see any contradiction between the study of God, in theology, and the study of man, created by God,” the priest said in 1952.

“Moreover, I think that anything that helps me to better understand the culture of the people among whom I live is justified.”

Father Mary’s photographs and sketches, or “cartoons” as he deprecatingly described them, are currently being showcased in the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in an exhibition marking the 100th anniversary (in 2012) of the Catholic presence in the central and eastern Canadian Arctic.

Impressive as the photos are, of even greater importance were the voices that he documented. Father Mary would sit with Inuit elders for hours, traveling to their homes, their hunting camps, to listen to their stories. Oral tales, passed down from generation to generation, about the initiation rituals of a young shaman (think: no water for five days, no food for 10).

Or the origins of “white people,” a race, according to Inuit legend, that were cast out to sea by the Sea Woman in the soft sole of a mukluk with the simplest instructions: “Fend for yourselves without getting wet.”

Father Mary wrote everything down. Without him, many of these stories would have been lost. And he took his photographs, some of which appeared in long ago issues of National Geographic.

“Father Mary really took the Inuit culture seriously. He respected them, and in his day, that was not something that was easy to do,” prof. Laugrand says.

In the 1970s, he locked collars with Brigitte Bardot, the French movie siren who was campaigning against the seal hunt. The priest argued that hunting was integral to Inuit life, as was the Inuktitut language, an idiom that was under duress from government administrators during the 1950s and 1960s who believed the Inuit people would ultimately be assimilated into Western culture.

“In his own way, Father Mary was very conservative,” says prof. Laugrand. “For instance, he enjoyed doing the Mass in Latin and not adopting the [modernizing] ways of the Vatican II council.

“So there is a tension within the man. On the Inuit side he went very far, but on the other side he was very attached to traditional values. And I guess he applied those values to himself — but also to preserving Inuit traditional values.

“In many respects, he was a man ahead of his time.”

Father Mary died in a fire at the Catholic mission in Pond Inlet on April 23, 1994. He was an old man by then, a wise and somewhat eccentric elder of the church.

The deadly fire consumed countless artifacts, words and photographs of a complicated man with a sharp eye, a keen ear — and a largely forgotten legacy.

National Post
• Email: joconnor@nationalpost.com | Twitter: oconnorwrites

Archives

Father Mary with the Dene people at Caribou Lake, MB 1940

Posted in: Canada, News Tags: Father Guy, Inuit

US Catholic gets nutty about Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix and Communion under both kinds

by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

US Catholic ‘s Bryan Cones became a little hysterical about Bp. Olmsted’s decision to apply the Church’s laws concerning Communion under both kinds in the Diocese of Phoenix.

As I understand it, the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum gave 14 instances when Communion could be distributed under both kinds. Since 1975 in some regions – including the USA – experimental privileges, not rights, were granted for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges, not rights, expired in 2005. These privileges, not rights, were not renewed by the Holy See. Therefore the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) for the 3rd edition of the Missale Roman and the 2011 Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America are now to be applied. However, diocesan bishops can to a certain extent lawfully establish other instances, such as important local feasts, etc., for Communion under both kinds. This is what Bp. Olmsted intends to do. He will implement the Church’s law.

This is how Mr. Cones reacted. First, the title of his piece.

Truthiness in Phoenix about communion from the cup
Thursday, September 22, 2011
By Bryan Cones

“Truthiness” (I had to look it up) suggests Mr. Cones is writing for aficionados of Comedy Central. Indeed, his schtick does produce some chuckles.

This next bit, however, is not funny.

(Note that Cones writes in absolutes: “deeply … incredibly… narrow…. utterly… universal…. entire… every.” Tiring.

The deeply dishonest q&a provided by the diocese–basically a collection of half-truths–provides an incredibly narrow reading of church law on this matter, utterly disregarding the universal practice of the ancient church [Noooo.] (still the practice of the Eastern Catholic churches), which was that the entire assembly received the eucharist under both kinds at every celebration of the eucharist.

Cones says that Bp. Olmsted and his staff in Phoenix are liars (“dishonest… half-truths”).

Furthermore, and let the comedy begin, Cones thinks Latins ought to be more like Eastern Catholics.
I love it when Latin liberals cite Eastern Catholic practices!

My understanding is that Eastern Catholics do not receive the Eucharist every time they attend the Divine Liturgy. Am I wrong?

