Most Priests Aren't Clamoring For "Optional" Celibacy

And here's a website for faithful priests to stand up in favor of the Church's traditional discipline:

Priests For Celibacy

In spite of what you may read in the press, like the stories about the Milwaukee priests who advocate relaxing the Church's discipline of priestly celibacy, most priests are leading dedicated and fruitful lives as celibates.

And in spite of the maunderings of those Milwaukee priests, and the natterings of the Call To Action crowd, dropping priestly celibacy will solve precisely no problems in the Church. As I have written before, the idea that a married priesthood will prevent future priest-abuse scandals is simply absurd. By what logic would anyone think that men with perverse sexual appetites would be appeased by a normal heterosexual relationship? If anything, a married priesthood might make it worse: Pedophiles frequently use a "normal" marriage as cover for their deviant behavior.

The belief that a married priesthood would address the so-called "priest shortage" (in itself a dubious concept) also doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. I have a friend who is a pastor in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. He has told me more than once that the Missouri Synod is experiencing its own clergy shortage. This isn't noticeable on the coasts yet, because most pastors gravitate to seeking positions on either coast. But the shortage is very serious in the Midwest, and particularly in rural areas. Now the LCMS has married clergy, so clearly its shortage points to a problem going across theological boundaries and having nothing to do with celibacy.

As I have written before, in a post on The Sacramentality of Priestly Celibacy:

Finally, it seems to me that those who advocate dropping celibacy frequently have bought into the "dogmatic minimalism" foisted upon us by "progressives" in the wake of Vatican II. Dogmatic minimalism is the attitude that anything not explicitly defined as dogma by a council or ex cathedra papal pronouncement is somehow extraneous to the Faith and therefore easily dispensed with. Those arguing that because celibacy is a matter of discipline and not dogma we can get rid of it are operating from the dogmatic minimalist assumption. But just because something hasn't been defined as de fide doesn't mean it isn't from the Holy Spirit. Just because something is a matter of tradition [with a small "T"] doesn't mean it isn't spiritually good or useful.

That non-Catholics wouldn't understand or properly value the witness of celibacy is, perhaps, understandable. That some Catholics would be confused or poorly catechized about it is lamentable. That priests could lose sight of the witness they have been called upon to give, and parrot the world's line, is tragic.

YACCS Comments Has Extended Its Holiday Weekend

YACCS was back up briefly on Saturday, but it relapsed quickly. I'm delaying posting the second half of my essay on Liturgy and Culture in the hopes that the comment function will be restored by tomorrow. If its not up again by tomorrow, I will get a new comments provider and post the second half of the essay.

In the meantime, I'll put up some other hopefully entertaining stuff...

YACCS Comments Has Apparently Decided to Get an Early Start In Taking the Weekend Off

Sorry, dear readers, but the Comments feature is down and out for the time being. Not only can't my blog access the comments box, I can't even get to the YACCS home page.

I know that many of you have visited to check out my post on The GIRM and Culture below (my counter tells me so), and I imagine that some of you would have liked to leave a comment. So while YACCS is taking its road trip, if you have a comment, criticism, or observation, just E-mail me!. I'll collect the comments and post them sometime tomorrow, and hopefully by then YACCS will be back up.

By the way, thanks to Amy and Mark for their plugs.

The GIRM and The Culture

This is the first of two parts. The second part will be posted next Tuesday.


Confusion and "Creativity"

There's been a lot of ruminating and a fair amount of bloviating around St. Blog's about the implementation of the Revised GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) in various dioceses around the U.S. Some of the debate, such as between Rerum Novarum and Secret Agent Man, has been about the interpretation of certain specific aspects of the Instruction. Some of the discussion has turned to various misguided efforts, such as in Cleveland and elsewhere, to distort or even conceal the true content of the GIRM in order to advance some liturgist's agenda.

But what seems to be most consistently running through the threads of debate and commentary is a sense of frustration, and even exasperation, among many Catholics. The frustration is over the perceived inability of our bishops, and even of Rome, to issue clear and unambiguous directives on the liturgy. In the words of one commentor over on Amy's blog, the problem is "Confusion, confusion, confustion." Why is it so confusing to know what you're supposed to do at Mass?

Well, there are several problems. Firstly, our own bishops have, frankly, been part of the problem. One has only to look at the hash they have made of Holy Days in this country to know this. Is the Solemnity of The Immaculate Conception a Holy Day this year? I don't know without looking at the Ordo, and I'm a priest. Well, let me see, if the Immaculate Conception falls on the second Tuesday after the last full moon of November, it must be a Holy Day. It would almost seem as though the norms for Holy Days were created to cause confusion.

Confusion creates contempt. If something isn't important enough to be clear and unambiguous about, you have signaled that it isn't really very important. And the more that the bishops have tweaked and massaged and reduced Holy Days, the more Holy Day Mass attendance has gone down. Regardless of what pious pronouncements the USCCB puts forth, they have spoken clearly with their decisions that Holy Days aren't a big deal.

So it is with the Mass. By allowing a culture of "do-it-yourself" liturgy to prevail for roughly 30 years, the bishops have sent the signal, unintentional as it may be, that the Mass isn't such a big deal. If the Mass is whatever we (whoever the "we" may be) decide it is, then it isn't such a big step to deciding that it's about Us. And so you end up with the "Self-Actualized Community" worshipping itself. If the Mass is about Us, well then it's not such a big step to deciding that it's about Me. And if it's about Me, then why bother about it all? I can worship Me in the comfort of my own bed on Sunday morning.

