Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

March 2, 2013, 6:52 pm

≫ Next: WHY INDIAN CATHOLICS DO NOT WANT AN INDIAN POPE

February 04, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy

Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore

Dear Bishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

My wife and I have been attending the Sunday Eucharistic services in English regularly for about 15 years.

We have always been concerned by a few issues, but since the last few years, and more especially over the last few months, attending Sunday Mass prayerfully and reverently has become almost impossible for the few people like me who are more keenly aware of what is actually going on at Holy Mass vis-à-vis what is correct.

We have followed protocol and met with the parish priest, Fr. Kanickai Raj, all his assistants at one time or another, the other priests on the campus, visiting priests from St. Bede’s and Sathya Nilayam, deacons like Bro. Charles, etc., and voiced our concerns, with two responses. Fr. Kanickaraj, laughingly replies that the “people like it/want it” and the others dismissively suggest that I discuss my problem with the parish priest.

Some of the problems are not the fault of the celebrant but that of the lectors, choir, etc. but it is still the responsibility of the parish priest to ensure that the rubrics are strictly adhered to, and those who ignorantly do otherwise be educated correctly.

During the terms of the previous two Archbishops, it was never possible to get a response to my emails or an appointment with their Secretaries, though you may find that impossible to believe. The last attempt was made by us about three months ago. The Father Secretary said he would confirm an appointment for me with His Grace, but if he did call back, I did not receive his call.

Since we heard the good news of your appointment, we have waited with new hope, for you to settle down before we wrote to you. I will try and list as briefly as possible a few of the “problems” that we have observed.

1. The celebrant greets the assembly with “Good morning” after making the Sign of the Cross, and the people respond with “Good morning, Father.” One priest then adds “Welcome for [sic] this Holy Mass.”

2. The lectors unfailingly introduce the two readings thus, “The first reading”, and “The second reading”.

It is not required for them to do so.

3. The Responsorial Psalm is NEVER recited or sung. It is ALWAYS replaced by a hymn which has no connection whatsoever with the Psalm of the Sunday.

4. After each reading, the lector incorrectly says, “THIS IS the Word of the Lord”.

5. At the conclusion of the Second Reading, the lectors incorrectly say, “Please stand FOR THE [GOSPEL] ACCLAMATION”.

6. A common aberration is proclaiming the readings using the St. Pauls Sunday Liturgy leaflets. Last Sunday, at the 7:15 am Mass, a person read from the Lectionary, then carried it away to the choir section. The next reader brought it back, placed it on the altar and then read from the leaflet in her hands. The great majority of lectors display unfamiliarity with the Scripture passages, READ instead of PROCLAIMING the Word, have poor diction and accentuation, and one finds people in the congregation themselves reading from the leaflets instead of LISTENING to the Word that is being PROCLAIMED.

7. The priests who come from Sathya Nilayam use inclusive language in their greetings and during the prayers. One priests always addresses us as “My dear sisters and brothers” and God as “God, Our Father and Mother”.

8. Now and then, we have noted some priests departing from the rubrics and ad-libbing the prescribed prayers.

9. There is no time for silence [deep prayer] after we have received Jesus into our hearts at Holy Communion. Since the Masses are scheduled back to back with inherent vehicle parking problems, one cannot come early or stay late and pray. Till not long ago, the choir would start a second Communion hymn — almost as if it were their duty to keep us entertained — if it was observed that the minister and the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion were still engaged. Since of late, the second song has been replaced with a Prayer, which however again translates into no time given, not even two little minutes, for total silence in the Church after Communion.

10. Some of the hymns sung by the choir are not liturgically compatible, especially for Holy Communion. If carefully examined, the “theology” of others, like “Amazing Grace” for instance, is Protestant.

11. If one takes a seat in the nave near to or opposite of the choir, even a casual observer cannot fail to see the almost continuous consultation and smiles that are exchanged. This is disrespectful to God and to the other attendees, and can be very distracting to someone who appreciates what the Sacrifice of the Mass signifies.

12. You may find this again difficult to believe, but there have been many Sunday Masses when we have not seen the priest for much of the service. We used to occupy the second or third row in the nave of the church to the priest’s right side and found the elaborate flower arrangements completely obstructing our view of him.

13. From being silent observers at Holy Mass, as in my youth, the faithful have regressed so far as to imitating the celebrant. It took a long time to bring an end to the congregation’s joining in the final Doxology. Today, a majority of them lift their hands in the Orans position, of course with the best of intentions, which is the posture ordained for the celebrant alone. The priests are responsible for that inasmuch as they do not correct the faithful.

14. Applause during Holy Mass has become standard procedure. Obviously, it is always invited by the celebrant. The reasons vary from a priest’s birthday to an appreciation of someone [like, say, the choir]. Recently, applause has been a standard feature of EVERY Sunday Mass that we attended.

Things get worse, if that is possible.

15. The 9:30 am Mass has degenerated into a theater show. I have approached the person directly responsible for that, Deacon Charles, and met with hostility and rudeness. Characters dressed in costumes, role-playing accompanied by information over the microphone, etc. have been incorporated either with the homily or at the offertory procession. In addition to that, the celebrant unfailingly solicits applause from the faithful in appreciation of the Deacon and his helpers. One such show was put up by the Santhome Communications Centre people whom I found laughing and chatting outside the sacristy with the Deacon immediately after their role play and while Mass was still going on. At other Masses during the following weeks, two families per week have been inducted into the arrangements and they are applauded during every service.

16. At one Mass a few months ago, Fr. Jerry Rosario SJ was the celebrant. During the homily, he attempted to initiate a dialogue with the congregation failing which he left the altar and came right down the main aisle going up to people and asking them questions. I immediately went to Fr Kanickaraj and apprised him of what was going on, and that was when he asked me what was so wrong about that when the people “liked it” and “want it”.

There are several more liturgical issues that concern us but we would like to end that topic here.

Before we end, there are a couple of related matters that we would like to include.

One of them is people strolling in late, the same people on a regular basis. The four side doors are so placed that many in the Congregation can see the late-comers entering. One family of four which includes children in their twenties, lives nearby and owns a car has NEVER been on time for Mass. Last Sunday they seated themselves behind the priest near the high altar where all could see them take their place during the homily. There is a senior prayer group leader and his wife who also have NEVER been on time [up to 30 minutes late] for Mass, NOT EVEN ONCE in all the 15 years I have been here. I have eventually had to admonish both parties, but to no avail.

Lest I be construed as judging others or generalizing, I assure you that this is not so. As a trained Catholic apologist whose work has appeared in magazines and web sites in India and overseas, I am distressed by the liturgical ignorance of the faithful which is only sustained and enhanced by the deacons and priests who should be fraternally correcting them or teaching them what the Church says.

As parents and grandparents, we have inculcated in our progeny the Fear of the Lord and a love and fidelity to the Church and all Her teachings. The last range from the grave sinfulness of contraception to regular Confessions and from never being late for Mass to never receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. It is very difficult for us to answer their frequent questions as to why everybody else in our congregation appears to think and behave differently than us, and the priests have nothing to say at all about any of this.

To be fair, Fr. Kanickaraj is the only priest we have heard reminding people to make their Confessions. But, as to the accessibility of the priests — including Fr. Kanickai Raj — for confession, the less said by me the better. My family members will readily testify to the humiliation and difficulties that we have been put through and finally drive down to other parishes to find priests more disposed and available to us.

We repose our confidence in Your Grace who has no local affiliations and who, we believe, Rome has selected as our Archbishop confident that with your background as Nuncio in other countries you have the experience, the will and the pastoral heart to effect the transformation that our Archdiocese so badly needs in various areas, only one of which we have addressed in this letter to you.

Praying for you to be greatly blessed by our God to usher in a new Spirit-filled era in our Archdiocese,

We remain,

Yours obediently,

Sd. /-

Michael and Angela Prabhu

Printed without the masthead and mailed by Registered Post [RT118538795], Acknowledgement Due, on Feb. 5, 2013

The letter was delivered to the office at the Archbishop’s House on February 6, 2013 as per the postal receipt.

↧

WHY INDIAN CATHOLICS DO NOT WANT AN INDIAN POPE

March 3, 2013, 6:53 am

≫ Next: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

≪ Previous: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

FEBRUARY 28, 2013

Why Indian Catholics do not want an Indian Pope

One momentous day in March 2013, Indian Catholics reach for their newspapers or turn on their TVs to learn what the whole world, the Church as well as her enemies, has been eagerly waiting to hear, the results of the decisive ballot cast by 115 Cardinal electors to elect the new Vicar of Rome as indicated by the white smoke that emanated a few hours earlier from a Vatican chimney that had been the focus of global attention for a few days. The news had already gone viral on the Internet by email and on social networking sites even before the final wisp of white smoke had dissipated in the Roman winter air, and editors of Catholic media, both progressive as well as conservative, secular talk shows and tabloids and rags, were feverishly putting the finishing touches to their already drafted outlines of their takes on the future direction of the single most influential organization in the world, the Church of Rome. For several weeks, speculation had been rife, and now they all knew, after hearing the Latin announcement made to the teeming crowds in St. Peter’s Square:

Shortly thereafter, after the traditional bells of St. Peter’s had oddly gone silent, the new Pontiff appeared on a balcony in the Vatican to give his first message to the world.