Eastern Catholics don’t admit women to read at Divine Liturgy. They still have the subdiaconate. The congregation can’t see what is going on because clergy shut the doors on them. They have unaccompanied chant without guitars. There is no Communion in the hand… ehvurrrr.

Yah! Bring it on! Let’s be like our Eastern brothers! Oh yes, and sisters… because women play a huge role in the governance of Eastern Churches.

The East! That’s the ticket! Maybe they don’t have guitars and saxophones – as in the Papal Mass in Berlin – but the priests do have spiffy hats! Eastern bishops wear crowns! Ad Orientem!
But I digress. Let’s skip down to another bit in Mr. Cone’s piece.

This decision is no less than an abuse of power by the bishop, a withdrawal from the faithful what they have a right to by their baptism. (Yes, baptized people have a right, in canon law, to the eucharist in its fullest form.) It may be that reception of the bread alone is “sufficient,” [I should think it is more than "sufficient" considering that the Host alone is the Body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ, whole and entire.] but I haven’t the foggiest idea why we should settle for “sufficient” when we can have the fullness of the eucharistic symbol.

Perhaps Mr. Cones is under the impression that he receives “more Eucharist” by receiving under both kinds. Dunno. In any event, Cones should be getting worked up over what the Holy See and all the bishops of the USCCB have issued, not over what Bp. Olmsted is doing.

No. Bp. Olmsted is not a bully and people don’t have a right to Communion under both kinds all the time. Which canon in the 1983 Code gives people the right to Holy Communion under both kinds?

Holy Church determines how the sacraments are received, not individuals. The Church has determined that there are some occasions when it can be done, others when it cannot.

Another point.

Isn’t it interesting how an experiment in a trial period becomes the norm? How a temporary option becomes the iron-bound obligation of the ages?

The conditions for Communion under both kinds were matters for a test period. Communion under both kinds is now assumed, by some, to be an absolute right all of the time. On the other hand, conditions for the use of the Extraordinary Form are not matters of experimentation or a test period. The provisions of Summorum Pontificum, clarified in Universae Ecclesiae, are not temporary trial runs. They are actual laws for the whole Latin Church. Stable groups have the right to make a request and pastors have an obligation personally to respond positively or to find another way to see to their needs.
If Cones and US Catholic are so concerned about rights and celebration of the Eucharist in ways that are centuries old, when they show the same high dudgeon when stable groups of the faithful are denied the Extraordinary form by their pastors?

When stable groups are straight-armed by their priests and bishops, will US Catholic and Mr. Cones write pieces saying that the excuses for not celebrating the Extraordinary Form are – just how did Cones put it again? – a “collection of half-truths” providing “an incredibly narrow reading of church law on this matter, utterly disregarding the universal practice of the ancient church”?

When Catholics are forced to the back of the bus because of their desire for the Extraordinary Form, or for the Ordinary Form in Latin and with Gregorian chant as Sacrasanctum Concilium mandated, will Mr. Cones come to their aid? When a bishop denies Catholics their legitimate aspirations for traditional, abuse-free liturgical worship in either Form will Mr. Cones write in US Catholic that it’s – just how did he put it again? – “an abuse of power by the bishop”?
But let’s move on.

Let’s consider for a moment basic conditions for Communion under both kinds, even during the period since 1975. The foundational conditions, before any others are considered, require that:

• The faithful have been well instructed (especially on the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist), and
• There is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants, or for some other reason.

Don’t those conditions apply to any manner of reception of Communion, under both kinds or just one?

I wonder what might result from a brief quiz of the congregants participating at Masses where Communion under both kinds has been the practice for a while. After all, isn’t the “fullness” supposed to be… what… edifying? Instructive? Shouldn’t we be able to argue that a long experience of Communion under both kinds has made congregations more devout? Better Catholic Christians? More eager to receive in a worthy manner and to give witness to their Faith in their lives?

It would be interesting to hear these congregants explain their understanding of the Church’s teachings about the Eucharist, or about what Mass is. It would be interesting to know if they have been to confession lately. It would be interesting to know if married couples receiving under both kinds are also using contraception. I would be fascinating to learn if anyone receiving under both kinds for a long time now dissents from any defined teachings, or can even explain what a “sacrament” is.

Perhaps we should promote worthy reception of the Eucharist rather than froth about reception under both kinds.