A related source of confusion is the mania for "options" within the liturgy. In their admirable desire to provide something for everyone and not impose a stultifying uniformity on churches, our bishops (and Rome is also somewhat culpable in this) have erred in the opposite direction, and given "options" where they weren't really necessary or in keeping with the historic mind of the Church. Witness the controversy over whether the faithful should kneel or stand after receiving communion: The GIRM says that people can either kneel or stand. The result is that in some places the bishop or pastor tries to mandate standing and forbid people to kneel, in others the bishop or pastor tells people to keep kneeling, and in others the attitude is "do your own thing". I'm confident that those who wrote the GIRM didn't intend to create confusion, but that's precisely what ambiguity creates.

This desire for more options is something I truly don't get. The Roman Missal already contains all kinds of options: 4 Eucharistic Prayers, dozens of Prefaces, alternative Collects for almost every Mass, Votive Masses, Masses for Various Needs and Occasions (For you priests: when was the last time you used the Mass prayers "to avert storms"?) and so on. And when, hopefully before the Parousia, we get an English translation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal, we'll have even more options. But even that wasn't enough for some: when ICEL assembled its now-thankfully-moribund "translation" of the Second Edition of the Missal, it tried to include a whole raft of prayers that the Icicles (what else would you call those who worked for ICEL) had composed themselves. Luckily Rome quashed that edition and we have been spared those products of ICEL's creativity. The restless pursuit of ever more "options" merely spreads the profusion of confusion.

The example of ICEL's attempt to exceed its mandate by composing new Mass prayers out of whole cloth brings me to another source of confusion: the mistaken notion that the liturgy is somehow the object of liturgists' "creativity". Now, I'm all for creativity, properly understood and directed. Certainly the Church has been the beneficiary of an incredibly rich outpouring of creative effort throughout the ages. Our churches have been adorned with some of the finest efforts of artistic creativity ever acheived by Man. Our worship has been solemnized with much of the most glorious and moving music ever written. But those artists and composers all attempted to work within tradition, both the theological and liturgical Tradition of the Church, and the tradition they received in musical technique and composition. Thus the Mass settings of Victoria and Bruckner, though written centuries apart, and in markedly different styles, nonetheless share a common informing spirit. All great art is the product of, and in some sense is subject to, some form of discipline. Great sacred art emerges from the discipline of the Faith of the Church, and its incarnation, the Liturgy.

Part Two, coming next week, will examine the ideologizing of liturgy, and the collapse of Catholic culture.

Another Pin in the Balloon of RadTrad Pride

Jeff over at The Curt Jester has risked the wrath of RadTraddies by posting his own parody of the now-infamous Free Republic thread, which gave rise to Mark Shea's unaccountable impulse to defend his friend, Greg Popcak.

Whereas my parody attempted to conflate the Freeper thread and the Dada-esque conversation from Mark's comment box, Jeff confines himself to coming up with a realistic parody of the Freeper thread alone.

It's pretty funny, and insightful: I don't think I've been credited with inspiring another blogger before...

Needing the Needy

I have a long-standing interest in Catholic Social Teaching, and particularly in exploring how Faith can and should shape our ordering of the economic sphere of human action. I've written about these issues in the past: Most notably, I was the first place winner in the 1996 Acton Institute Essay Competition, with an essay entitled "Poverty, Virtue, and Grace".

My interest in the matters has allowed me to meet and get to know some thoughtful, very faithful people, one of whom is my friend Jenny Roback Morse. She's an economist and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a regular contributor to the National Catholic Register and has appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. She's the author of Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work. Most importantly, she's a mother and faithful Catholic.

She has contributed a chapter to a new book published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Wealth, Poverty
and Human Destiny. Her chapter is titled "Making Room in the Inn: Why We Need the Needy", and she has allowed me to post this excerpt here:


The self-sufficient, autonomous individual is at the heart of America's economic and political institutions. But some people are legitimately dependent on others. Children are profoundly, if temporarily, dependent on their parents. The elderly and the sick are dependent on others. The seriously disabled, and the mentally ill are permanently dependent. The problem of the legitimately dependent can not be finessed or argued away...This ubiquity of unavoidable helplessness points to the possibility that dependency is not peripheral to the social order, but is somehow central to it.

I maintain that we are afraid to look too closely at dependent people because they remind us that our own independence is fragile. The rational faculty is a gift that allows us to think and to choose, which in turn, makes our freedom and autonomy possible. But our rationality is not a necessary fact about us; any one of us could get a bump on the head that would make us radically dependent on others. This is why we should not view our rationality or independence as the source of our value or dignity as persons. It is also a mistake to view people exclusively in terms of what they do for us, unless we expand our understanding of service. ...

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to find out just what kind of unconventional service the radically dependent person can provide for us. My husband's mother became seriously ill. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, at about the same time that we (finally) realized that she had Alzheimer's. Her judgement, her memory and her ability to take care of herself were deteriorating rapidly, at exactly the time that her illness made her even more needy. We told ourselves that we wanted to honor her independence as long as possible. That was only part of the truth. We also did not really want to admit that the mind of this wonderful person was fading away before our eyes. It finally became clear to us that she needed to move in with us.

Our son and daughter got to help take care of Grandma during those last six months of her life. She was a lovely, delightful person, easy to take care of. I made a game of it for the kids. I would summon them by clapping my hands and calling, "Elves, I need some elves. Grandmama needs a tissue," or whatever it was she needed. The kids would come running, tumbling over themselves to be the first one to bring Grandma whatever it was. She never failed to laugh at this, and the kids never failed to be pleased with themselves.

