Pope Cancels University Visit

As I reported yesterday, the Pope was planning on speaking at an Italian university amid much protesting from some faculty and students on campus, saying the Pope was anti-science, among other things. The Pope has announced today that he will not be going to the university amid the protests.

Does this mean that they won? I hope not. I think it may better reflect the Pope's prudence in not getting involved with such an unreasonable crowd. "If they don't want me, I'll go somewhere else..." The pope will be publishing the text of the address he was to give.

UPDATE: (01/17/08, 1:47 PM)

Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State published a letter he sent to the Dean of the University.

Pope Benedict was scheduled to open the academic year by giving the keynote address at La Sapienza, but according to Cardinal Bertone a “decidedly minority group of professors and students” threatened to protest his visit.

Due to this planned disturbance, the Secretary of State wrote to the rector that “the prerequisites for a dignified and tranquil welcome were not present” and that “it was judged opportune to postpone the scheduled visit in order to remove any pretext for demonstrations which would have been unfortunate for everyone concerned".

Cardinal Bertone also explained why the Pope decided to send his address to the university’s rector. In the letter, the cardinal relates that since the majority of professors and students wished to hear "a culturally meaningful word, whence to draw stimuli for their own journey in search of truth, the Holy Father has instructed that the text he prepared for the occasion be sent to you".

"I don't want any trouble"

Scientests say Pope is Anti-Science

A group of scientists at an Italian University is raising a fuss over an upcoming visit from the Pope. They say that the Pope is anti-reason and anti-science, and should not be honored in an academic setting. (Full Article)

To bolster their position, the 67 protestors cite a 1990 speech in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger defended the Church's disciplinary action against Galileo in 1633. In that talk, the future Pope cited the verdict of the agnostic scholar Paul Feyerabend, who said: "The Church in the age of Galileo clung to reason more than Galileo himself did." He found that the heresy verdict against Galileo was, by the standards of the times, "rational and just."

Although he did not endorse Feyerabend's conclusion-- Pope John Paul II (bio - news) had already acknowledged that the Church erred in condemning Galileo-- Cardinal Ratzinger did stress that the Church was not hostile to science, and in fact Galileo continued his investigations, with support from the hierarchy, even after his trial.

It's Regensburg all over again. At least these scientists won't be blowing up Churches or burning the Pope in effigy. Why is it that they, who insist on "reason" being so important, can't even use a quotation properly? The author of the article gets it right:

The protests against the Pope's visit to La Sapienza have echoed that hostility toward religious faith, claiming that the Church today still suppresses scientific progress. Ironically, to protest that alleged restraint on free inquiry, the group asks university officials to prevent a speech by the Roman Pontiff. Vatican Radio, describing the protests as unworthy of academic life, questioned whether the professors were displaying the "tolerance" that they proclaimed.

This just emphasizes the fact that these scientists, like the militant atheists and the anti-Catholic fundamentalists, don't care to be reasoned, but prefer to just spout their opinions. I compare it to how the Catholic Church can be portrayed as "homophobic" for opposing the disordered lifestyles of that crowd of people, whereas these scientists (or anyone really) are "reasoned" or "enlightened" by opposing the Church, and what it teaches. The university will have an interesting response to the visit.

The dean of the university has said that he will not cancel the Pope's visit. But protests at the school are planned throughout the week, with critics posting anti-clerical slogans around the campus and organizing a "homo-cession"-- a parade of homosexuals and lesbians-- to protest Church teachings.

Of course, the good old "homo-cession". This makes the clearest statement about what this opposition to the visit is really about. It has nothing to do with the Pope's or the Church's supposed opposition to scientific progress. This is about the Church teaching what it has always taught. People still don't like the Church, Jesus promised that it would be that way.

Still, if the Pope told these scientists that they needed to stop doing this or another research, would they? I doubt it. This means he isn't a threat to them. And, there really is no denying that he is perhaps the foremost theologian in Europe right now, which makes him an academic. I'm not sure what the Pope will be talking about there, but it may well touch on the moral obligations of science, which these scientists need to hear.