“Pontiff” is a title more acceptable than “Pope” to the land that has given the Church her first Indian Pope. The Shankaracharyas of the five Hindu mutts are often called “pontiffs” by the media.

The new Pontiff’s entrée was heralded by the beating of dholaks to the accompaniment of flutes, the blowing of conches, and the distinctive, tinny sound of the small bells common to temple circumambulation.

His right hand was raised in the upadesa mudra, conveying a guru imparting what he has himself gained through yogic meditation – “enlightenment”; the other held a trident, the trishul of the deity Shiva, instead of the customary crozier or bent pastoral staff styled after a shepherd’s crook or the one topped by a crucifix. Suspended from the new Pontiff’s extended right hand was a rudraksha mala, worn by holy men, the Hindu equivalent of the rosary, the rudraksh beads signifying the tears of Shiva. Another Hindu sacred symbol, the ubiquitous “OM”, adorned the papal mitre. His forehead marked horizontally with a three-stripe mixture of turmeric or saffron and sandalwood paste and a circular red tilak or bindi, he positioned himself as the truly inculturated catholic Satguru who accepts that religions are but different paths to the divine.

Clad in ochre robes, the sacred colour of Hinduism, his fascia or stole decorated with swastika motifs, again a Hindu symbol, he spoke fluently in Sanskrit, the holy language of Hindu priests, in deference to the majority religion of his native land and in the spirit of accommodation and interfaith dialogue.

To be seen as even more inclusive, he used a few sentences of Arabic, the language of the Koran, and Urdu, understood by many of the India’s Muslims. His discourse — which sounded suspiciously like Obama-care spiel — engaged on the need for an urgent review of the Church’s 2,000-year-old stand on some thorny moral issues [the new Pontiff referred to them as "public health programs"] that did not jell with twenty-first century secularism and with the aspirations of progressives and liberals within the Church.

His delivery commenced and concluded with the invocation “Om, Shanti, Om”, with a couple of “Allahoakbar”s thrown in for good measure when thanking the Supreme Being and his former fellow-Cardinals for the favorable voting that led to the triumph of the progressives and modernists over the conservatives and orthodox who had hopelessly clung to traditional mores and held to outdated ideas of sin. The Church had after all to be in sync with the changing times, he explained.

Of course, a lot remained to be done in the Vatican and worldwide, India itself having already largely been attended to since the famous April 25, 1969, “12 Points of Adaptation” were cleared by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini; in fact so much needed to be changed — and quick — that a Vatican Council was deemed necessary.

To ensure that such sweeping reforms in the Church would be approved at Vatican Council III, a number of red hats from Asia who would concur with the mind of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India which wields considerable influence with the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, needed to be appointed.

After all there were still many Benedict XVI loyalists like Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith Patabendige of Sri Lanka who abhorred the very thought of a progressive, inclusive, syncretised Catholicism.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, there were more immediate concerns. The confederates of the new Pontiff had informally convened to secure the safety of the nascent New Church Order. Only, this time around it would not have to be surreptitious and sneak out of theologates and convents with the help of sympathetic bishops; it would instead be officially sanctioned by the Pontiff and his coterie of red hats already in place.

The inaugural Mass, which would be televised worldwide, must herald the new trends in the Church.

The Sacred Liturgy would have to be given a makeover. Indo-Asian liturgists and theologians had to be short-listed and rushed to Rome. Latin, Gregorian chant and the pipe organ had to give way to Carnatic music and Indian musical instruments that supported it and the bhajans that would be sung, OMs and all.

Experts in the squatting Mass, arati and bharatanatyam dancing for the liturgy would have to be consulted.

Suitable sacred scriptures of other major world religions would have to be selected, and it would be a good idea if they could be proclaimed by priests of the respective faiths at the new Pontiff’s inaugural Mass.

Ad-libbing and improvising on the rubrics would not pose a problem since clerics had being doing it with increasing expertise and daring for decades. So, too, the citing of other religious texts during the homily.

A few women theologians and feminists might have to be accommodated at the altar as a prelude to their being ordained deacons, priests and bishops. Poor things had been discriminated against enough for years.

With that issue sensibly dealt with, it would be pointless to discriminate against other minorities by excluding gays from the priesthood and banning same-sex marriages, or by insisting on priestly celibacy.

If the “shortage of priests” problem was not solved by the ordination of women, there was always the possibility of recognizing that, after all, the community may be perceived as a priesthood of believers who become co-celebrants at Holy Mass, having the authority and power to transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Self-intinction and intercommunion would then no longer be abuses.

True, it would not be easy street, but with fresh intellectual talent infused into the Church worldwide by reinstating banned and excommunicated liberal theologians, restoring honour to those till now regarded as dissenters [formerly a euphemism for heretics] and appointing as bishops, presidents of Pontifical Councils, and prefects of the Congregations of the Holy See those who would be positively disposed to ushering in a New Order in the Church, the convening of Vatican Council III would guarantee the rest.

A modified Pope-mobile would be called a rath, and the Pope’s pastoral journeys called yatras.

Traditional Church architecture had to be carefully re-examined. The CBCI’S NBCLC temple in Bangalore was a pioneering work whose approval by the Indian bishops had to be emulated globally.

Embarrassingly exclusivist Catholic representations, especially in and on church buildings, would have to go in order to showcase the new aggiornamento leading up to and extending beyond Vatican Council III.

Icons of Hindu and other pagan deities presented to the Popes over the centuries and reposed in the Vatican museum would have to be moved into view in all Roman basilicas, including St. Peter’s.

The kalasam [pot in which the temple deity resides], already adorning the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India’s NBCLC temple in Bangalore, could authentically replace the cross on top of some Vatican churches.

Wax candles must definitely be replaced by the tall oil-fired OM-topped kuthuvilakku [Tamil] also called nilavilakku [Malayalam], and smaller Indian-style oil lamps.

The lingam and yantras could be incorporated as per experiments already successfully conducted in India.

Liturgical vestments had to be redesigned to blend in with the new environment; an important inclusion would be the angavastram or shawl. Turbans and pagdis, if found practical, could replace the medieval skull-caps. Indian Jesuits and the gurus of Indian Catholic ashrams would be the experts to be consulted considering their decades of experience in blending in inconspicuously with the people.

A dhvaja sthambam made of five metals would be erected in St. Peter’s Square to fly the papal flag [which of course, along with the papal coat of arms, needed radical changes to its authoritarian symbolism].

The new Pontiff’s solid gold pectoral cross and “Fisherman’s Ring” would have to be replaced by panchalogam or panchaloha which,
in the superstitious Hindu tradition,
consists of five metals combined in specifically laid down proportions and circumstances as prescribed in the Sastras and which he would have to commence wearing on an auspicious day. Five-metal Nataraja icons could be sourced from Indian priests.

Traditionally Catholic stained glass work in churches would be replaced by contemporary modern art forms juxtaposed with iconography from other religions till only recently regarded as pagan; Hinduism would be a leading source considering the unmatched expertise of Indian Catholic clerics in that field. After all, many priests and even a bishop or two had completed their doctoral theses on Hindu saints, finding them as imitable as canonized saints of the Catholic Church and citing their teachings at every opportunity.

In the true spirit of ecumenism, preachers of other Christian denominations and self-proclaimed mystics — Vassula Ryden of the Greek Orthodox church, for example, already popular with two Cardinals and several bishops — would be encouraged to promote their teachings among Catholics. Naturally, the 1995 CDF Notification on her must be revoked. An Indian bishop had already pronounced her automatic handwriting as genuinely from God when he had given her books the Nihil Obstat in 2005 and the Cardinals who had endorsed her activities in their archdioceses on several occasions had understood years ago that the Vatican was wrong in declaring the opposite.

The possibility would have to be examined of constituting a new dicastery to regularise and promote the Catholic Ashrams movement which presently operates through the National Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Centre [NBCLC] which is under the auspices of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India.