Grandma took a turn for the worse while my son and I were away on a trip to Switzerland and Washington D.C. My husband called us to tell us to be prepared for the worst. When we got home, it was unusually hot and humid, and the family was keeping wet towels around Grandma's neck, and trying to f eed her ice chips to suck on. Nico went right to her room, and began talking to her about our trip. She couldn't say much, but she smiled at him. I stayed with her, and watched as the kids went outside to play together. Nico showed his sister his favorite souvenirs, a noisy cow horn from Switzerland, and a kazoo in the shape of a duck's beak from "D.C. Ducks."

These kids just happened to play right outside Grandma's window, where she could see and hear them. She was happy just to watch them and listen to their noise. They just happened to bring their board game into Grandma's room and play at the foot of her bed. I didn't tell them to do it. They didn't talk about what they were doing. But it was obvious: they wanted to be near Grandma because it would make her happy to see them there. Somehow, the two of them intuited that it was good for them to be near a dying woman whom they loved.

It might seem that they were doing her a service, and that she got all the benefits in this situation. She plainly took pleasure just in being close to these children. She didn't look very good, in fact, her appearance was alarming. She was dying, she couldn't do anything for herself. She would never be able to do anything for them.

But she did give them something: They got to know that they were of value to her, simply by being there. They didn't have to do anything to be important to her and be loved by her. They got to have the experience of being valued simply because they exist. That is as close to unconditional love as a person can get this side of heaven. Surely, this experience of unconditional love is crucial for the foundation of a healthy personality, and sense of self-worth. Certainly, that is how a mother wants her children to feel. What could I have done that could convey that message any more powerfully than their grandmother did on her deathbed?

This is ultimately the contribution of the dependent to the rest of us: they teach us how to love, and be loved.

Ave Maria Radio on XM Satellite Network

Greg Popcak writes to tell me that Ave Maria Radio is trying to get the XM Satellite Radio network to add Ave Maria to its lineup:

Ave Maria Radio has a chance to be carried on the XM Satellite Network. They are currently considering our proposal and things look good.

We are attempting to get St Blog's to help us out by publicizing our petition drive to get Ave Maria on XM.

This would get Ave Maria Radio broadcast nationwide and available to all Americans over the XM network. So visit the Ave Maria Petition site and sign on to get XM to pick up Ave Maria. There is no commitment to purchase XM equipment. This is just about asking them to carry Catholic Radio.

Quote for the Day

America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.

Georges Clemenceau

Georges Clemenceau was the Prime Minister of France during and immediately after World War I. He openly and heartily despised President Woodrow Wilson, saying of Wilson, "He believes himself to be a combination of Socrates and Jesus Christ."

Feast of the Queenship of Mary

Back when I was in college, I got into an argument with a fundamentalist about Mary. Needless to say, he was against the whole business. He thought he had the clincher for his argument. He said "You Catholics say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, right?"

"Right," I agreed.

"Well, is Jesus the Lord and King of Heaven?", he asked.

"Of course," I answered.

"Well, then," he said triumphantly, "you Catholics can't be right about Mary. If she was Queen and Jesus is King, then they'd be having an incestuous relationship!" The sad thing was that he really thought he "had" us.

I have to admit I was flummoxed for a moment. How do you respond to someone whose imagination is at one and the same time so pinched and yet so bizarre? But I explained that, even on earth, King and Queen are not always husband and wife.

I explained that Mary was the first disciple of Our Lord, and by her fiat, which was given not only once at the Incarnation but characterized her whole life, she is the exemplar of discipleship. Not only that, but by the privilege of her Immaculate Conception she enjoys a unique place among all created beings.

Mary's Queenship is not one of rulership: Rulership belongs to Christ alone. He is Lord and Master, by virtue of His Divinity and His sacrifice on the Cross and victory over sin and death. But in earthly courts the mother of the King is given honor and first place in dignity. She is honored with the title of "Queen Mother".

By celebrating Mary's Queenship, we are acknowledging the foremost place among the saints and angels of she who is "more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim...".

Quote For the Day

I'm beginning a new feature on my blog, the "Quote For the Day". This will be semi-regular: Not necessarily every day, but perhaps 2-3 times a week.

Back when I was in graduate school at Catholic University, I lived in the graduate residence hall for two years. I began putting quotes up on my door almost every day. It became a popular feature of dorm life: many people made a point of checking my door every day to see what I'd put up. Sometimes people would take exception to it, which is fine.

But I'll say now what I always said then when someone would berate me for putting a particular quote up: These quotes do not necessarily represent the opinions of Fr. Rob Johansen. My posting of a quote does not mean that I endorse or agree with the opinion expressed therein. (You'll have to guess whether I agree or not - unless I happen to say so...) I post the quote because it seems to me thought-provoking, challenging, interesting, or sometimes merely entertaining.

It's my hope and intention that these quotes would spark conversation and/or debate. So weigh in!

Here's today's quote:

Fame is a vapor; popularity an accident; the only earthly certainty is oblivion.

Mark Twain

When Worlds Collide!

or,

RadTraddyLand Meets St. Blogs!


If you've been following Mark Shea's blog of late, you'll recognize this latest fracas:

The scene: a typically quiet evening in St. Blog's. Mark Shea has been poking gentle fun at Leftists and self-appointed Hollywood arbiters of moral opinion. He turns his attention to the latest depredations of the RadTrad Alliance, and they unleash their fury!