Man sues over new breasts

This story is only loosely relevant to this weblog, as it only involves a Catholic hospital, and not really anything but freedom, but it really caught my attention.

Headline, CNA: Catholic hospital sued for refusing breast implants to “transgendered”.

Someone who is genetically and was born a male is suing a Catholic run hospital in California (big surprise) because they refused to give him breast implants.

Hastings has already had major sex-change surgery to make his body resemble a woman’s. He chose a plastic surgeon with privileges at Seton to perform the augmentation surgery. According to Hastings, the surgeon, Dr. Leonard Gray, told him that Seton no longer allowed such operations to be performed on transgendered patients.

Seton Medical Center was previously owned by a large hospital conglomerate, Catholic Healthcare West, during which time it apparently allowed the surgery to transgender people. The Daughters of Charity Health System took ownership of the hospital in 2002, and halted the surgeries in 2006 after learning they were taking place.

Kristina Wertz, legal director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco, claimed Seton and other area hospitals put up “significant barriers” to care. Wertz believed the hospital’s policy violates the Unruh Act, a state law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation. “There's simply no religious exemption in the Unruh Act," Wertz said. "We're talking about a type of care that's OK for one class but not another.”

Since when did sex-change and even breast augmentation become a "type of care". I can see in the case of a breast cancer patient who had to have a mastectomy or some similar situation that this could be considered a "type of care" but when did it become an entitlement for any man or woman?

It really touches on a deeper issue. How did it become acceptable to be "transgendered"? If I wanted to say I was actually a black man stuck in a white man's body, I'd be labeled as nuts. And, race is poorly defined. Gender is not poorly defined for most people, including most "transgendered" people. There's the physical equipment, the genetic karyotype, and I suppose the birth certificate. Why is it that all it takes is to say "I want to be a woman" if you are a man, and you are, or can be? After all you can't discriminate against gender identity, which is independent of gender. How is this not a mental illness?

Abortionists in Spain Vow to Stop

In quite an interesting turn of events, the Abortion Clinics in a consortium in Spain have vowed to close their doors, (CNA). Unfortunately, this is only a temporary state, and is meant as a protest in favor of "women's rights" among other things.

The “Association of Accredited Clinics,” an umbrella group for all abortion clinics in Spain, said the protest was being organized in response to the crackdown on illegal abortions in Barcelona in December, which revealed that a number of clinics performing late-term abortions in violation of the law.

So, the law says that you cannot commit late term abortions, and I'd guess has some requirements about safety of the mother, among other things. This protest is against a crackdown of illegal facilities. Wouldn't this consortium, if they were legal, not mind that the "rabble" were being weeded out. After all, that would eliminate the competition, right?

It's clear that it is not about the application of the law, they just want to be able to kill as many as possible. They are probably also a bit worried, because they are probably not up to snuff, committing illegal abortions all the time.

It's just ironic that in order to protest the cracking down on abortions is stopping abortions. Maybe all the American abortion clinics will take up this, every time someone challenges them. Right.

Bishop: Communion on Tongue is Best

Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan in what is labeled a "historical-liturgical note", wrote that it is a much better practice to receive communion while kneeling and on the tongue.

"If some nonbeliever arrived and observed such an act of adoration perhaps he, too, would 'fall down and worship God, declaring, God is really in your midst,'"

"The awareness of the greatness of the eucharistic mystery is demonstrated in a special way by the manner in which the body of the Lord is distributed and received," the bishop wrote.

In addition to demonstrating true adoration by kneeling, he said, receiving Communion on the tongue also avoids concerns about people receiving the body of Christ with dirty hands or of losing particles of the Eucharist, concerns that make sense if people truly believe in the sacrament.

"Wouldn't it correspond better to the deepest reality and truth about the consecrated bread if even today the faithful would kneel on the ground to receive it, opening their mouths like the prophet receiving the word of God and allowing themselves to be nourished like a child?" Bishop Schneider asked.