That these ashrams are considered by a few orthodox Catholics to be hotbeds of heresy and New Age and from where there are strident calls for an autonomous Indian church, and where the Holy Mass is already replaced by a parody of it, would no longer be an issue once Catholics were taught by Rome that the Church must no longer stick out like a sore thumb but instead be fully absorbed into the local culture so as to be indistinguishable as a unique faith. The main barrier to total integration into the national ethos, according to some Indian theologians, is the Eucharist. As some ashram leaders have succinctly explained, people of other faiths feel alienated because they are excluded from receiving Communion and the solution to that impasse is to have people “meditate” together. In anticipation, Catholic ashrams routinely give Communion to the public regardless of their religion, convictions or dispositions at their squatting Masses.

The practice of meditation is so inclusive; it is so non-confrontational and so acceptable to all.

That ashram meditation is nothing else but the Hindu discipline of yoga only proves that the Church, in the spirit of openness of Vatican II, is quite capable of integrating into her spirituality the good that she sees in other religions. Thumbs down to the unenlightened Catholic minority that holds that yoga is a Hindu spiritual exercise. Popularising yoga, pranayama and surya namaskar in the universal Church would not a walkover as a large number of Indian priests, bishops and Cardinals, are seasoned yoga enthusiasts.

With declining vocations around the world and the increasing export of Indian religious and priests to meet the ever-growing demands, the Indophile lobby is assured of success in the promotion of their Hinduised spirituality. Roving liturgical teams from the NBCLC, Bangalore, Bharatanatyam dance troupes from Kalai Kaveri, Trichy, and itinerant priests schooled in yogic spirituality have already introduced parishes and schools across Australia, Canada, Europe and the U.S. to the nuances of the Indian Rite Mass with arati, use of Hindu scriptures, OM chanting and dancing in the sanctuary, and their books on yogic meditation.

THE BACKGROUND, AND THE FUTURE

Pope Benedict XVI, 85, announced his abdication of the papacy, due to frailty of mind and body that has come with age, today, February 11, 2013. The conclave to elect his successor will take place in Rome sometime next month. It is expected that 115 Cardinal electors
will enter the conclave to decide on which one of them will be Pope number 267. 50 of them were created by John Paul II and 67 by Benedict XVI.

India presently has seven living Cardinals, five of whom are eligible to vote, their being below the age of 80 at the time of the electoral process.

-Simon Cardinal Pimenta, 92, [born March 1, 1920] is the emeritus Archbishop of Bombay.

-Simon Cardinal Lourdusamy, 89, [born February 5, 1924] is the prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

-Ivan Cardinal Dias, 76, [born April 14, 1936] is the prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.

-Telesphore Cardinal Toppo, 73, [born October 15, 1939] is the Archbishop of Ranchi.

-Oswald Cardinal Gracias, 68, [born December 24, 1944] is the Archbishop of Bombay, the re-elected president of the Indian bishops’ conference [CBCI], president of the Latin-rite CCBI, Secretary General of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences [FABC] and Member of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

-George Cardinal Alencherry, 67, [born April 19, 1945] is the Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly [Syro-Malabar], Member, CBCI Special Commission for Evangelization, Member, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Member, Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

-Baselios Cleemis Cardinal Thottunkal, 53, [born June 15, 1959] is the Major Archbishop of Trivandrum [Syro-Malankara],

President, Syro-Malankara Bishops’ Synod, the re-elected vice president of the Indian bishops’ conference [CBCI], Member, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Member, Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Those elevated to Cardinal after 2005, that is by Pope Benedict XVI, are Oswald Cardinal Gracias [November 24, 2007], George Cardinal Alencherry [February 18, 2012], and Baselios Cleemis Cardinal Thottunkal [November 24, 2012].

The chilling scenario painted by me on pages 1-3 is a hypothetical one; that is, it is purely imaginary.

An Indian is certainly not going to be the next Pope and — the way things presently are — not for a long time hence; and that’s because we are discussing the governance of the Catholic Church concerning which Jesus Christ has promised the gates of hell would not prevail [Matthew 16:18].

Now, it’s not as if all of the five Indian Cardinal electors are from the exact same mould. One Cardinal may be an ardent promoter of non-Catholic mystic Vassula Ryden and her false brand of ecumenism, while another may be turning a blind eye to widespread corruption among priests, institutionalised New Age and the women priests movement in his archdiocese. But, all of them stand equally guilty of either overtly endorsing or turning a blind eye to the rampant Hinduisation of the Indian Church, the heretical anti-Rome Catholic Ashrams movement, the desacralization of the Liturgy of the Mass with all its accompanying aberrations, the proliferation of liberal and dissenting theologians, the deterioration of orthodoxy in the seminaries, the establishment and growth of New Age meditation and holistic health centres by religious orders, the sustained campaign in Catholic media for ordaining women priests, and so on.

So, if the scenario that I painted around a possible Indian Pontiff is purely conjectural, let not any Catholic reader relax and breathe easy, because it’s the gut reality of the tragic situation that confronts most faithful Catholics in the Indian Church on a daily basis, and why should it concern Rome and Catholics worldwide any less if it is only Indian Catholics who have to endure this slow poisoning and not the universal Church?

If any one local church of the universal Church, which is the Body of Christ is contaminated, the entire Church is contaminated [Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12: 25, 26].

A number of seminarians correspond with this ministry and we learn from them that the situation in seminaries is critical, with a majority of their professors dissenting from Church teaching.

The writings of these theologians are published in Catholic periodicals which are read by bishops who do nothing about them. In 2008, these same theologians brought out commentaries on all the books of the New Community Bible that Catholics found to be both heretical and New Age, yet two bishops provided the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. This is the very same Bible that accompanies the Bombay Cardinal in his car.

The St. Pauls Society’s bookshops sell a wide range of occult and New Age books, many of them brought out by their own publishing arm, “Better Yourself Books”. It is the same at all other bookshops and stores run by other religious congregations.

The responses, if any, to our letters to the bishops are non-committal. Some bishops do acknowledge our letters, usually reassuring us that they would look into the issues reported by us, but it ends there.

Most bishops simply do not acknowledge letters sent to them by this ministry. The bishops of four dioceses [Baruipur, Gulbarga, Lucknow and Warangal] have actually gone to the extent of blocking emails from this ministry. The archbishops of Agra, Bangalore, Calcutta, and Madras-Mylapore, to name just four, have the distinction of never ever having replied to even a single letter sent by us. Obviously I would not be wasting my time, energy and money writing to them repeatedly if I did not have very serious reason for doing so.

It must be noted that bishops only reply if they are safely and far removed from the problem reported.

Bishops exercise control over who speaks what in their dioceses. While this is apparently a good thing, the truth is exactly the opposite. The late Fr. Rufus Pereira, exorcist, confided in me that though a 2004 seminar conducted by him and Fr. Larry Hogan, chief exorcist of the archdiocese of Vienna was originally meant to be called a Seminar for Deliverance and Exorcism, he could obtain clearance to conduct it only if it were titled “Seminar for Healing and Deliverance”. Someone close to an apologist from the U.S. who delivered a series of Catholic apologetics seminars in India over the last few years informed me that, after the first time he spoke boldly and prophetically that one could not truthfully teach apologetics if one does not simultaneously speak against the dangers of a wrong ecumenism and a wrong interfaith dialogue, he was discreetly advised to stay away from those topics on his next trip to India.

He had been in correspondence with me, admitting that true and total apologetics must include addressing the dangers posed to Catholics by New Age and by errors in inculturation, interreligious dialogue and ecumenism, and we had arranged to meet with each other during his second visit but he suddenly and mysteriously discontinued writing to me prior to his arrival here.

This was neither the first time nor the last time that such a thing has happened to me and with people who have enthusiastically corresponded with me. They end up muzzling the prophetic spirit and pleasing man.

On the other hand, pseudo-Catholics and closet Pentecostals roam around Catholic dioceses with impunity, supported by regional Catholic charismatic leaders, invited by parish priests and recognised by bishops who do not recognize them as the real threats to Catholic faith. After all, unlike with those who expose New Age or speak against false interfaith dialogue, etc., the bishops do not feel threatened; and that’s what matters!

Amazingly, one even finds major independent Catholic charismatic retreat centres, run by congregations of priests, indulging in liturgical error and holding to teaching that is not Catholic, when they should and easily could instead be fountains of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. One would imagine that their directors would be more responsive than the bishops if deviations and errors were pointed out to them. But our experience was that they have been defensive, dismissive and rude in their replies before terminating correspondence.

We have not fared any better in bringing to the notice of the episcopal advisor to the National Catholic Charismatic Renewal Services and the National Charismatic Office a number of errors in their monthly magazine and regular abuses in their Mass liturgies. Here again, in a charismatic environment, one would have expected to be safe from erroneous teaching and practice, but that has sadly not been the case.

It is not as if other Bishops’ Conferences around the world do not have bad apples in their midst. They do.

But unlike with India, there is a difference, a world of difference. My being an avid consumer of Catholic information and my being in contact with Catholic apologists and writers worldwide, I have observed that there is greater awareness of and critical writing about errant ecclesiastics elsewhere as compared to India.