Mark Shea: Will you look at these wacky RadTrads! Nuptial language as an analogy to God's relationship with us? "Eww! Gross!" Never mind that it's scriptural... "And how dare that Greg Popcak advocate that horrible Theology of the Body! We RadTrads all know that Theology of the Body is just an effort to open the floodgates of lust!"

Curious Girl: So if I wonder about some things Greg writes does that mean I hate the Pope?

Mark Shea: No, but those RadTrad Freepers do hate the Pope and are using this distortion of Greg's writing as their latest excuse to beat up on him. And they don't even know what they're talking about.

Curious Girl: Well, that Greg Popcak has said some strange things. Maybe those Freepers are just raising good...

RadTraddy-Daddy [jumping up and down, shouting]: All those NFP people are WEIRDOS! Everyone knows that! Greg Popcak is a PERVERT who practically advocates incest! How could a sicko like that get on EWTN?

RadTraddy-Laddy: And Popcak is friends with Scott Hahn! And Scott Hahn has written bizarre stuff comparing the Trinity with the family. Can you believe that! I don't recall reading that in the Decrees of the Council of Trent (Family Edition [TM]).

RadTraddy-Daddy: Sounds like Heresy to me! You know [whispers], Scott Hahn is still secretly a Protestant... Do you see the connection?

RadTraddy-Laddy: Yeah! Pretty sinister stuff...

Mark Shea: That's crazy! I know Greg Popcak, and his family...

Happy-Zappy: Oh, right, you knnoowww Greg. Is that somehow supposed to make up for his weirdness and perversity? Let's wait and see how his great-grandchildren turn out before we credit him with being a good husband and father.

NotTraddyEnough: I'm not really comfortable telling teens about all that NFP stuff, charting and temperatures and whatnot...

RadTraddy-Daddy: Well, of course not. If they start thinking about their sister's menstrual cycle or cervical mucus they'll want to have sex! Besides, we know that it's best to tell kids about sex after they've graduated from High School.

Fr. Rob: Mark, just ignore these Freeper RadTrad kooks. There are only 9 people involved in this "discussion". I used to pay attention, but then I realized I was reading the ravings of the same small group of nutjobs.

RadTraddy-Laddy: Ha! Got you, Fr. Rob! There are 10 people in this Freeper thread. [sticking his tongue out] So there! Besides, you're just a Novus Ordo priest (and therefore a dupe of Karol Wojtyla) so we don't have to listen to you!

Mark Shea: Sure, Happy. Why bother to find out what Greg actually said before condemning him?

Happy-Zappy: Mark, do you feed and clothe your children or do you send them out to panhandle and wander the streets, and find what food they can in dumpsters? Will you have your children chart each other?

Ichabod Bayer: Once we have a Catholic Monarch, we won't have to worry about this NFP nonsense anymore! Okay, just kidding. But seriously, did Greg actually advocate brothers and sisters helping each other chart? That sounds kinda icky.

TraddyBard: Dead skunk in the middle of the road

Dead skunk in the middle of the road.

You got yer dead skunk in the middle of the road,

Stinkin' to high Heaven!

BigGunnTraddy: Hey, don't you make fun of Catholic Monarchy! Look at the wonders it's done for Monaco and Lichtenstein. Just you wait till we stage our coup and establish the Duke of Orleans here as King!

GwynnDiesel: Look, these RadTrads just can't deal with any of the mystic imagery in Church Tradition. I mean, in the Middle Ages the Virgin Mary was sometimes depicted barebreasted, nursing the Lord.

RadTraddy-Daddy: Don't you eroticize the Blessed Mother! She didn't have breasts. The Lord was nursed by a bird which gave him to drink milk from a Blessed Coconut. I read about it in the visions of Grunhilde of Thuringia. I have a deep devotion to the Holy Coconut of Nazareth.

RadTraddy-Laddy: Speaking of breasts, you know, when Karol Wojtyla (the erstwhile "Pope" John Paul II) visited Papua, New Guinea, he actually received a native woman there in native garb, bare-breasted! That proves that the Theology of the Body is evil!

RadTraddy-Daddy: And she wasn't wearing a mantilla, either... Modernist!

RadTraddy-Laddy: Heretic! [whispers] Do you see the connection?

RadTraddy-Daddy: Wow! It's worse than I thought.

NonTraddyMommy: In my experience as a parent, I've found it's really important to be open with your kids about sex, so that they learn the true Catholic understanding of it before they hear the world's corrupted version...

RadTraddy-Daddy: Some subjects are better not discussed. The next thing you know, you'll be talking like that pervert Popcak who says we should teach kids that sex is something good and pleasurable and holy.

RadTraddy-Laddy: God Save Us! We all know that all that nonsense about the "unitive" dimension of sex is just giving license to lasciviousness. It's really only holy to want sex when you intend to conceive a child. And even then you should close your eyes and try not to enjoy it too much.

Maddy-Traddy: I always insist that the room be pitch-black and that we be under the covers, so as to preserve modesty.

RadTraddys: A virtuous Catholic woman!

Fr. Rob: Happy, why couldn't you just ask Greg to clarify himself before passing judgment?

Happy-Zappy: Once someone has written something, his statement is what it is. A person always writes exactly what he intends to convey and I am always able to discern fully what he meant. Therefore further conversation is pointless. If you don't want me to pass judgment on your thoughts, then keep them to yourself.

Mark Shea: Will you people please READ what Greg wrote? Look, Greg didn't advocate that brothers chart their sister's cycles, he simply described that some NFP families taught their kids how to do it, and that some families objected to that on the basis of modesty.