Given what Bp. Olmsted has been doing, I’ll wager that Phoenixians are coming to a clearer, not fuzzier, understanding of the Church’s teachings and practices about a wide range of matters important to our Catholic identity in an ever more secular society. You have to know your Faith and practices before you can live and observe them.

Long-time lax catholics may not enjoy the resection and sutures Doctor Olmsted is applying, but, as St. Augustine once preached, a doctor doesn’t stop cutting just because the patient screams for him to stop (cf. s. 80, 3).

In any event, I’ll bet Bp. Olmsted is losing sleep because Mr. Cones and US Catholic think he is a dishonest abuser of power. I have just sent His Excellency a “Say The Black – Do The Red” coffee mug as a consolation.

12 Hard-Hitting Facts about Socialist Ideology

By Gustavo Solimeo

April 08, 2010

The socialist ideology can be summarized in twelve main points:

1. Metaphysical Egalitarianism

The foundation of the socialist ideology is metaphysical egalitarianism. This means that the idea of absolute equality is the fundamental assumption of the socialist view of man, society and the universe. All other principles of socialist ideology stem in one way or another from this fundamental principle.

2. Atheism

The assertion of an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient God clashes head-on with the principle of absolute equality. It must therefore be rejected. Indeed, what greater inequality is there than that between the Creator and simple creatures?

3. Materialistic Evolutionism

Socialism holds that there is an obscure force from which we cannot escape that leads humanity step by step to higher planes of social and moral being. History is a progressive process of purification. Socialism - in its full-fledged expression of communism - is the end of this process. Although socialism is the inevitable outcome of the forces underlying social, political, cultural and economic life, we can accelerate progress and evolution through class struggle, cultural warfare, or legislation. In fact, every new fashion, school curriculum, artistic style, law, and the like takes us closer to the socialist worldview. Every effort in this regard is progress; every contrary measure is a setback.¹

4. Secularist and Materialistic Worldview

In the universe, there is nothing but matter. God, the soul, and the next life are only chimeras. Thus, what matters is to seek complete happiness in this life. With the help of science, socialists hold that all must strive toward the largest possible amount of pleasure, and avoid any effort or suffering. As a result, all obstacles to happiness must be removed, be they religious, moral, cultural, or any other.²

5. Contempt for Religion: "The Opium of the People"

Karl Marx explained his contempt for religion in his famous expression that religion is "the opium of the people."³ His staunch devotee Lenin developed this idea. He said: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze [or hard liquor], in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."⁴

In his view, religion leads men astray from the present struggle because it promises them the prospect of a future life. By preaching restrictive moral standards, religion hampers absolute freedom. Above and beyond this, religion has a transcendental character which is totally incompatible with science, progress and the material world.

6. Secular Messianism

Socialism is much more than an ideology. It has a messianic character, i.e. it offers a message of "salvation;" not eternal salvation, but merely temporal "salvation," a "salvation" on this earth, achieved not by supernatural but human means.⁵

7. From Idolatry of the State to Anarchy

Socialists teach that, at the present stage of human evolution, it is already possible to abolish private property, social hierarchy and the family. They seek to make the State the sole proprietor of all rights. This State, led by workers and peasants, will maintain complete equality among men. In the future, the universe and man will evolve in such a way that even the State will wither away.⁶

8. Ethical and Cultural Relativism

There are no absolute truths or revealed morals that establish immutable standards of conduct that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Everything evolves, thus right and wrong, good and evil depend on the socio-economic development of mankind.

9. Social, Political and Economic Egalitarianism

All inequalities of wealth, prestige, or culture are unjust in themselves. Socialists especially attack the system of wage earning in which an employer, based on the right of private property, "exploits" workers, demanding part of the product of their work as his profit when it should be entirely theirs.

10. Abolition of Private Property and Class Struggle

The Communist Manifesto defines communism as the abolition of private property: "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." The Manifesto calls for the violent overthrow of all existing social institutions: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

11. Hostility to Marriage and the Traditional Family - Free Love

Sexual intercourse is simply a physiological function, like any other.⁷ Consequently there is no reason for restricting it to marriage.⁸ This applies even less to the "present form of marriage" between one man and one woman which is monogamous and indissoluble.⁹

12. Education

Two questions and answers from Engels' Communist Catechism illustrate well the socialist view of education.

"18. What will be the course of this [communist] revolution?

"(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother's care, in national establishments at national cost. Education and production together."¹⁰

"21. What will be the influence of communist [socialist] society on the family?