With almost no exceptions, these writers are lay persons and they work independently of the hierarchy.

They have assumed the role of modern-day prophets to the Church and to the world. Their ministries are well organized and structured and they are supported by donations from lay Catholics and priests who appreciate their faithfully orthodox perspective. They occupy a niche that lies vacant due to the abdication of their responsibility by diocesan media and periodicals published by religious congregations. In fact, many of the latter have taken the popular road of liberalism and dissent which appears to be financially more lucrative with the increasing number of Catholics succumbing to the cultures of secularism and relativism.

Mother Angelica, the nun who founded EWTN, publicly criticised a number of U.S. bishops and Cardinals.

LifeSiteNews have regularly named and exposed those bishops and Cardinals who deviate from orthodoxy.

On February 14, LifeSiteNews wrote, “The Cardinal Mahony scandal that broke last week has shown how very entrenched the “filth” still is, and that those responsible have still not yet been fully accountable. The neglect was sickening. If the now revealed offences of actively protecting criminal sexual abusers of minors did not exceed the statute of limitations, we might today be seeing the archbishop of the largest diocese in the US up on criminal charges. Even secular media are appalled that Cardinal Mahony has made it a point to announce to the media that he is looking forward to going to Rome to vote for Benedict’s replacement.“

By subscribing to these ministries’ e-newsletters, Catholics are kept informed and alerted and educated.

In India, Catholic media criticism of errant clerics is virtually non-existent. Criticism as above is unthinkable.

Indian Catholic media instead heap lavish and slavish praise on and felicitate nuns, priests, bishops and Cardinals who are known to indulge in gross administrative and pastoral malpractices and other error.

And, when someone breaks established convention, he is quickly hauled back into line, and how!

In a February 7, 2013 report, I wrote, QUOTE (Archbishop of Delhi Anil Couto) ensured that the Chennai fortnightly, the New Leader [NL] publish a retraction in respect of a series of articles on corruption in Catholic institutions in the diocese of Jalandhar [authored by Delhi priest and his former colleague, canon lawyer Fr George Kureethra], immediately on his take-over of that diocese end February 2007 — ONE YEAR AFTER THE FACT. Now why do I believe Fr. George Kureethra’s side of the story?

The New Leader had originally published the story titled “Money, money, money!” only “after a careful consideration of the issues involved“. [NL, March 1-15, 2006]

In his Editorial, Fr. M.A. Joe Antony, S.J. had written:
Read the article on page 33.
It describes the sad, shocking experience of a senior priest who just wanted to help poor tribals working in Church-run educational institutions. If this could happen to a priest who has been the Delhi archdiocese’s chancellor, judicial vicar and a professor of canon law, you can imagine the plight of the poor.

See the New Leader Editor’s forced “apology” in the issue of July 16-31, 2007, page 29, and the Letter to the Editor, page 6 in the NL issue of August 16-31, 2007. END OF QUOTE

This is a rare example that came to light, of the stranglehold exercised by the bishops over Catholic media.

In India, this Catholic Internet fulltime ministry is unique. In a few months, we will complete a decade of prophetic writing on issues concerning the Church in India. Supported by a virtual team of lay persons and priests, we have survived rough patches and grown on logistical and moral support, prayer and unsolicited financial contributions from Catholics worldwide for which we are most grateful. What has been our impact?

We would rather avoid listing here our “achievements” as we consider it a matter of great regret that in order to “expose the works of darkness” [our motto, Ephesians 5:11] we have had to resort to naming fellow Catholics in the public domain [of course after following biblical protocol and exhausting other alternatives].

We have had our share of ill-informed but good-intentioned Catholics, mostly leaders in the charismatic renewal, who have exhorted us with the well-worn clichés about “judging others” and “touching the anointed of the Lord”. They ought to go back to Bible school and study more diligently this time around.

On January 1, 2013, this ministry released a report concerning the bishop of Allahabad. This report is unique in the sense that the matter that it reported did not appear in the national press or in the Catholic media. There was nothing to be found on the Internet either. On January 31, Vatican Information Service reported that Rome had called for the bishop’s immediate resignation from office at the relatively young age of 66.

Since the reason for the bishop’s removal by the Holy See is a raging scandal in the city of Allahabad and is now publicly known to all Indian bishops, is the deafening silence of the Catholic media a second example that I can proffer as the reticence of Catholic media to tell the whole story, and the bishops’ power over it?

About a year ago, I had a surprise visitor who said that he was from “Propaganda Fide”, Rome. He assured me that officials in Rome were reading my reports and encouraged me to persevere, adding that he and his associates concurred with me on everything that I write. We have not corresponded either before or since.

Earlier, a person who used an Indian name was in an exchange of letters with me from Rome, saying much the same things and claiming to be close to officials in the Vatican who were aware of my work, but he shied away from further correspondence with me when he discovered that I was trying to uncover his identity.

Two of four auxiliaries of the Bombay archdiocese submitted their resignations to the Pope as is customary on their attaining the ages of 75, and have not been replaced. Bishop Percival Fernandez went into retirement in January 2011, while Bishop Bosco Penha followed suit almost exactly a year later. This means that two bishops’ seats are lying vacant in Bombay since over two years and a year respectively. Can that be interpreted to mean that the Pope has not found a single good priest to fill even one of the vacancies?

A couple of years ago, there was a lot of media attention focused on the fast-approaching 75-age limit of the Salesian Archbishop of Guwahati, Thomas Menamparampil. If he were to be elevated as Cardinal, a first for the North-East, an area where the Church is growing fast, he would not have to retire. But Pope Benedict XVI did not think him suitable Cardinal material and retire he did, in January 2012.

Most Rev. Malayappan Chinnappa, the Salesian archbishop of Madras-Mylapore presented his resignation to the Pope and was retired in November 2012, four months after his 75^th birthday, the small extension being given probably because Rome had not found a suitable replacement from the local pool and as there was also no auxiliary to take temporary charge. The regime of archbishop Chinnappa has been one of the most morally and financially corrupt — and scandal-ridden — in recent times. A murder accused priest has been archbishop Chinnappa’s choice as Chancellor of the archdiocese despite his being arrested twice, once in full public view after he had just finished saying Mass. As recently as on December 4, 2012, a city court ordered the arrest of the archbishop himself in an unrelated financial case.

The new archbishop is Most Rev. George Antonysamy who served outside India, as Nuncio to several nations, with the rank of bishop since August 2005. Vincent D’Souza, owner-editor of the Mylapore Times, who has never been known to comment negatively on clerics, had this to say in the Jan.26-Feb.1 issue:

The new archbishop has a lot on his hands. The buzz is that Vatican took time to choose the candidate for what can be a very tough job. Many bodies give little credit to the tenure of Rev. Chinnappa, who rose from the ranks as a Dalit and was expected to lead well this metro-based church but has not done much that can be commended.

Currently this is a church where some priests are masters of themselves, management of church-run institutions has generated stink and controversies, church-owned properties have been badly managed and allegations of corruption and nepotism kept flying and legal cases created uncomfortable situations. It is also a church where communities are less involved… and where leadership has been weak. Also, the church has not been able to play its role in the metro… and was often seen as biased and opportunistic… Clearly Rev. Antonysamy has lots to do beyond his religious duties.

I could add a lot more to what Mr. D’Souza has said.

The pathetic state of the Madras-Mylapore archdiocese is surely not unique. Just as the corruption and scandals here [I live in Mylapore, a kilometer from the archbishop's house] are known only to the locals, the same is probably the case with many of the nation’s dioceses.

Despite being a diehard Catholic apologist, I have often wondered if Rome is doing her homework properly*, if the Pope is getting thoroughly-researched dossiers on those he is elevating and consecrating, and if decisions on bishops and cardinals are being made “in the Spirit” or “in the flesh”. If I look at some of the recent appointments as far as India is concerned, I shudder. To commit myself and name just one of them, I shudder to think that bishop Anil Couto of Jalandhar was made archbishop of Delhi on November 30, 2012.*

I know the archbishop from just after his sacerdotal ordination in 1981. He was later my assistant parish priest. He spoke little, never committed himself. He is a true diplomat, and maybe Rome thinks that Delhi needs a diplomat. I know his bishop predecessors as well as his confreres and contemporaries. At least one of them, till recently Vicar-General, was an honest and able administrator, an orthodox and holy man, one of my confessors. But he was certainly no diplomat and that probably went against his elevation as bishop.