This Bishop really sees what is going on. It is not about the laity being any less than the Priest, or something like that. It is the sacramental sign that the Eucharistic species is the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. This is but the least of things we would do if everyone realized what the mass really was, and what the Eucharist really was.

I do not forsee the day when we completely do away with communion in the hand while standing, though I think it should go away quietly. Perhaps, one day, no extraordinary minister of Holy Communion will look at you funny when you step up to them and do not extend your hands. Maybe that's asking too much.

Jesuits need to change -- Cardinal

The Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Cardinal Franc Rode, had some scathing comments about the Jesuits as they enter their General Congregation to select a new leader and set policies.

"Within your charism and your tradition you can find valuable points of reference to enlighten the choices which the Society must make today," Cardinal Rode told them. "Your work must be eminently apostolic with a universal human, ecclesial and evangelical fullness.

"It must always be carried out in the light of your charism, in such a way that the growing participation of laity in your activities does not obscure your identity but rather enriches it with the collaboration of those who, coming from other cultures, share your style and your objectives."

The 73-year-old cardinal also noted a "growing distancing from the hierarchy."

"The Ignatian spirituality of apostolic service 'under the Roman Pontiff' does not allow for this separation," he said. "Religious obedience can be understood only as obedience in love. The fundamental nucleus of Ignatian spirituality consists in uniting the love for God with love for the hierarchical Church."

We can only hope and pray that the Jesuits take this to heart. They have much potential, and I think it would be a boon for their order to no longer be the butt of jokes.

Married Priests not necessarily the solution

A Ukranian Bishop, where married clergy are common, said recently that admitting married men into the clerical state is not guaranteed to solve any vocations crisis, nor will it improve the quality of priests.

"Abolishing celibacy is not a solution in itself," he said. "The quality of the priest does not depend on whether or not he is married. This has been our experience, and I think people are wrong if they think the vocations problem can be resolved by ordaining married persons. It will not ensure a large number of vocations.
I come from a priestly family," he said.

"My grandfather was a priest, and other members of the family were priests; some were married, others were not.
If a person is good, he will be a good priest, and this does not depend on the fact that he is married," Cardinal Husar said.

(Full Article)
This is some wisdom that I wish more Catholics would realize. I'm still a bit undecided whether priestly ordination should be allowed to be conferred on married men in the Roman Rite. It might be beneficial in some ways, and it would be detrimental in some ways. But, there is no reason why it would solve all our priestly problems.

More Gay Anglicans?

In a news story from Catholic Online, it turns out that the US Episcopal Church has quite a few other partnered gay bishops, the only difference is that Gene Robinson is quite open about it.

NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews.com) - The head of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Bishop Jefferts Schori, shocked listeners of a BBC Interview when she announced that Gene Robinson - the controversial Episcopalian bishop who was consecrated bishop despite his being an openly practicing homosexual - is not the only homosexual and partnered bishop in the Anglican Church.

"[Robinson] is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop," Schori said in response to a question from her interviewer. "He is certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop. He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."

The interviewer then asked Schori whether she meant that Robinson was not the only gay, partnered bishop in the Episcopalian Church. She responded, "Within our own church and within the Anglican Communion as a whole."

I can bet she's not referring to those other bishops who voted to break away from the US Episcopal Church. Or maybe she is. After all, I know my younger siblings like to call things they don't like as "gay", so maybe she meant that a lot of those other bishops are gay in that sense.

This, of course, comes on the heels of the upcoming conference of the worldwide Anglicans. What this says is that the US Church basically wants to openly flaunt traditional morality, which the Communion wants to uphold. "See, our bishops are practicing gays, so it must be okay, right?"

A number of the bishops who have called the so-called Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFC) have in the past suggested that the American Episcopalian Church should not be invited to the Lambeth conference, due to its decision to consecrate Robinson bishop, and a general movement on the part of the Episcopalian Church to accept and bless homosexual behavior.