"It [communism/socialism] will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents."¹¹

How Catholicism and Socialism Are Incompatible

The final conclusion could not be clearer: socialism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine, both because of its conception of the universe and man, and because it attacks two institutions which are pillars of Christian civilization: private property and the family.

This finding is timely and significant because some socialist proposals may seem to be "moderate" and therefore less alarming. However, by understanding the final goals of socialism, we see how it harms the family, private property rights, free initiative, legitimate interests, in a word, the true freedom of God's children.

If Catholics do not have a clear notion of the socialist ideology in all of its applications, they might feel tempted to compromise with some socialist initiatives that seem harmless at first glance. However, even the so-called moderate socialism is incompatible with Catholic doctrine and natural law.

Related:

• What the Popes Really Say About Socialism
• What is Socialism?
• 7 Shocking Ways Socialism Harms America
• Socialism in Pajamas

Hatred?

Friday, September 23, 2011

Hatred?

Have a look at this post,
and this one
Yesterday I received an email saying:

I need to tell you that your comments have caused widespread offence to members of the Christian Gay Community, and many of the comments made by other members of your blog, allowed publicity by you, are nothing less than inflammatory and inciting of hatred about members of the gay community.

It is an offence in this country to incite hatred against any group of people, and that is exactly what you are doing by allowing and promoting the kind of bigotry you are condoning. The comments are also causing grave offence to Catholics, many of whom I know are appalled by what you and fellow members of your congregation write.

It goes on and finally tells me that letters will be sent my superiors. Another couple of correspondents complained that I hadn't allowed their comments which insulted the Pope and Catholic belief and teaching and finally said they intended to have this blog closed.

It might be that I am extraordinarily naive but apart from one rather silly comment from someone suggesting a coup d'etat, I thought the comments made were reasonably balanced, I even permitted someone to advertise their book called, "The Gay Gospels".

There is something very worrying in our society when a priest cannot express his shock at a local MP saying that those who will not marry same sex couples should not be permitted to marry anyone, or when he says marriage is naturally ordered towards the procreation and education of children should be accused of "inciting hatred".

Priest barred from saying mass

Published Thursday September 22nd, 2011

An elderly priest on the Acadian Peninsula has been barred from performing church services in the Bathurst diocese after he made remarks about homosexuals and women who have had an abortion.

Photo: Réal Fradette/Canadaeast News Service

Donat Gionet

Rev. Donat Gionet, 85, gave the sermon at the Roman Catholic church in Saint-Léolin while replacing the regular parish priest late last month.

He stands by the comments he made in Saint-Léolin, a village of about 730 people located about 50 kilometres east of Bathurst.

Reached in Caraquet on Wednesday, Gionet declined an interview but did provide a written statement.

In a letter written in French that he provided to the Telegraph-Journal, Gionet stated the sermon in question was about the destruction of the Church and the need to seek forgiveness for past sins:

"I said: 'Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.' (That's when I pointed at my chest - through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that's when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: 'We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil' ... What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes."

Bishop Valéry Vienneau has revoked Gionet's rights to serve mass across the Diocese of Bathurst, a decision welcomed by Joseph Lanteigne, the openly gay mayor of Saint-Léolin.

"The action taken by the diocese is good and I know it isn't easy for the diocese."

Since the incident, Gionet has quit his position on the Saint-Léolin parish's pastoral committee.

Rev. Wesley Wade, vicar general of the Diocese of Bathurst, said Gionet's teachings don't meet the diocese's goal of following Christ's example of loving unconditionally.

"We have to respect people on their own journey," Wade said.

"The first message of Christ was to reveal to us a loving father and a merciful father and that we are all called to be his children and that we are all loved unconditionally by Him."

While the Church gets criticized as a judgmental institution, Wade said the reality is "it's full of compassion."

In a letter to parishioners earlier this week, Vienneau said Gionet had been pulled from active ministry.

At a meeting last week, Gionet told Vienneau that he had no plans to change or temper his comments.

Gionet also said, as a priest, he has a duty to encourage those who aren't living their lives according to Catholic teachings to mend their ways.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/actualites/article/1441963

Another priest removed for explaining church teaching on homosexuality, now in Texas

by Christine Dhanagom

EL PASO, September 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Just after news broke that a priest in Canada had been suspended from active ministry for speaking out against abortion and homosexual behavior, news has also broken that a Texas priest who stirred controversy last month by publishing essays that condemned the homosexual lifestyle is being removed from his parish, ABC-7 reports. However, unlike the situation in Canada, where the priest was removed from active ministry altogether, the Texas priest is being transferred to another parish.