One sees bishops- and Cardinals-elect who are proficient in languages or Canon Law, or specialists in interreligious dialogue or in ecumenism [as bishop Couto is; hence also his penchant for Mrs. Vassula Ryden], or because they are primarily dalits or tribals, but NOT because of their holiness, NOT because of their orthodoxy, NOT because they have pastoral hearts. The result is there for all to see.
*See earlier page

*Pope Benedict XVI lifted the 1988 excommunication on illicitly ordained Traditionalist bishop Richard Williamson in 2009. The Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] thereafter suspended Williamson because of his denial of the Holocaust and finally expelled from the Society. What should concern us is that Catholic commentators said that the Pope’s advisors failed to do a basic Google search on Williamson before Rome lifted the excommunication. If they had done their homework, the Pope would not have cut a sorry figure.

On February 11, 2013, Cardinal Fernando Filoni, the Pope’s special envoy, made a pastoral visit to the archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore. I had intended to attend the 4:00 pm special Mass at the National Shrine of St. Thomas but finally decided that I did not want to inflict punishment on myself, fully well knowing what I could expect to witness. I was later informed by friends that they “were sickened” by some elements of the so-called Indianised Mass that they were subjected to [and these are just ordinary Catholics who do not really understand the import and wider ramifications of what they experienced]. I have been compelled to avoid attending even a single special-event Mass since many years now because they present an opportunity for the maximum deployment of liturgical aberrations by the inculturators in the name of Indianisation.

Despite the overall grim scenario, Catholics may be reassured that the Holy See never sleeps. Rome may be slow, but she eventually does intervene. U.S. Catholics have been rejoicing at Rome’s recent choice of conservative Bishops to pastor their dioceses. The trend worldwide has largely been the same. The days of the Cardinal Mahonys were numbered during the reign of Benedict XVI and it is expected that his more energetic successor will build on that. He knew well that his frail health in conjunction with his advanced again limited his ability to respond and deal effectively with the crises confronting the Church from within.

He relinquished office for the good of the universal Church and we pray that, despite the Cardinal Mahonys among the Cardinal electors, the Holy Spirit will enable the election of the right Pope for our times.

This ministry has regularly received letters from a few good bishops who have been appalled at what they read in my reports. They apparently discuss the issues with other bishops but nothing ever changes. The final responsibility rests with those who wield influence, authority and power: the office bearers of the three episcopal bodies and of the different executive commissions, and finally, the Cardinals and the Nuncio.

In 1969, when a coterie of bishops under Simon Lourdusamy [then archbishop and chairman of the CBCI's Liturgy Commission] fraudulently got approval from Rome for the infamous “12 Points of Adaptation” of the Indian rite Mass, many faithful bishops knew what the outcome would be and opposed him, but to no avail.

Lourdusamy had already installed his brother Fr. D.S. Amalorpavadass as the head of the newly-founded NBCLC which would usher in an era in which the Church would be systematically Hinduised and desacralised.

While Lourdusamy is primarily responsible, so also are those Cardinals, heads of Church bodies and the Apostolic Nuncio who did not fight for justice and truth on behalf of the hapless faithful and under whose watches these events transpired.

Will we one day have an Indian Pope? We certainly hope and pray that we will. As I shared earlier in this report, around a dozen fine, young Indian seminarians are in contact with me, sharing with this ministry their concerns and their aspirations. A couple of them have been ordained during the last two or three years, and I have been privileged to attend their ordinations. If they weren’t orthodox and faithful to the Magisterium, they would avoid this ministry like the plague [as many do]. Some of these men are in Indian seminaries where they weather the heterodox theology that their professors attempt to teach them.

Others have wisely elected to study overseas, and that includes the two whose ordinations I attended.

These young men are excellent Pope material. We must realise that we tend to look at things from a human perspective. We must instead always configure the Holy Spirit into the scheme of things. Popes are priests who are ordinary people like you and me. They are sinners, and they have weaknesses and failings.

But, when they occupy the Chair of St. Peter and speak ex cathedra and act in the name of Jesus Christ, they are mystically transformed, and even the world is aware of that; hence the unprecedented awe that the head of the Catholic Church inspires in the media, in the most powerful heads of State, and even in her enemies.

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a theological consultant at Vatican Council II [1962-1965] as a peritus for Joseph Cardinal Frings of Cologne. In 2005, Zenit reported, “In a famous speech, Frings launched an attack on the Holy Office and the exchange between him and Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani is often described as the most passionate debate of the Council. It is thought that the young Ratzinger contributed ideas for Frings’ criticism… I don’t think, however, that the Council changed his views so much as his views shaped the Council.“
Just today, the BBC noted his amazing “journey from liberal to conservative”, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21425105]. With God, nothing is impossible.

On the preceding pages, I have made many statements that explain actual situations that exist in the Indian Church but I have given only a couple of examples to substantiate them. Substantiating every statement would have been a practical impossibility apart from affecting the continuity and attempted brevity of this report. However all information to support my statements is either available on request or may be accessed at other articles and reports on this ministry’s website. 49 selected links [click to open] are given below:

-ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE-LETTERS FROM THIS MINISTRY

-ARCHBISHOP OF DELHI SUPPORTS WOMEN’S ORDINATION

-ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS MYLAPORE-CORRUPTION CHARGES AGAINST THE

-ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS-MYLAPORE-LETTER 05-CONCERNING LITURGICAL ERRORS

-ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS MYLAPORE-MURDER ACCUSED IS CHANCELLOR

-BHARATANATYAM-I

-BHARATANATYAM AT HOLY MASS AT CATHEDRAL OF ST THOMAS IN MADRAS-MYLAPORE ARCHDIOCESE

-BINDI OR TILAK MARK ON THE FOREHEAD-INDIAN OR HINDU?

-BISHOP OF ALLAHABAD CONSECRATES AND INSTALLS PROTESTANT BISHOP

-CARDINAL IVAN DIAS LIGHTS A LAMP FOR THE HINDU DEITY GANESHA

-CATHOLIC ASHRAMS

-CHANTING OF MANTRAS

-DANCING AND BHARATANATYAM IN THE MASS

-DHARMA BHARATHI-NEW AGE IN CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

-FR JEGATH GASPAR RAJ-IN PRAISE OF SHIVA-PRIEST INVESTS RS 15 MILLION, FLOATS COMPANY WORTH RS 100 CRORES

-FR JOHN VALDARIS-NEW AGE CURES FOR CANCER

-FR JOE PEREIRA-KRIPA FOUNDATION-WORLD COMMUNITY FOR CHRISTIAN MEDITATION

-FR PRASHANT OLALEKAR-INTERPLAY AND LIFE POSITIVE

-FR RONNIE PRABHU-NEW AGE PRIEST

-FR VARGHESE ALENGADEN-UNIVERSAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT

-HINDU FLAG POLE AT CATHEDRAL OF ST THOMAS IN MADRAS-MYLAPORE ARCHDIOCESE

-HOMOEOPATHY INSTITUTIONALIZED IN THE INDIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

-INCULTURATION OF THE LITURGY AND SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM-JON ANDERSON-AND MY RESPONSE

-LOTUS AND THE CROSS-THE HINDUISATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN INDIA

-MANTRAS ‘OM’ OR ‘AUM’ AND THE GAYATRI MANTRA

-MOTHER TERESA AT PRAYER IN A BUDDHIST TEMPLE

-NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 02-THE PAPAL SEMINARY, PUNE, INDIAN THEOLOGIANS, AND THE CATHOLIC ASHRAMS

-NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 03-A FRENCH THEOLOGIAN DENOUNCES ERRORS IN THE COMMENTARIES

-NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 04-THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH

-NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 15-DEMAND FOR ORDINATION OF WOMEN PRIESTS-FR SUBHASH ANAND AND OTHERS

-PILAR SEMINARY, GOA-SYNCRETISM AND NEW AGE

-SANGAM INTEGRAL FORMATION AND SPIRITUALITY CENTRE, GOA-NEW AGE PSYCHOLOGY, ETC.

-THE GOLDEN SHEAF-A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES DEALING WITH ECCLESIASTICAL ABERRATIONS

-THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH-FR P K GEORGE

-THE SALESIANS, OSWALD CARDINAL GRACIAS AND NEW AGE PSYCHOLOGIST CARL ROGERS

-THE ST PIUS X SEMINARY CELEBRATES HINDU DEITY GANESH

-THE TWELVE POINTS OF ADAPTATION FOR THE INDIAN RITE MASS-WAS A FRAUD PERPETRATED ON INDIAN CATHOLICS?