Schori said that this idea felt to her "much like declining an invitation to a dinner party because somebody I don't like might be there. My understanding of the planned program for the Lambeth Conference is one that has the possibility of letting people build relationships. I think that's a remarkable gift. I think it would be very sad to go there and simply spend all our time consumed by legislation and I don't think that's what's planned."

I guess you have to expect this when your spokesbishop is of the fairer gender. (This is where I get myself in trouble) The bishops are meeting to hold together the disintegrating Anglican Communion, and she wants to build relationships. Maybe if those bishops spent less time "building relationships" and more time protecting the fidelity of their faith, we wouldn't be in this state at all.

When pressed by the BBC interviewer as to whether or not Schori supported those bishops and priests who were blessing homosexual couples despite pressure from Canterbury to cease all such ceremonies, Schori side-stepped the question, answering, "That's not a matter for me to say yea or nay, it's a matter of pastoral practice in individual congregations, in the same way that I don't enter into decisions about whether or not it's appropriate to bless a fleet of battleships going off to war."

Schori also seemed to suggest that support for homosexual behavior was consonant with the traditional position, the "roots" of the Anglican Church, saying, "My hope is that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole might remember our roots, our traditional valuing of diversity and our traditional sense that worshiping together despite differing views is what holds us together."

Is this as laughable to you as it is to me? Isn't she the equivalent of the Bishop-Primate. Doesn't that make it a matter of her to say yea or nay? Isn't the point of the communion the fact that the Faith is not up to the individual congregations? Maybe I missed the point of even having bishop(ess)es.

Also, where in the "roots" of the Anglican Church were there diversity and gay marriage? Time for a history lesson. The Anglican Church started in England when the King wanted an annulment, and didn't get one from Rome. They were made up of Englanders, and kept out Catholics. In fact, they persecuted them. There was no "worshiping together despite differing views." You never heard an Anglican say "I don't care that you think the Pope has primacy, let's break bread together."

Maybe this is just another sign that the Anglicans are going to implode. The traditional ones no longer have much reason to be anything but Catholic, and we'll take them. Traditional Christianity is just what the Church in America needs. The goofy ones can stay whatever they are.

On the proper celebration of the liturgy

This is not the post I anticipated would be my next post. I had planned on posting on Spe Salvi a while ago, but I'm still working on it (or, rather, I put off working on it). I, however, will be discussing some research I've been doing regarding vigil masses.

I heard, in the newspaper, that our local parish back home was having a Christmas Eve Mass at 3:00 PM, December 24. This struck me with quite a surprise, and as quite odd. As I understood, no vigil mass could be celebrated before 4:00 PM the day before a Sunday or Solemnity. What was our parish doing??

There are four different masses which can be celebrated on Christmas, namely the Christmas Vigil on the evening of the 24th, then there is Midnight Mass, Mass at Dawn, and Mass During the Day. I believe that the priest's normal prescriptions on celebrating only two masses in a day are also lifted and three are allowed.

Well, I knew for sure that this mass couldn't possibly considered a "Midnight Mass", so we assume, for the moment, that this mass was the vigil of Christmas. The questions we need to answer are: when vigil masses can actually start, and whether or not the Christmas Vigil is an exception to the rules.

First, on the issue of when vigil masses can actually start, it is "common knowledge" that the liturgical day cannot occur earlier than 4:00 PM. I had heard this properly first from a priest friend, and was subsequently confirmed in this. Also, our home parish had moved the anticipated mass to 4:00 at some point, and I seem to think that was the earliest that was allowed.

The internet is quite quiet on the subject. The best commentary I heard was from Catholics United for the Faith. In their entry Saturday Vigil Mass in the Liturgy category of their Faith Facts section, they say: "The common practice for the earliest vigil Mass is 4 p.m." They expand on this, of course, but it seems to confirm my earlier suspicion. They say:

The Church allows Catholics to fulfill their Sunday or Holy Day obligation by participating in a vigil Mass prescribed for the particular Holy Day. “This Mass may be celebrated only in the evening, at times determined by the local ordinary.”[1] When prescribing the times acceptable in their territory for vigil Masses, local ordinaries should consider the time of sunset in their locale as well as the liturgical cycle itself.