Happy-Zappy: Well, then it might not be so bad. But I'm still suspicious. That Popcak is a slippery character.

Maddy-Traddy: All those NFP people are slippery. I'll bet the mucus has something to do with it.

RomanticTrad: Doesn't all that charting and mucus-checking seem unnatural? I mean, how is that stuff a prelude to sex? I prefer romance.

RadTraddy-Laddy: Romance is OK, as long as proper decorum is observed. I've even been known, when in an amorous mood, to dance the minuet or gavotte with my wife.

Happy-Zappy: I've been re-reading Popcak, and he doesn't unequivocally condemn charting between siblings. He must be tacitly endorsing it, then! It is an unfailing rule of logic that whatever you do not completely condemn is at least partially approved. So Popcak really is advocating sexual experimenting on kids!

RadTraddys: You finally have seen the light! We've been saying all along that Popcak is a sicko, and so is his friend Shea.

RadTraddy-Daddy: They're doing it under the banner of JP II's Theology of the Body! And JPII wouldn't do anything about the pedophiles. Do you see the connection?

Rad Traddy-Laddy: Wow! It's worse than I thought. You know who we need here now? Joe D'Hippolito! He'd see how it all fits together!

Cauldron Pyre: And what's all this sunshine-and-lollipops Popcak and Shea are spreading about joy and happiness and love? Doesn't he know that our scowls, frowns, and sour-faced grim looks are just as pleasing to God as smiles and light-heartedness?

ShellyJelly: Could someone explain to me why it would actually be morally wrong for a brother to help his sister with charting?

RadTraddys: Feuh! How dare you try to force us to make an argument! We have expressed our repulsion at such behavior, because it is ICKY. We have condemned such goings-on as WEIRD. There is no provision for anything like it in the Catechism of Trent or in the writings of Marian Horvat, Ph.D (Peace Be On Her!). Our disapprobation is sufficient moral censure. To the Outer Darkness with Popcak, Shea, Johansen, and all the other Neo-Catholic stooges of the false Vatican II regime! Anathemata sint! Damnatae memoriae eorum sint!

Homily for the 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time

Gospel: John 6:51-58


Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life...

In the New York Times a few days ago, an editorial appeared in which the writer dismissed several beliefs that Catholics and other Christians hold as "pious legends". Among the beliefs that he ridiculed were things like the Virgin Birth of Our Lord, and the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven, which we celebrated just this Friday. He said that the Church needs to jettison these pious legends because they're not reasonable; that no modern, up to date person can believe in such things...

No doubt, if the author of that New York Times editorial had been around at the time, he would have been among the crowd who said "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" I'm sure he would dismiss our belief that Our Lord is present really, substantially, under the appearance of bread and wine, as "insufficiently intellectual." I imagine he might analyze our belief in what Jesus did at the last supper as a "myth", something we enlightened moderns no longer "need" to believe in.

But the problem is that it is Our Lord Himself who utters these words: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. If you reject these words of Jesus, on what basis can you accept others? Why would you take Jesus at His word when He says "Love one another, as I have loved you", and not believe Him when He says "the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world"? Because what Jesus says fits in with your own opinions in one instance, and doesn't fit with your opinions in the other? That's hardly very "reasonable", or "intellectual". It's really not even honest.

No, Our Lord meant what He said. He meant it when He said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He meant it when He said, "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit." And He meant it when He said "take and eat, this is My body," and "take this and drink from it, this is the cup of My blood." He meant it because the same life that He gave for us on Calvary is the life He wants to give to us in the Eucharist.

Jesus said "I came that you might have life, and have it in abundance." Well, the only true source of life, the only One who has life in and of Himself is God. For us to have abundant life, eternal life, we must have God's own life. And Jesus, God-become-man, has that divine life. The flesh that He subjected to the cross carried God's own life. The blood that he shed on Calvary coursed through His veins with God's own life. It is God's life, living in the flesh of Christ, that He gave for the life of the world.

So when Jesus says, "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life", He is not talking in a metaphor; He is not using a figure of speech. He means what he says, and what He is saying is that by partaking of His body and blood we partake of the Divine life, the life of God Himself. We no longer live our natural lives, we live a supernatural, eternal life, because we have partaken of the life of God Himself.

Jesus said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in Me and I in him." Again, this is not a figure of speech. God desires to reunite ourselves to Him, to restore communion between Himself and us. So Our Lord gives himself to us as food and drink: food and drink that contains Himself in all completeness: His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Just as He gave Himself for us completely on Calvary, He gives himself to us completely, every time we receive from this altar. And in giving himself to us completely, He intimately unites Himself to us: Body to body, Blood to blood, Soul to soul, Divinity to humanity. He becomes closer to us than we are to ourselves.

Jesus meant what He said. He meant it when He said "I am the living bread that came down from Heaven." He meant it when He said "the one who feeds on Me will have life because of Me." He offers us life, His life, the superabundant life of God. By eating the Bread He gives us, we will live no longer our own lives, but His life, and so we will live forever.

A Nice Little Blog on Our Lady's Assumption

Today we celebrate the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven. Why was she granted the singular privilege of being taken up into heaven, body and soul? Well, I couldn't do much better than the Preface for today's Mass puts it:

Today the virgin Mother of God was taken up into heaven
to be the beginning and pattern of the Church in its perfection,
and a sign of hope and comfort
for your people on their pilgrim way.
You would not allow decay to touch her body,
for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of all life,
in the glory of the incarnation.