-THEOLOGIANS LAMBAST THE VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE NEW AGE

-UCAN WANTS TO DO AWAY WITH THE PRIESTHOOD

-UCAN CONFIRMS IT FAVOURS WOMEN PRIESTS

-UCAN CONFIRMS IT FAVOURS WOMEN PRIESTS-02

-VASSULA RYDEN-PROBLEMS WITH ROME BUT WELCOME IN INDIA

-VIRGINIA SALDANHA-BISHOP FATHERS CHILD BY NUN

-VIRGINIA SALDANHA-ECCLESIA OF WOMEN IN ASIA AND CATHERINE OF SIENA VIRTUAL COLLEGE-FEMINIST THEOLOGY AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN PRIESTS

-VIRGINIA SALDANHA-WOMENPRIESTS INFILTRATES THE INDIAN CHURCH-CATHERINE OF SIENA VIRTUAL COLLEGE

-WOMEN PRIESTS-THE NCR-UCAN-EWA NEXUS

-YOGA IN THE DIOCESE OF MANGALORE

-YOGA, SURYANAMASKAR AT ST. PETER’S COLLEGE, AGRA

-YOGA, SURYANAMASKAR, GAYATRI MANTRA, PRANAYAMA TO BE MADE COMPULSORY IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

A pilot copy of the above article was published on our web site on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, February 22, 2013 at 10:00 pm after being vetted by a few priests and lay persons. Selected responses:

From:
PRIEST 1
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:23 PM

Subject: Re: FINAL DRAFT BEFORE RELEASE, FOR YOUR PERUSAL

Writing immediately in response to your earlier request. I do not know Latin as we never had Latin in the seminary, but of late they have introduced it in the seminary.

The article is well researched and based on solid facts at the same time the first portion on the Pope is not very absorbing and it would be good to curtail that part… For the rest, it voices a concern which has been very close to our heart. Trust Rome takes this up seriously and does not allow the Indian Church to drift into oblivion or perdition.

From:
PRIEST 2
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:06 AM

Subject: RE: FINAL DRAFT BEFORE RELEASE, FOR YOUR PERUSAL

I am extremely busy with Lenten work in my parish, but after reading your mail and clarification, I cannot just pass over your labor. Yes Michael, we could have an Indian Pope. It is only the Holy Sprit who knows the needs of God’s Church at a particular period of her history. Remember the elderly Pope who the world saw as a stop gap. The Spirit thought otherwise and he revolutionised the Catholic Church through Vatican II.

The present Holy Father Benedict has himself often mentioned his sorrow and disappointment because of church leaders who misrepresent and teach what is far from the magisterium of the church. The sad part is that their superiors do not have the moral and spiritual courage to tell them that they were wrong. When I was in the seminary**, there was a Jesuit who was teaching his own brand of theology and the then Cardinal either did not know or care. It was when Cardinal Ivan Dias became cardinal that he took him off the teaching staff. I am glad that there are people like you dedicated to correcting error. **Pius X College, Goregaon, Bombay archdiocese

From:
Derrick D’Costa
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:47 PM

Subject: Re: FINAL DRAFT BEFORE RELEASE, FOR YOUR PERUSAL

Dear Michael
Friday happens to be my off day and I only read your article today.
Due to the very shocking title I began reading it though. Was it possible that God could ever punish the people of God and abandon us to an Indian Pope in 2013? No, thankfully, your article was fictional and fortunately we have not surpassed yet the limit of Gods mercy. For do we not remember how Cardinal Oswald Gracias released the New Community Bible? How many Cardinals have visited temples? Even more correctly have you not mentioned Bharatnatyam, new age, Ryden, and many new innovations which are merely old heresies cloaked in the Indian hierarchy’s poor discernment and even poorer knowledge of the Catechism. In search of the ‘rays of truth’ in other religions, they scrupulously avoid the Fathers of the Church and the teachings of the Church which have the sole claim to the plenitude, the fullness, of truth.
Woe to us, if what you suggest comes to pass. The possibility itself is enough to chastise and frighten us and may it please our Loving God never to abandon us to this today. On more reflection, I was perhaps lacking in charity; there must be some in Israel who have not bowed their feet to Baal (1 Kings 19:18).

Later perhaps as you say may a good and holy Indian Cardinal be elevated, but not today by the mercy of God. Mumbai/Bahrain [Name used with permission]

From September 2000 to October 2006, Archbishop Oswald Gracias, now Archbishop of Bombay, and a Cardinal from November 2007, was the archbishop of Agra. Fr. John Ferreira is the principal of St. Peter’s College, Agra,
located adjacent to the Cathedral and Archbishop’s House, who compelled all staff and students to participate daily in the Hindu practices of Surya Namaskar-Pranayama-Yoga. See my report http://ephesians-511.net/docs/FR_JOHN_FERREIRA-YOGA_SURYANAMASKAR_AT_ST_PETERS_COLLEGE_AGRA.doc.

Fr. Ferreira even went to Rome, representing Agra Archdiocese at the archbishop’s elevation as Cardinal!

Cardinal Oswald Gracias promoted Fr. John Ferreira‘s yoga spirituality nation-wide when he endorsed Fr. Ferreira‘s book “Health, Wealth and Happiness through Yoga” in November 2012.

See my report CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS ENDORSES YOGA FOR CATHOLICS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CARDINAL_OSWALD_GRACIAS_ENDORSES_YOGA_FOR_CATHOLICS.doc

One must keep in mind that the same Cardinal Oswald Gracias is the President of both, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India [CBCI], as well as the Latin-rite Conference of Catholic Bishops of India [CCBI]. He is also the Secretary General of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences and member, Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. As such, his doctrinal stands are expected to be above reproach. But, the most powerful ecclesiastic in the Indian church endorses the Hindu spiritual practice of yoga.
More ominously, he is one of the five Indian cardinals eligible to vote in the coming conclave and therefore eligible also to become Pope, succeeding the conservative Benedict XVI.

In India, we can boast of numerous priests who propagate yoga, have done Master’s degrees in yoga and authored books on yoga, bishops and archbishops who have written doctoral theses on Hindu gurus and chant the “Om” mantra, a Cardinal who founded and died in a yoga ashram while another two Cardinals were responsible for the squatting Indian rite Mass and its Hinduised embellishments.

I closed my above-referred Agra yoga report saying, “Let us pray that the bishops of St. Peter’s, Agra, and others of their kind, never, ever occupy St. Peter’s, Rome!”

↧

Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

March 21, 2013, 7:11 am

≫ Next: Criticism of an article written by this ministry and of this writer by the “Fishwrap”, the National Catholic Reporter

≪ Previous: WHY INDIAN CATHOLICS DO NOT WANT AN INDIAN POPE

February 04, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy

Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore

Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

My wife and I have been attending the Sunday Eucharistic services in English regularly for about 15 years.

2. The lectors unfailingly introduce the two readings thus, “The first reading”, and “The second reading”.

It is not required for them to do so.

3. The Responsorial Psalm is NEVER recited or sung. It is ALWAYS replaced by a hymn which has no connection whatsoever with the Psalm of the Sunday.

4. After each reading, the lector incorrectly says, “THIS IS the Word of the Lord”.

5. At the conclusion of the Second Reading, the lectors incorrectly say, “Please stand FOR THE [GOSPEL] ACCLAMATION”.

8. Now and then, we have noted some priests departing from the rubrics and ad-libbing the prescribed prayers.

Things get worse, if that is possible.

There are several more liturgical issues that concern us but we would like to end that topic here.

Before we end, there are a couple of related matters that we would like to include.

Praying for you to be greatly blessed by our God to usher in a new Spirit-filled era in our Archdiocese,

We remain,

Yours obediently,

Sd. /-

Michael and Angela Prabhu

Printed without the masthead and mailed by Registered Post [RT118538795], Acknowledgement Due, on Feb. 5, 2013

The letter was delivered to the office at the Archbishop’s House on February 6, 2013 as per the postal receipt.

Reminder copy personally given by me to Fr. Kiran, the archbishop’s secretary, on 9.3.2013 was not accepted by him.

FOLLOW-UP

March 11, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy

Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore

Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT: 1. Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

SUBJECT: 2.
The Convenor of the “Forum for CATHOLIC Unity” is NOT a Catholic

On February 6, 2013, as per the Acknowledgement Due postal receipt, my first referred letter dated February 4 was delivered at the Archbishop’s House.

The second referred letter in the form of a report dated March 9, 2013, was delivered personally by me to Fr. Kiran, your secretary, at the Archbishop’s House on March 9, 2013*.

Since the communication sent by me to you regarding the liturgical errors and aberrations at Holy Mass on Sundays, the drama and theatrics have ceased, but my letter coincided with the hospitalisation (due to an accident) of the organiser, Deacon Charles. However the status quo of the other issues continues without any change.

In connection with my first letter, I must inform you that at 9:25 am on Sunday, March 10, I was accosted in the church by one Mr. Richard Xavier, a parishioner, who informed me that he had seen my letter to you and he would be sending me his response to it. To put it mildly, I was shocked. I wonder how many other parishioners have seen the letter even before I have received your response, considering that five weeks have elapsed since my letter reached you.