Depending on the season and place, the sun begins to set between 4 and 5 p.m. in many parts of the world. Because of this, local ordinaries have allowed the vigil Mass as early as 4 p.m. Any earlier scheduling would seem to violate liturgical guidelines for two reasons. First, the concept of a day beginning at sunset loses significance when the sun has not set. Secondly, the midafternoon prayer of the Liturgy of Hours may take place as late as 3 p.m. To celebrate a vigil Mass at such an early time diminishes the liturgical cycle.

So, it seems to be up to the local bishop. I've searched high and low on the USCCB's website, as well as that of the Archdioceses of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Chicago. I came up empty on that, though it is probably hidden there, somewhere.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

The word "evening" is "vesper" in Latin. So, who defines what is "evening"? Apparently the local ordinary would. I did come across an interesting article in Google's archives of the internet (the site itself was broken) here. Apparently there have been indults granted in various times and places which extend this permission beyond canon law to as early as Noon on Saturday. The United States, however, had its last indult expire in 1985, and I do not believe one has been requested or granted since this article was published. Therefore, we must go back to Canon 1248, which clearly states that evening (vesper) is the time.

Vespers traditionally are prayed at 6:00. The hour of None is celebrated at 3:00, and so clearly, 3:00 is too early. Here, even in the dead of winter, the sun does not set earlier than 4:34. Evening could be defined as when the day is "well spent" as in that article. This could reasonably be argued to be 4:00, but really couldn't be argued for 3:00, and even 3:30 could be pushing it. Since a special indult must be given to celebrate an anticipated mass at Noon or later, and that 3:00 is the hour of None, then 4:00 would be the earliest time a local ordinary could offer to his diocese for a vigil mass, unless he had special indult from the Holy See.

So, with the first point established, regarding when an anticipated mass can be held, we can move on to determining whether the Christmas vigil falls into some special class which is an exception to the rule. Again this is difficult to pin down.

The General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar do have a special listing for Christmas.

34. The Mass of the vigil of Christmas is used in the evening of 24 December, either before or after evening prayer I.

Well, we have this word evening again. I was unable to confirm that it is the same Latin word, but I think we can safely operate under that assumption. Canonically, if the word is the same, then the interpretation should be the same between them. Christmas is a special solemnity, in the sense that it has multiple special liturgies attached to it. There is but one liturgy for the Immaculate Conception, but 4 for Christmas.

If one were looking for a specific example of an exception, the pascal Triduum is a great example. I believe the Easter Vigil liturgy (with the candles and the 9 readings) must happen after sundown, rather than simply after a certain hour. I know of no such demands on Christmas Eve. Note also that the exception pushes back the time, rather than extending it.

I see no reason for the Vigil mass of Christmas, which can be celebrated before or after First Vespers, could be celebrated as early as 3:00, and in fact, the evidence seems to me that it would be subject to the same limitations as any other vigil or anticipated mass (though this is a proper vigil).

Therefore, I would conclude that the pastor here was in error when celebrating the liturgy of the Christmas Vigil at 3:00 PM, December 24. the GIRM states:

354. On Sundays, on the weekdays of the Advent, Christmas, Lenten, and Easter Seasons, on feasts, and on obligatory memorials:

a) If Mass is celebrated with a congregation, the priest should follow the calendar of the church where he is celebrating;

This was a mass with a congregation, the church was a diocesan parish, it was a weekday of advent (as established above), and so the mass for Monday of the Fourth Week of Advent should have been celebrated. The faithful who attended this mass, and none other on the 24th or 25th, according to my estimation, would not have fulfilled their Christmas obligation, though this would be of no fault of their own. The pastor would be to blame, for misleading the parish if he were not properly informed to the legalities of the solemnity. This is just the most recent in a line of liturgical abuses that have been noted in this parish.

An inquiry of this rule may be sent on to the Diocesan Office for Divine Worship. If it is made, it and any response will be posted here.