Rev. Michael Rodriguez

Rev. Michael Rodriguez published four opinion pieces in the El Paso Times last month explaining the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and exhorting Catholics to oppose efforts to legalize same-sex unions.

The Times has revealed that the essays, which were run as paid advertisements, were funded by a couple from Plano, Texas.

The advertisements were run in the midst of controversy over a local recall petition aimed at removing three El Paso officials for promoting gay rights legislation.

Critics have zeroed in on a few passages in Rodriquez’s essays that refer to the recall effort to claim that the priest was over-stepping the bounds of Church-State separation.

Join a Facebook page to defend marriage here.

After publicly distancing itself from the ads, the diocese is now announcing that Rodriquez is being removed from his current assignment because of them.

Rodriquez had served as administrator of San Juan Bautista Church in El Paso, and will be moved to a new parish in West Texas.

According to ABC-7, El Paso Bishop Armando Ochoa said that Rodriquez was being transferred because his statements “raised serious issues regarding whether his participation could be attributed to the Diocese of El Paso”

“(Father) Rodriguez has recently challenged certain city officials to participate with him in a partisan debate on issues related to an upcoming election,” said Ochoa. “This type of intervention in the political in the political process by religious organizations such as the Diocese of El Paso and San Juan Bautista Church is not permitted under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code.”

The news service also reported that Pastor Tom Brown of Word of Life Church, one of the leaders of the recall effort, had been reported to the IRS. He is being accused by Americans United for Separation of Church and State of using his church to advance a political movement.

In an email statement, Rodriquez wrote that he “was ordained to the Catholic priesthood to offer sacrifice and teach the only truth which brings salvation and happiness.”

“The priesthood is my greatest joy. In the present circumstances, I intend to try even harder to be a good, holy priest. Obedience to my bishop is essential to the priesthood,” he added.

As LifeSiteNews reported this week, the Catholic Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick has removed an elderly priest from active ministry after he caused a storm of controversy by denouncing homosexuality, cohabitation, and abortion in an August homily.

85-year-old Fr. Donat Gionet had retired to his home town of Caraquet in June to serve palliative care patients, and now laments that in his declining years he is being forced to celebrate Mass “in secret.”

Fr. Wesley Wade, the diocese’s vicar general, told Radio-Canada that Fr. Gionet’s comments were consistent with Church teaching, but lacked the proper “pastoral” sensitivity.

“It was mainly the pastoral approach that was lacking,” Fr. Wade said. “A lack of respect, perhaps, for the people identified, for the groups of people as well, which caused a division in the community. It was a difficult decision.”

Elderly Canadian priest suspended for denouncing abortion, homosexual behavior

by Patrick B. Craine

• Thu Sep 22, 2011 09:26 EST
• Comments (14)
• Tags: abortion, catholic, homosexuality

Fr. Donat Gionet, C.J.M.

BATHURST, New Brunswick, September 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Catholic Diocese of Bathurst, New Brunswick has removed an elderly priest from active ministry after he caused a storm of controversy by denouncing homosexuality, cohabitation, and abortion in an August homily.

85-year-old Fr. Donat Gionet had retired to his home town of Caraquet in June to serve palliative care patients, and now laments that in his declining years he is being forced to celebrate Mass “in secret.”

Fr. Wesley Wade, the diocese’s vicar general, told Radio-Canada that Fr. Gionet’s comments were consistent with Church teaching, but lacked the proper “pastoral” sensitivity.

“It was mainly the pastoral approach that was lacking,” Fr. Wade said. “A lack of respect, perhaps, for the people identified, for the groups of people as well, which caused a division in the community. It was a difficult decision.”

Fr. Wade did not return numerous calls from LifeSiteNews over two days.

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here.

A member of the Eudist Fathers, Fr. Gionet had been accused by parishioners of “homophobia” in media reports last week after he criticized a homosexual parade in Moncton in an August 20-21 homily. His loudest critic was the mayor of Saint-Leolin, Joseph Lanteigne, an open homosexual and member of the parish council, who demanded the priest’s suspension.

In an open letter Thursday, Fr. Gionet laments that the diocese did not give him an opportunity to explain himself before suspending him.