I do not want my letters to be subjective, or to be complaints against parishioners, but Mr. Richard Xavier is an individual that many would like to give a wide berth; I must say a few words about him because he exemplifies laity who like to serve the Church but have little or no formation — as I had stated in my earlier letter. He has an excellent singing voice but his proclamation of the readings is accentuated in all the wrong places and he cannot correctly pronounce many biblical terms.

He determinedly joins in prayers like the Lord’s Prayer, and in responses, but his loud voice always lags a second or two behind the congregation, creating discordance. He cannot be unconscious of that. His hands are always lifted high in the Orans position which is prescribed only for priests. He would obviously take personal objection to my letter to you.

Another example of discordance is when a prayer such as the one for the Year of Faith is prayed. The entire choir joins in.

Different people, led by two male voices with opposing accents use separate microphones, and with the cacophony of sounds that ensues, the prayer is entirely lost on the faithful. I have never understood till today what the prayer says.

I am constrained to share with you all of this because Fr Kanickai Raj will not entertain any suggestions or discussions.

The Sunday immediately following my letter to you was, if I recall correctly, the parish priest’s birthday. I was informed by a cousin of mine that the priest was felicitated and applauded during the Mass.

On October 4, 2009, the mid-day [12 noon] English service accommodated a number of animals during the celebration of Holy Mass; Fr. Jerry Rosario SJ, the celebrant, and Fr. Kanickai Raj permitted a non-Catholic lay man “to walk up to the altar with his pet dog … and share his thoughts with the packed congregation” [a newspaper reports] in lieu of the homily.

A priest is expected to enunciate his words clearly. Fr. Kanickai Raj is quite unintelligible when he speaks. Other priests have smothered smiles when I mentioned that one can understand only a couple of his words at the end of every sentence.

The homilies of almost all the priests, barring a few exceptions such as Fr. Bosco SDB from St. Bede’s, are lackluster and do not challenge the average Catholic who gets to hear the word of God only that once in a week. This week we had a visiting priest who preached on Luke 15 [the Prodigal Son] at the 7:15 am Mass. The preaching was lucid and powerful. Why does the congregation have to be subjected to listening to poor homilies week after week after week?

Parishioners of St. Louis Church, Adyar, have informed me that Fr. Savio uses terms like “bloody” and “bastard” during his sermons and at least one person has taken issue with him on this. Liturgical abuses have been informed to me from St. Teresa’s Church, Nungambakkam, and St. Francis Xavier’s church, Broadway, where slides and videos are used at Mass.

It is my humble suggestion that you attend different Masses incognito to verify for yourself the truth of what I write to you.

There is one other issue that I wish to bring to your notice. There is an acupressure-cum-reflexology clinic run in the church premises by one Mr. Colin D’Souza. A 2003 Vatican Document lists these alternative therapies as New Age. The two systems are based on esoteric/occult pre-Christian philosophies. At the outset, I had talked to Mr. D’Souza as well as the priests about the spiritual dangers of these practices and given them some Catholic literature, but the clinic is still open.

Yours obediently,

Michael Prabhu, 12 Dawn Apartments, II Floor, 22 Leith Castle South Street, Chennai 600 028. Tel: 2461 1606

*NB. It would help if your secretary verifies our copies of letters hand-delivered at your office, but he declines to do so.

↧

Criticism of an article written by this ministry and of this writer by the “Fishwrap”, the National Catholic Reporter

March 26, 2013, 9:17 am

≫ Next: Quo Vadis, Papa Francisco? WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

≪ Previous: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

MARCH 25/26, 2013

Criticism of an article written by this ministry and of this writer by the “Fishwrap”, the National Catholic Reporter

John L. Allen, Jr., of the National Catholic Reporter [NCR] wrote the following article at NCR Online:

Papabile of the Day: The Men Who Could Be Pope – Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay (Mumbai)

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-19

By John L. Allen, Jr., March 10, 2013-03-25,
Rome

John Allen is offering a profile each day of one of the most frequently touted papabili, or men who could be pope. The old saying in Rome is that he who enters a conclave as pope exits as a cardinal, meaning there’s no guarantee one of these men actually will be chosen. They are, however, the leading names drawing buzz in Rome these days, ensuring they will be in the spotlight as the conclave draws near. The profiles of these men also suggest the issues and the qualities other cardinals see as desirable heading into the election.

Heading into the 2013 conclave, there’s a small set of candidates destined to get a serious look from the outset, such as Cardinals Angelo Scola of Milan, Marc Ouellet of Canada, and Odilo Pedro Scherer of Brazil. The buzz around those names ensures that most cardinals are thinking about them right now, three days before the balloting actually begins.

One could probably add two American names to that list, at least as measured by public clamor: Cardinals Sean O’Malley of Boston and Timothy Dolan of New York.

Then there’s a wider range of figures who may not have strong support in the early rounds of voting, but who could come into play if none of the initial candidates seem to have sufficient support to get across that magic two-thirds threshold, meaning 77 votes out of the 115 cardinal electors.

In that second cluster waiting in the wings, there’s an Asian possibility who hasn’t yet received much attention, but who could strike some cardinals as an attractive fallback solution: Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay (Mumbai) in India.

We’re talking about a man who clearly enjoys the respect of his fellow bishops. He’s the elected president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, which represents all three Catholic rites in India (Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara), and he also serves as the elected secretary general of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences.

Gracias is also somebody who knows Rome well. He studied at the Pontifical Urbanian University and speaks Italian comfortably, he’s a member of several Vatican departments, and he’s close to the ubiquitous Community of Sant’Egidio.

Gracias is a figure with proven diplomatic skills and an ability to break logjams. He’s been able to open channels of communication with Hindu leaders, including some radicals who stand on a platform of “India for the Hindus!”, and he helped resolve a standoff with a fractious church group in Bombay, a situation a bit like the tensions over the Lefebvrist movement in Europe.

Ideologically, Gracias profiles as a moderate. In a recent interview in India, he opposed same-sex marriage but insisted that “gay persons are not to be rejected, but accepted,” adding that he personally has no problem if priests with a same-sex orientation “come out,” provided they respect celibacy.

He was also asked about the controversial case of Savita Halappanavar, an Indian woman who died in October 2012 in Ireland from a protracted miscarriage because doctors could not remove the fetus under Ireland’s anti-abortion law. Gracias affirmed the church’s opposition to abortion, but added that “doctors have to do whatever can be done to protect the mother. Maybe the child may not survive, but those steps need to be taken.”

The streets of Rome may not be full of talk about Gracias, but his fellow Indians seem to be taking the prospect seriously. In the last few days, I’ve gotten feelers from media outlets in India asking about Gracias’ prospects, and I’ve also received write-ups on him from friends and foes alike.

Kevin Coelho, for instance, is a childhood friend of Gracias who now lives in Canada. He sent along an impassioned essay as to why Gracias would make a great pope (or, perhaps, Secretary of State), arguing that the future cardinal’s sharp mind was clear as a young seminarian: “You could often see our Spanish Jesuit professors become visibly nervous when he raised his hand to ask a question,” Coelho recalls.

On the other hand, self-described Catholic apologist Michael Prabhu from Chennai shared a lengthy reflection on why none of the current Indian cardinals should be elected pope, [Cardinal Oswald] Gracias very much included. In his view, they have all gone too far in accommodating India’s religious pluralism, thereby watering down Catholic doctrine and practice. In particular, Prabhu is appalled that in his former diocese of Agra, Gracias approved teaching yoga at Catholic schools.

At 68, Gracias had a scare with cancer five years ago, and is visibly thinner than he was before the illness. Today, however, he’s said to be cancer-free, and he keeps up a challenging work and travel schedule.

Gracias was born in 1944 in Mumbai, the child of parents who hailed from India’s Goa region on the west coast. Gracias is thus a “Goan Catholic,” referring to a fiercely proud group of Indian believers who trace their roots back to Portuguese missionaries in the 16^th century. He studied at a Jesuit-run seminary and was ordained to the priesthood in 1970, in the immediate post-Vatican II period. Gracias studied in Rome from 1976 to 1982, earning a doctorate in canon law, and then returned to India to do a mix of pastoral and administrative work, including serving on a number of church tribunals and as president of the Canon Law Society of India.

Gracias was made an auxiliary bishop of Bombay in 1997, taking over as Archbishop of Agra in 2000 and as Archbishop of Bombay in 2006. Benedict XVI made him a cardinal during the November 2007 consistory.

The case for Gracias as pope pivots on three points.

First and most obviously, he would symbolize the dramatic growth of Catholicism outside the West. He might be seen as a “safe” choice for a non-Western pope, since he comes from a community in India that has five centuries of Catholic tradition under its belt and deep ties to Europe, Portugal in particular.