UPDATE: Burke and the "Priestesses"

As I reported earlier, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis was set to excommunicate some women if they went through a faux ordination ceremony over the weekend.

St. Louis, Nov 13, 2007 / 10:36 am (CNA).- Two women who took part in a ritual they claimed was an ordination ceremony have been placed under interdict, the Associated Press reports.

Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, 67, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, underwent the ceremony at a St. Louis synagogue. The ceremony was led by a South African former nun who claimed to have been ordained a bishop by a German bishop in communion with Rome. The two women plan to "co-pastor" a community, starting December 1, in a space offered by a local Unitarian church.

Mmmm, interdict. There's a word I haven't heard in a while. This is why I like Burke, he will use to full Canonical Vocabulary when chastising these wackos.

Read that last line, though. They are going to co-pastor a community in a Unitarian Church. In a sense, I'm glad they had to resort to using a space occupied by a "you're good, I'm good, everyone's good" crowd.

Archbishop Raymond Burke of the archdiocese of St. Louis sent a three-page letter to the women after they underwent the ceremony. He ordered the women to "renounce any attempts" to celebrate Mass, hear confessions, or officiate at any other sacrament. The letter summoned them to appear before a church tribunal on December 3.

In the archdiocesan newspaper on Friday the archbishop wrote that the women would confuse and lead astray the faithful by their "sinful action."

Ms. McGrath claimed the two women are helping to "bring about badly needed reforms," to heal the church's "dysfunction."

Reverend Arthur Espelage, executive coordinator for the Canon Law Society of America, said the actions of Archbishop Burke are "extremely formal" measures.
He said each rite the women preside over creates a deeper separation from the church.
"He knows the law very well," he said, speaking of the archbishop. "He's a very conservative archbishop, he's going to take a severe stand here. But even if you had a very liberal bishop, you'd have the same response.
"Civil disobedience doesn't change laws in the church."

Think they will show up to their tribunal? Again, an awesome Canon Law word. I really hope that the example can be made, and they don't lead too many people astray. I'm sure Burke has a plan of action in place.

Episcopal Split

The Anglican Church is coming apart at the seams. To that end, the Diocese of Pittsburgh has voted to separate from the national Episcopal Church, and align themselves with "a more traditional province in the Anglican Communion."

And so it begins, the Anglican Church is beginning to disintegrate. It doesn't help that they picked a bishopess to lead them and made a divorced gay man a bishop, who, incidentally, will be getting gay married soon.

I predict here that the Catholic Church will see conversions on the rise. I've always held that there can be no such thing as a "thinking Anglican" because they will think themselves Catholic. They must; after all, their Ecclisal Community started when King Henry VIII wanted a divorce. This whole event will make those who aren't crazy activist liberals re-examine what their religion means, when their leadership had gone so far astray. We can only hope they see that the only Church that has remained consistent for the past two millenia is the Catholic Church.

Womenpriests and Abp. Burke

Sometimes you encounter an article that you just can't pass up.

St. Louis, Nov. 8, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has warned two local women that they face excommunication if they go through with plans for a Sunday ceremony at which they will claim to be ordained as priests.

The archbishop sent personal letters by courier to Rose Marie Dunn Hudson and Elsie Hainz McGrath, reminding them that they would incur the "censure of excommunication" if they participated in the ceremony, which is being held at a Jewish synagogue under the auspices of the "Womenpriests" organization.

I'm glad we're still excommunicating women who try to be ordained. After the first round of excommunications, we just started letting them be, which is troublesome, and sends the wrong message to the Church. Bravo, Archbishop Burke.

Archbishop Burke noted that the fraudulent "ordination" ceremony, held in direct violation of Church teaching and authority, would constitute an "act of schism." He warned the women that additional penalties could be used against them, along with the excommunication that would be automatically imposed.

McGrath told an AP reporter that she would ignore the archbishop's warning, which she characterized as a "form of intimidation."