“To you, the diocesan authorities: did you ask me what I said exactly during the homily in question?” the priest asks. “They did not, but only listened to people who are frustrated.”

When asked if he would continue making similar comments, he says he can only respond “yes.” “And if they asked me about the homily, in its entirety, I could not say ‘no’ because for me it is important to speak the truth,” he insists.

He explained that in the August homily he noted that while “the gates of hell” seek to destroy the Church, it is, in fact, Catholics who “destroy our Church” today. He pointed to the high number of abortions among Catholics and the presence of homosexuality in the Church. He emphasized that cohabitating couples and homosexuals ought not to receive the Eucharist, but are still welcome to join the Church at Mass.

“After these reflections, there were no other allusions whatsoever,” he says, adding that in the homily he went on to speak of the power of forgiveness offered through the Church.

The priest said that he is now living “like the first Christians did at the beginning of the Church: they had to hide in the catacombs to pray or celebrate the Eucharist.”

The Diocese has released a letter to the faithful explaining the suspension, according to French-language media reports. Bishop Valery Vienneau explains that the priest had refused to alter his statements, and the bishop expressed regret that the comments had upset the faithful.

Contact Information:
Most Rev. Valéry Vienneau, Bishop of Bathurst
645, avenue Murray
C.P. 460
Bathurst, NB E2A 3Z4
Tel: (506) 546-1420
Fax: (506) 548-5565
E-mail: valeryv@nb.aibn.com

Diocese limits Communion under both kinds, laments excessive extraordinary ministers

September 22, 2011

The Diocese of Phoenix has announced that it will issue norms specifying the conditions under which Holy Communion may be distributed under both species.
“The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world, and come from the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, together with the final edition of The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America,” the diocese stated in a press release.

“In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the laity,” the diocese noted. “From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.”
   
“These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the Catholic world (since in most countries their practice was virtually non-existent),” the diocesan statement continued. “In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.”

The ritual books state that Holy Communion may be offered at the Chrism Mass and feast of Corpus Christi. Additionally, it may be offered to a Catholic couple at their wedding Mass, to first communicants and their family members, confirmation candidates and their sponsors, as well as deacons, non-concelebrating priests, servers and seminarians at any Mass, as well as community members at a conventual Mass or those on a retreat or at a spiritual gathering. In addition, a priest may select other important solemnities in which it may be offered, e.g., parish patronal feast days or the celebration of the dedication of the church building, provided the conditions are met.

“In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion,” the diocese added; “when both forms of Communion are used frequently, ‘extraordinary’ ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds (Diocese of Phoenix)
• Questions and Answers: Norms for Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Forms (Diocese of Phoenix)
• General Instruction of the Roman Missal (USCCB)

The Appalling Logic of Legalized Infanticide

The Appalling Logic of Legalized Infanticide

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court infamously decriminalized every state law banning the horrid practice of butchering babies in utero in the case of Roe v. Wade. What has followed in its wake may be described as a virtual war in the womb of the American woman: more than 53,000,000 babies have been exterminated by their mothers since the so-called legalization of abortion in 1973. (http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_views/Jan2011/nv012711.html). In what amounts to a single generation, fully one-sixth of the American population has been wiped out.

The cult of modernism, which provided the so-called moral basis for abortion, is in many ways the inversion of the moral reality: the identification of good as evil and evil as good. We now live in a uniquely debauched age of history: actions that have been long accepted as sin -- indeed nature itself testifies as much -- are trumpeted as social goods; and actions that have long been identified as virtuous are now condemned and punished as anti-social. From so-called same-sex “marriage” to the availability to the most vile and obscene pornography in virtually any hotel, what was once viewed as evil or unnatural is now liberating or open-minded. Above all others, abortion is the capital sacrament of the modern leftist: the one “right” that must be protected at all costs. One only has to remember that President Obama showed a great deal of flexibility in discussing cuts to various budgetary sacred cows of the Democratic Party in the recent congressional showdowns over the federal spend; but there was only one agenda item for which he was willing to shut the entire United States government down: funding for Planned Parenthood, our national abortuary. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264279/abortion-rights-activists-are-poised-shut-down-government-kathryn-jean-lopez)

Why abortion is the paramount “right” to left wing atheists should be no surprise: the traditional family and children are the cornerstone of any well ordered society. That they attack marriage through divorce, obscenity, homosexuality, and feminism is all part of a well coordinated strategy to destroy the divine order in a fit of spite. Children are the fruit of traditional marriage -- the very future of mankind. Scratch a leftist ideologue only a little and what you will find very close to the surface is a first rate misanthrope. It is no wonder that eliminating children is a prime goal of modernist thought: initially, by scaring us to not have children us with tales of the Malthusian population bomb; to then wooing us with the promise of unburdened sex with the aid of artificial contraception; and, finally, to convincing us -- against our very natures -- that destroying a child in utero is a blameless act of convenience that does not differ all that much from the extraction of a wisdom tooth.