Mary is who she is because of and for the sake of Christ and who He is. And the great dignity that is hers, and the privileges and graces she was granted, all flow from and are the result of the Incarnation. If you are to believe that God truly came among us as a real flesh-and-blood man, then the Virgin Birth, far from being a pious legend, is actually pretty much the only way the incarnation could happen. And if the God-Man born of a virgin be truly human, He had to get His human nature from the human nature of his mother (he couldn't get it from anyplace else). But that human nature had to be spotless and pure, without taint of sin. Thus you have Mary's Immaculate Conception. And given that this woman, the mother of God-made-man, is all holy and spotless, and lived her whole life as one great fiat, it would only be fitting that God, who granted her a human nature not subject to the corruption of sin, would not allow her to experience the consequence of sin's corruption, that is, the corruption of death.

The Church's belief and teaching about Mary is profoundly Incarnational, and follows quite rationally from that belief in God-made-man. To believe that Jesus was sent by God to save us and reject things like the Virgin Birth or the Assumption is to swallow a camel and strain at gnats.

I've Been Away On Vacation

Which is why I haven't posted anything for a while. I'm making my more-or-less annual trip to the East coast. I was in Philadelphia for a few days, and in New York last weekend, and now I'm in DC - Northern Virginia. I'll be returning home on Thursday. I'm enjoying myself, catching up with old friends.



Yesterday Was the Feast of St. John Vianney, The Cure of Ars

St. John Vianney is the Patron Saint of diocesan priests. He is also a special patron of mine, because his feast day is also the....


Anniversary of My Ordination!

Yes, as of yesterday I was ordained for two years. I am grateful to Our Lord for the great privilege he has given me by allowing me to share in his Priesthood. I was able to celebrate the day with visits to my good friends, Fr. Jim Gould and Fr. Paul de Ladurantaye. Fr. Gould was the Vocation Director for the Diocese of Arlington for many years, and frequently appears on EWTN. Fr. Gould was my Vesting Priest at my ordination. Fr. de Ladurantaye is the Director of Catechetics and Sacred Liturgy for the Diocese of Arlington. He was also my spritual director for several years while I was a graduate student at Catholic University. I credit both of these priests in large part for the fact that I am priest today.

The priesthood is a gift. It is given to us by God, but, He, as in so many other areas, allows us to cooperate with and be a part of His Providence. What you do or say today can have the effect of encouraging and guiding a young man to become a priest, or whatever his vocation happens to be. By your words and actions, you can cooperate with His will, and be a part of someone's holy Priesthood, or their holy Marriage, or whatever. In Christ we all have great spiritual power. Use It!

Pope Offering "Thought for The Day" to Cell Phone Users

Italian cell phone users (which seemed, in my last visit there, to be pretty much the whole population) have been able, since January, to receive a daily message of hope from the Pope.

The message is delivered daily to cell users whose phones have text-messaging capability.

According to the Vatican Information Service, the service is now being extended to Ireland as well:

The service in Ireland can be subscribed to by sending POPE ON as a text message to 53141. This will result in the Pope's daily thoughts being delivered at 12 noon to the subscriber on a daily basis.

In Ireland, the [messages] with Pope John Paul's "thought of the day," which are taken from his homilies, messages and other writings, is offered through all Irish cell phone operators.

The Irish service is the Vatican's first expansion into offering the Pope's daily message in English. There are plans to introduce service in Portuguese to Portugal and Brazil in the near future.

When will it come to the US, I wonder? It would be kind of cool to get a message from the Pope every day!

I'm Going To Be Scarce For The Next Day or Two...

As I have deadlines for a couple of articles I've committed to write (I'm actually past deadline on one of them...). And that's, of course, on top of my parish responsibilities, which are temporarily a little heavier as my pastor is on vacation.

But in the meantime, here are a couple of things for you to chew over...


Help a Future Seminarian

Steve Schultz, formerly of Catholic Light, has been accepted as a seminarian for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia. Congratulations, Steve, and may the good work God has begun in you find fulfillment!

He could use your prayers, as well as a little help in finding a good home for his cats. Not being a cat lover myself (I'm more of a dog person), I'm not really suitable to help in that respect. But maybe someone out there is looking for a little bundle of fur?


Chant!

I'm starting a Gregorian Chant schola here at my parish, and we had our first rehearsal last night. Eight people showed up, all eager to learn and give glory to God. So I taught them a little bit about reading chant notation: some of the basic notes (called neums) and basic chant rhythm. Then we started learning the Kyrie Orbis Factor (B), which is one of the more commonly sung settings. They did a pretty good job, and next week I'll teach them a little more, and hopefully we'll have a few more people join up along the way. My goal is to have them sing for the first time at some of the liturgies for the Feast of the Assumption, and so fittingly honor Our Lady. Next week I'll start teaching them the Communio from the Vigil Mass for the Assumption, Beata Viscera. Wish us luck and say a prayer for the success of our Schola!

New Auxiliary Bishops For Detroit

Today the Holy See announced the appointments of three new auxiliary bishops for the Archdiocese of Detroit. The three are Msgr. Walter A. Hurley, pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows Parish in Farmington, MI, Msgr. John M. Quinn, director of the Department of Education of the archdiocese, and Fr. Francis R. Reiss, pastor of St. Frances Cabrini Parish in Allen Park, MI.

Of the three, I know only Msgr. Quinn in any personal sense: He was the professor for my Trinity class at Sacred Heart Seminary. He was a good teacher: he obviously enjoyed teaching and had a deep grasp of theology and the Tradition. He also was highly regarded by many seminarians as a spiritual director.