Two interesting points, first of all, what will be these additional penalties. In a sense, I hope they go through with the "ordination" just so I can see what Burke has up his sleeves. Second, how is this intimidation, this is really just a final warning before the canonical excommunication, the "turn back now" sign. The excommunication will happen. I just can't see what part of "and this is to be held by all christian faithful" people don't understand.

Interestingly enough, they couldn't find any Catholic space to have the "ordination" "mass", and so some reform Jews stepped in. Abp. Burke is understandably upset, and he appealed to the Jewish community to change their mind. (From the Curt Jester)

On Archbishop Burke

Recently, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis published an article in a Canon law Journal (I don't think in English, however) that discussed the obligation of Catholic Bishops to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support abortion, or other serious, sinful positions.

This is somewhat in opposition to the statement of the USCCB, saying essentially that the individual bishops should do what they want. The Canon law, however, is fairly clear about this position:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The important part here is the line "manifest grave sin". The word manifest here comes from the meaning of public. If they persist in a sin which is public, not private, then they are "not to be admitted to holy communion". This, Archbishop Burke, argues, is the reason that all bishops should be united on this front.

I heard him speak on the radio the other day, and it was quite good.

Lesbian Bishopess

As I've noted earlier, the Episcopal Church is setting themselves up for a schism. This time, it's right here in Chicago.

A lesbian Episcopal priest has made the top-five list of bishop-candidates for the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. The list includes three women. No woman has ever been a finalist before.

"I believe that accepting this nomination is what God is asking of me," Rev. Tracey Lind said in a statement. The openly lesbian cleric is dean of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland and author of Interrupted by God.

Bishop James Stanton of Dallas, a leader in the global effort against gay bishops, called Lind's nomination distressing.

"It's an action that says Chicago really doesn't care what the rest of the Anglican Communion says," he told the Sun-Times.

Yep, that's because the "Anglican Communion" isn't real. All that holds them together is stubbornness and not being Catholic. They started with the King wanting to divorce, and yet expect to maintain some sort of worldwide unity. There is no reason for them to be unified.

The worldwide Anglican Communion has been dealing with the possibility of schism since 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

"My life with my partner, Emily Ingalls [a cradle Episcopalian], is the gift that most sustains me," Lind's statement said. "Together, we tend our garden, travel, hike."

And, as I said before, bishop Robinson is going to get gay married soon. That's not going to help things. This is all just a case of trying to politicize Church in a way it should not be. Bishops should be chosen because they are the best person for the job, or something like that; fidelity to the creeds and administrative savvy, and all that. If you are just choosing a bishop to anger the rest of the world, this is something you should reflect on.

-JG

A (real) bishop for Women's ordination

A real Catholic Bishop in Australia said that the Vatican should look into changing it's practice of ordaining only celibate men. (Article)

Bishop Pat Power, an auxiliary of the Canberra, Australia diocese, has indicated his support for an end to mandatory clerical celibacy, and suggested a new discussion of the possibility of ordaining women.

In a public response to a campaign by Australian Catholic activists to end the celibacy discipline, Bishop Power said that while Vatican leaders are unwilling to reconsider the issue, among "ordinary Catholics" he has found both support and "a sense of urgency" about the need for change.

"Where there is the conviction that the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic belief and practice, there must be questions asked about disciplinary laws in the Church which have the net effect of denying many Catholics regular access to the Eucharist," the Australian bishop wrote. He said that by limiting priestly ministry to celibate men the Church was in effect restricting access to the Eucharist "because of the scarcity of priests."

Bishop Power went on the praise Australian activists for raising the question of ordination for women. The bishop said that he recognized "the sensitivity to the question at the level of the Vatican," but called for "a more open and thorough examination of the issues around the ordination of women and the whole structure of the priesthood."

Does anyone honestly think this makes any sense? As the article goes on the point out, the issue is closed, Pope John Paul II said: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

In reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Papal Infallibility, it is easy to see that this is not a personal decree of the pope, but rather an ex cathedra decree. He clearly intended this to be universal.

In my vote, this is so scandalous, that this Bishop should be forced to recant and/or resign.

-JG