While abortion advocates, at least in the United States, have maintained permissive abortion laws through resort to court opinions, as opposed to popular opinion, they have nonetheless been able to convince a significant minority of people that this objective evil is, at the very least, a necessary one. Their focus has been relentlessly dishonest -- both about what actually happens during an abortion and the reality of exactly who a fetus is (i.e., a baby not yet born). They have also appealed to the idea that a woman has a “right” to destroy the baby if that woman no longer chooses to have the burden of pregnancy; that being a mother is in and of itself a burden that one should be able to opt out of any time (just as one ought to be able to opt out of a marriage at any time). Former President Bill Clinton, a consummate politician, put his triangulated finger on the pulse of the generalized support and unease for abortion by declaring a national abortion policy of “safe, legal and rare.” “Safe” and “legal” stressed the “necessary” part of the equation while “rare” reflected the “evil” part. In the real world, however, abortionists advocates could care less about rarity: indeed, diabolic institutions like Planned Parenthood and other abortionist outfits earn blood money by killing babies -- they certainly do not want it “rare” by any measure.

The reality is that legalized abortion is a destructive lie. It is also a policy that is an intellectual morass in desperate need of a logic. The pro-life community quite sanely points out year-after-year that science and morality converge on the point that if “life” is to be protected, “life” is created at the moment of conception. It is an utterly well-ordered statement of both natural and divine law. For the abortion advocate, “life” is a slippery concept and it is a conversation that they urgently try to avoid. Is it when the baby’s heart begins to beat? (No, that fourth week milestone is far to early for abortion-on-demand). No, in fact, they do not want to discuss any aspect of fetal development as it relates to defining “life;” if forced, they will typically define it in relation to the mother -- of when the fetus no longer requires the mother in order to live (i.e., post-viability). But make no mistake, the post-viability concept is an abortion advocate’s cover story -- it is offered defensively to prevent their callousness from being on full display. Instead, to know one of these people is to know that they really believe a woman should be able to “terminate” a pregnancy until moments before -- or even after -- birth.

The slippery slope in any permissive abortion regime is, of course, that there is no principled line dividing “life” and “non-life” apart from conception. As such, the abortion debate, at least for the abortionist, has nothing philosophically to do with “life” as such. Beyond a fundamental misanthropy that has no mercy or regard for human babies, the abortion advocate’s position has everything to do with power and a radical individualism that posits forcefully that nothing may impose on “me” -- nothing.

So while there is predictable hand-wringing among otherwise pro-abortion advocates when an abortion doctor like Philadelphia’s Kermit Gosnell is exposed for killing not only post-viable babies -- but killing babies actually delivered with scissors (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/philadelphia-abortion-doctor-accused-killing-babies-scissors-charged/story?id=12649868), the fact is that what Dr. Gosnell did to warrant murder charges by infanticide immediately following a botched abortion is the same as the butchery that abortionists contend is a sacred “constitutional right.” The truth is that they condemn a Dr. Gosnell because they have to -- not because they genuinely see a distinction between abortion and infanticide. Indeed, the only difference between the two is the location of the killing: one being outside of the womb and other being inside. To be even more blunt, abortion is infanticide.

We are fast reaching the point that our collective consciences have become so seared by living in nations that permit this wholesale slaughter of innocents that the intelligentsia often loses sight of the charade that abortion and infanticide are not one in the same. Indeed, every now and then, an abortion advocate -- usually on one of the endless talking heads political programs -- will slip up and jeopardize the whole facade by impatiently insisting that a woman’s right to choose death for her child ought to extend for the entire pregnancy -- regardless of viability. More recently, this slip up occurred by a Canadian judge who honestly could not differentiate the rationale between post-birth infanticide and pre-birth abortion.