Msgr. Hurley has been the Archdiocese of Detroit's "point man" in dealing with the priestly sexual abuse crisis. In that capacity he has come under some criticism for not being sufficiently pro-active or aggressive in rooting out pedophiles and other sexual predators from the ranks of the Detroit clergy.

UPDATE [7/07/03 10:20 PM] A well-placed source in the Archdiocese of Detroit has informed me that those aforementioned "criticisms" of Bishop-elect Hurley's handling of the sex-abuse cases in Detroit have been, at best, ill-informed. My source is irreproachable in orthodoxy and integrity, and is in a position to know whereof he speaks. According to my source, Hurley has acted with due prudence and justice in dealing with these cases, and always with respect for Church teaching and Canon law. I for one am glad to hear it.

I simply know nothing of Fr. Reiss.

Detroit has lost 4 auxiliary bishops in as many years to other sees: Bp. John Nienstedt to New Ulm, Minnesota, Bp. Bernard Harrington to Winona, Minnesota, Bp. Kevin Britt to Grand Rapids, and most recently, Bp. Allen Vigneron to Oakland, California. In the meantime it has only ordained two auxiliaries: Leonard Blair and Earl Boyea. Furthermore, Bp. Moses Anderson will be retiring shortly, and Bishop Gumbleton does not take an active part in the administration of the Archdiocese. So that would have left Detroit with only two active auxiliaries.

Whatever the backgrounds or "qualifications" of the bishops-elect may be, I think it is instructive to note their ages: Hurley is 66, Reiss is 63. Given that the mandatory retirement age of bishops is 75, it is unlikely that Hurley's or Reiss' appointments will be "stepping stones" to eventually becoming ordinaries of their own dioceses. In all likelihood, they will stay in Detroit. In my opinion, based stricly on their ages, the only one likely to eventually get his own see is Quinn, who is 58.

There has been some criticism, from quarters as exalted as Cardinal Ratzinger, of an incipient careerism in the hierarchy: part of the "bishop as CEO" mentality afflicting our bishops is the tendency to view the hierarchy as a sort of career stepladder: Msgr. Jones is appointed auxiliary bishop of Greater Podunk; if he does well, or at least doesn't screw up, in about 5 years he is made bishop of Littletown, and if he does well there or makes a name for himself in the USCCB, he gets made archbishop of Bigcity, and maybe even gets a red hat as well. This kind of "career path" encourages bishops to treat their sees as means to advance their own careers, and to make decisions with a view to how it will play, rather than what is best for the diocese. It does not encourage bishops to view their see as their sacred trust, or as the bride to whom they are joined, like Christ, in a nuptial relationship. It may be the case that one way to get around this temptation is to appoint priests as auxiliary bishops who are unlikely, by reason of age, to be "moved up."

Another way to combat careerism (and solve some other problems as well) would be to break up the big mega-archdioceses in this country into smaller dioceses. But that will have to be a subject for another post...

Several People Have Asked

That I post a follow-up to my post on Cohabitation and preparation for marriage. I'll try to do so in the next day or so.



More on Being Pro-Life and Politically Active

A friend of mine, who is also an occasional commentor on my blog, holds that Catholic Pro-life efforts, whenever they are conducted in the name of the Church, whether by priests or lay people, should always be scrupulously non-partisan. He believes that nothing is to be gained by identifying a politician's party affiliation when criticizing him/her for being pro-abort or supporting him/her for being pro-life.

He has reminded me, more than once, that there are plenty of pro-abortion Republicans, and they dishonestly benefit when all the opprobrium is heaped on Democrats for being the Abortion Party [TM]. And what he says is true: There are high-profile Republicans such as Christine Todd-Whitman, Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), and Sen. Susan Collins (ME) who are commited pro-aborts. And we Catholics should be just as critical of them, and work just as hard to oppose them, as we should against someone like Sen. John Kerry.

And so I am brought to remind you of a point I made before: That by saying that the Democrats have become the Party of Abortion [TM] or the Party of Sin[TM] I am not saying that Catholics can never vote for a Democrat or that the Republican Party is somehow anointed by God. There are Democrats out there who are pro-life, though their party seems to be working very hard to drive those people out or force them to knuckle under. And we should do everything we can to encourage and support Democrat pro-lifers, as that will be the only way to break the stranglehold that the pro-aborts currently have there.

But it seems to me that to point out the fact that the entire national Democratic party leadership is ardently pro-abortion, and that every single Democratic presidential candidate has vowed his/her support for abortion-on-demand, is not partisan. It seems to me to simply be an acknowledgment of reality. My friend thinks that politicians can and should be criticized and even "shamed" for their pro-abortion positions individually, but that all mention of party affiliation should be avoided when speaking and acting as Catholics, especially the clergy. But it seems to me almost absurd to observe such a distinction, when, in the current environment, that distinction is meaningless in any practical sense. It seems to me that to point out that the Democratic party is vehemently pro-abortion, and demands lockstep conformity on that issue from any politician who aspires to any high office, is not partisan. It is simply telling the truth.

I am aware of the temptation that my friend wishes to avoid: we cannot allow the Church to identify itself or it's mission with the agenda of any political party. The Republican Party is NOT the "Catholic" party. It so happens at present that Republicans tend to hold positions compatible with Catholic teaching on certain core issues, such as abortion, whereas Democrats do not. That was not always the case, and no doubt someday the situation will again be different. The Republicans were much more pro-abortion 25 years ago than they are today, and they may again become so. The Republicans have certainly not "delivered" for Catholics and other pro-lifers in anything like the way they should have, considering they have controlled the Oval Office for 20 of the last 30 years since Roe vs. Wade was decided. So I am not counseling that Catholics sell their souls to the Republicans. No political party will bring about the New Jerusalem.

But if, as the Holy Father has said, abortion is the pre-eminent moral issue of our time, then to ignore that an entire political party has been captured by the Culture of Death seems to me to be blind to the elephant before our eyes.

While So Many Catholics Are Arguing (again) About Harry Potter...

Some of us actually have real problems to deal with:

Like how to deal with lapsed, semi-Catholic, cohabitating couples, who either to please the parents or out of some vestigial traces of unformed faith, nonetheless want to get married in the Church.

Like many (if not most) priests, I am in the thick of wedding season. Lots of weddings, and lots of couples coming to me wanting to get married in the next year or so. For every couple who come to me wanting to really celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage, and want to make their wedding an expression of their faith, I'd say there are five who fit the above description. I am grateful for those "good" couples when they come along: without them to provide encouragement (and relief), things could get really discouraging.

While I was in the seminary, I would sometimes get together with priests and the subject of weddings would come up. I was initially shocked and a little scandalized at how priests would complain about weddings: they looked forward to impending weddings the way most people look forward to a root canal or a colonoscopy. Now that I am a priest I understand. And Catholic priests aren't the only ones who complain: Once I was visiting some friends on vacation, and at a cook-out I met an Anglican priestess who was my friends' colleague at the college at which they taught. Of course, we talked "shop" and discovered, that while we could agree on practically nothing theologically (though we were on safe ground with the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ), we were of almost one mind at our dismay and discouragement over weddings. She vituperated at some length on how the brides treated the wedding as a big show, how the grooms were almost disinterested, and how no one semed to appreciate the sacred covenant which the wedding is supposed to represent.

Now, aside from the horror stories of brides who want to re-shape the liturgy to fit their own "fashion show" fantasy of their wedding (it's supposed to be MY day, isn't it, one bride whined), and requests for bizarre, let alone merely inappropriate music, I have one specific issue I am trying to grapple with:

I'd say that approximately 50% of the couples that come to me wanting to get married are constructively cohabitating. That is, even if they in some sense maintain separate residences, they more-or-less live together a substantial part of the time. One dead giveaway is when I call the phone number given for one of the parties and I get an answering machine which says "Hi, Bill and Suzy aren't home right now..." Now, all of the couples I have dealt with thus far have been surprisingly candid about it: they genuinely don't see that there is a problem with cohabitation, much less pre-marital sex.

So how do I deal with them? How do I minister to them, re-evangelize them? Many of them, like most of our generation, have been woefully under-catechized. I recognized right away that I really have to start from scratch with many of these couples: they don't know their faith, they aren't practicing it. So, while I know that they really should separate and be chaste during their engagement, I know that's not the point at which to begin: I try to get them back to Mass, back to confession and the sacraments, to rekindle their faith. Only then do I bring up the issue of cohabitation and the need to separate. I give them material to read by good Catholic authors. I talk to them about the meaning of sex in the marriage covenant and I require them to attend an NFP introductory class. But it's an uphill battle: I can't make up, in 8-10 meetings over as many months, for little or no formation in their youth.

But there always comes the moment of truth: after I've talked to them about the sacramentality and covenant of marriage, and the sanctity of sex; after I've given them the articles and explained to them why cohabitation is bad preparation for marriage, etc, etc. After all of that, they have to decide. And so far, the decision has always been, "well, Father, we understand what you're saying, but we've decided we really can't/won't separate."

At that point, I feel as though I am at a loss. I know of some priests who simply refuse to perform the wedding if the couple won't separate. But they always make the issue of cohabitation the first thing addressed "out of the gate" and I think this is a mistake, for the reasons I explained above. This approach also seems to go beyond what the Church itself says, because Canon Law is quite clear and firm about Catholics having a right to marry in the Church. And I can't imagine it being fair to a couple to work with them for 4-6 months and then announce that since they won't separate I won't do the wedding.

So what to do? I'd be interested in hearing suggestions both from married Catholics and from any priests out there who have more experience in these things than I do. One concern I have is that I don't want to contribute to people entering invalid marriages. Given, as Canonist Extraordinaire Pete Vere pointed out last week, that the majority of people who seek annulments were in fact sexually active with their ex-spouses prior to marriage, I think this is a legitimate concern. I can say that, in my own experience in dealing with people seeking annulments, this is universally the case: literally every person I have talked to about seeking an annulment turned out to have been sexually involved with his/her former spouse prior to marriage. I find it hard to imagine that's a coincidence.

So, any pearls of wisdom out there?

The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity






An Offering to the Most Holy Trinity



We offer to You, Most Blessed Trinity, the merits of Jesus Christ in thanksgiving for the Most Precious Blood which He shed in the garden for us; and through those merits we beseech Your Divine Majesty for the remission of our sins. 

Our Father ... Hail Mary ... Glory Be...

We offer to You, Most Holy Trinity, the merits of Jesus Christ in thanksgiving for His Most Precious Death endured on the Cross in our behalf and through those merits we beseech Your Divine Majesty for the remission of the punishment due to our sins.

Our Father ... Hail Mary ... Glory Be... 

We offer to You, Most Blessed Trinity, the merits of Jesus Christ in profound gratitude for His Infinite Love in descending from Heaven to become Man and suffer and die for us upon the Cross; and by those merits we beseech Your Divine Majesty to bring our souls to the glory of Heaven.

Our Father ...Hail Mary ... Glory Be...