All such circumstances that lead to court cases of this kind are, in and of themselves, shocking and repugnant: this one is no different. On April 13, 2005, Katrina Effert, a Canadian nineteen year woman, gave birth to a newborn son. Instead of greeting this child as the gift from God that he was, this young woman instead strangled her defenseless newborn son with her thong panties during his first few hours of life in order to conceal his existence (as she had concealed her pregnancy from her parents during its duration). She tossed her newborn son’s lifeless body over her parent’s fence and sought to go on with her life. After her neighbors made the gruesome discovery, the young woman repeatedly lied about her role in her child’s death; she denied being pregnant and then blamed her boyfriend for the strangulation.

This one woman’s gruesome infanticidal act would not be international news per se given that infanticide itself is, unfortunately, a relatively common phenomenon. For example, a Tennessee mother recently smothered her newborn twins on September 12, 2011 in a story similar to Katrina Effert’s and currently faces double murder charges. (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-16/justice/justice_tennessee-twins-killed_1_newborn-twins-affidavit-sumner-county?_s=PM:JUSTICE) But what is remarkable about Katrina Effert’s infanticide is the Canadian criminal justice system’s treatment of it, and, more disturbing, its justification thereof.

Initially, Effert was found guilty of second degree murder by two separate juries and sentenced to life in prison only to have the sentence overturned by an appellate court. Following the appellate court’s decision to reduce the murder conviction to the lesser offense of “infanticide,” which under Canadian law is something akin to manslaughter of an infant due to the diminished capacity of the mother following labor. It carries a prison term not to exceed five years. During sentencing for Effert’s conviction of infanticide, Judge Joanne Veit, sentenced her to a three year suspended sentence, which is simply another way to say that there will be no jail time for Effert’s infanticidal act.

In justifying no jail time for the killing of an innocent Canadian citizen, Judge Veit quite correctly -- yet nonetheless appallingly -- connected the dots between abortion and infanticide; she writes: "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html) Judge Veit continues, “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant's death, especially at the hands of the infant's mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother." What is remarkable is that this liberal judge admits that the rationale for not punishing Efferts is that her act was so closely related to a legally permissible abortion. Stated differently, Judge Veit could not tell the difference between the two.

In the Effert’s decision, which the American mainstream media has predictably ignored, we have now transcended merely apologizing for the mother who kills her baby in utero with the help of an abortionist; we are now apologizing for the mother who actually does the killing herself after the baby is born and long after the law (imperfect though it is) recognizes the child’s right to live -- a right that is not and should not be -- qualitatively different from yours or mine. Equally appalling is the fact that had Katrina Effert choked a puppy to death or killed an endangered Lake Erie Water Snake, there is little chance that Judge Veit would have been so forgiving. That modern Western nations value the lives of animals more than human beings is all you need to know to draw the necessary conclusions about our moral fabric as well as our immediate future. The Effert case is a revealing albeit revolting peek into the mind of the modern abortion supporter, which I have no doubt accurately characterizes Judge Veit. As aptly put by National Review writer Mark Steyn, we have now been introduced to the concept of a “Fourth-Trimester Abortion.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277027/fourth-trimester-abortion-mark-steyn) The reality is that abortion advocates cannot distinguish between the abortion and infanticide, and, coincidentally, neither should we.

So as our advanced Western nations cross the Rubicon by working out the logical extension of the amoral theory underlying the legalized abortion industry, we can expect that future outrages are in the not-too-distant offering: further legal sanction to the killing of the young, the disabled, and the elderly, i.e., the weakest members of our community killed by the stronger for what amounts to no more than convenience. But we should not despair: we know, by the grace of God, that to be a parent is a divine gift beyond measure. Indeed, it is more than a gift; it is an opportunity to cooperate with this loving God -- to offer our wills in union with His in order to bring forth another soul who is made to spend eternity in heavenly bliss glorifying and worshiping the living God. For a married couple, children are a literal testament to the sacramental reality that “a man ... shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in on flesh.” (Book of Genesis; 2:24). For in their child, the husband and wife have literally become one flesh. We further know that “[t]he Lord is the keeper of little ones,” (Book of Psalms; 114:6) and that God’s justice and mercy will be demonstrated completely in the fullness of time. So the modernist would seem to have the upper-hand, it only seems that way.

Pray for Katrina Effert and Joanne Veit: their unlikely cooperation has exposed the gruesome logic connecting abortion and infanticide.

Mother most pure, pray for us.

http://clementia-militia.blogspot.com/2011/09/appalling-logic-of-legalized.html