Second, a key issue in this race is governance, and Gracias has a proven track record as an effective governor. He keeps getting elected to leadership positions in Asia precisely because of his reputation as someone who can broker consensus and get things done.

Though Gracias profiles as a reconciler, he’s no shrinking violet. In a recent interview with the Union of Catholic Asian News (UCAN), Gracias said of the next pope, “His is a tough job that invites criticism, so he should be thick-skinned.”

Third, Gracias’ image as a theological and political moderate could make him an attractive candidate for those cardinals who represent the ecclesiastical center – those who come out of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, for instance, as well as some Europeans. At the same time, Gracias would probably draw strong support from the cardinals from Latin America, Africa, and, naturally, Asia, should he emerge as a serious contender. Some Italian cardinals, especially those who know him personally, would likely find him acceptable given his comfort level with the language and the culture. Start running those numbers, and it’s plausible that he could get to 77 votes.

Fourth, as Italian writer Vincenzo Faccioli Pintozzi has noted, Gracias could be the Karol Wojtyla of the 2013 conclave – an outsider from a linchpin nation with deep pastoral experience, who could resolve a deadlock. Certainly there’s a case to be made that India is destined to play at least as central a role in the history of the early 21st century as Poland did in the late 20th century, and having an Indian pope could dramatically boost the Vatican’s diplomatic capacity to engage rising Asian powers.

On the other hand, there are several strong reasons why Gracias has to be considered a serious longshot.

First, his bout with cancer raises questions about his long-term health. On the heels of a pope who just resigned citing age and exhaustion, the need for an “energetic” pope has become a buzzword among cardinals, which is often a sort of code for someone who doesn’t bring any obvious problems of illness or frailty into the job.

Second, Gracias is a more effective behind-the-scenes figure than a public performer. That may help him in terms of the concern for governance, but cardinals are also looking for a pope who can carry forward the “New Evangelization,” and may not see a canon lawyer with a reputation for quiet diplomacy as the best bet.

Third, precisely because Gracias has not figured prominently in the run-up to the conclave, many cardinals probably haven’t given him a lot of thought. Given the hesitance many cardinals feel about rolling the dice on an unknown quantity, they may simply conclude they don’t know enough about Gracias to take the chance.

Fourth, Gracias comes off more as a compromise possibility than someone with a natural base of support. Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines would be the preferred Asian candidate for those cardinals who want an evangelizing pope and a real breath of fresh air, while Malcolm Ranjith of Sri Lanka represents the great Asian hope among the “Ratzingerian” cardinals. No one seems to be making a conscious push for Gracias; instead, the stars would have to align in such a way that he represents a solution to a political stalemate.

In a crowded field with no clear frontrunner, however, such a stalemate isn’t out of the question. If that’s what happens, all sorts of possibilities may be one the table, including the idea of an Indian Pope.

MY COMMENTS

John Allen misleadingly and deceitfully writes as if I “shared” something with him. He has in fact referred to this article HABEMUS PAPAM INDIANUM-WE HAVE AN INDIAN PONTIFF
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/HABEMUS_PAPAM_INDIANUM-WE_HAVE_AN_INDIAN_PONTIFF.doc as well as to my report CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS ENDORSES YOGA FOR CATHOLICS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CARDINAL_OSWALD_GRACIAS_ENDORSES_YOGA_FOR_CATHOLICS.doc, both of which are in the public domain, in making his statements in the NCR online article.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, the eminent Catholic blogger described the NCR as “fishwrap”, see
WOMEN PRIESTS-THE NCR-UCAN-EWA NEXUS
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WOMEN_PRIESTS-THE_NCR-UCAN-EWA_NEXUS.doc
and John Allen‘s own Bishop, Robert Finn, as recently as January 25, declared that the NCR is simply NOT CATHOLIC!

A month later, Colorado Springs’ Bishop Michael Sheridan publicly seconded the condemnation of the NCR by Bishop Finn, see UCAN’S SLANTED QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE CATHOLIC’S CHOICE FOR POPE

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/UCANS_SLANTED_QUESTIONNAIRE_ON_THE_CATHOLICS_CHOICE_FOR_POPE.doc.

John Allen is obviously peeved at my helping disseminate the truth about his liberal and heretic positions — he is all FOR yoga [and other New Age spirituality], he is all FOR religious pluralism, he is all FOR women’s ordination — so he loses control of his well-honed journalistic instincts which urge him to remain objective, and calls me a “self-described Catholic apologist“. This subjective, derogatory comment comes from a man who his own bishop says cannot licitly call himself or his fishwrap tabloid as Catholic!

My recent exposes have rattled John Allen so much that he had to invent a scenario for his present article, saying, “In the last few days, I’ve gotten feelers from media outlets in India asking about Gracias’ prospects, and I’ve also received write-ups on him from friends and foes alike“. He could only cite one Kevin Coelho, despite all those “write-ups” that he allegedly received. The only possibility of Cardinal Oswald Gracias’ being ‘papabile’ existed in John Allen‘s fertile imagination. Far from being a moderate, Oswald Cardinal Gracias is a closet liberal, and the likes of John Allen and the UCAN news agency would most profit by his ascendancy.

I took a long break from researching and writing during the run up to the conclave, and for a couple of days after that too, to watch the live coverage offered by Al Jazeera, the BBC, and CNN TV networks. John Allen happens to be the special Vatican correspondent — or something of that sort — of CNN. He was consulted for his opinions as well as for his repertoire of facts about the Holy See, the papabili, etc. He even pontificated on matters concerning the Faith of believers, he did, this man who is not a practising, believing Catholic who accepts the teachings of Rome! Such a man could be expected to weave fantasies such as the one cited above that considers Oswald Cardinal Gracias as a likely candidate for Pope.

John Allen is correct in quoting me on one thing: “none of the current Indian cardinals should be elected pope“. Well, those really are not my words, but that is the import of my article HABEMUS PAPAM INDIANUM.

And I go a step further, adding that I don’t see an Indian as Pope from the present list of archbishops and bishops, which means for many years into the future. If you want to know why I believe that, you want to read the HABEMUS PAPAM INDIANUM document or the shorter version of it, WHY INDIAN CATHOLICS DO NOT WANT AN INDIAN POPE
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WHY_INDIAN_CATHOLICS_DO_NOT_WANT_AN_INDIAN_POPE.doc, the document that I sent to every Vatican email address that I have, and to the entire college of Cardinals, electors and non-electors [with the exception of the Indian Cardinals] prior to the conclave, and that includes Jorge Cardinal Mario Bergoglio who is now Pope Francis. I may add that, along with the WHY INDIAN CATHOLICS DO NOT WANT AN INDIAN POPE document, I also sent the Holy See and all the Cardinals a report titled PAPAL CANDIDATE OSWALD CARDINAL GRACIAS ENDORSES YOGA
http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PAPAL_CANDIDATE_OSWALD_CARDINAL_GRACIAS_ENDORSES_YOGA.doc.

One of the comments at John Allen‘s NCR article is from one Victor Rodrigues, who writes,

“I’m a Catholic from Cardinal Gracious’ diocese of Bombay. I congratulate John Allen for the excellent well researched article. Cardinal Gracious is a wonderful human being and much loved by the Catholic Community in Bombay“, to which another reader repartees, “You like and admire him but are not able to spell his name correctly, Vidkor Radriguess? Jeesh! Something seems odd here!“

Another uninformed, sycophantic post is from one Steffie who opines, “As a youth of the Bombay Diocese i would just like to say “His Eminence Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay (Mumbai), India” would be an excellent Pope as he is respected and loved by all not only in India but various places as well and I have been blessed and honoured to meet him.“

Dig a little deeper Steffie. You want to check out this ministry’s web site or the blog of the Association of Concerned Catholics [AOCC], Mumbai or simply look at the contents of The Examiner, the archdiocesan weekly of Bombay. The archdiocese is the leading promoter of institutionalised New Age in the Indian church. The Cardinal, as head of — not one as wrongly stated by John Allen but — two episcopal bodies, the CBCI and the CCBI, as well as being the Secretary General of the FABC, is personally morally responsible for the New Age, theological and liturgical corruption that is today endemic in the Church, not forgetting its virtual Hinduisation. These are not unverifiable allegations but documented facts. If he is or was not directly responsible for the development of such a situation, he has been apprised of it through numerous letters.

He is therefore complicit in the spiritual errors that prevail and ensnare the faithful. Silence is complicity.

NOT TO OPPOSE ERROR IS TO APPROVE IT, AND NOT TO DEFEND TRUTH IS TO SUPPRESS IT. AND INDEED TO NEGLECT TO CONFOUND EVIL … WHEN WE CAN DO IT IS NO LESS A SIN THAN TO ENCOURAGE THEM: POPE ST. FELIX III

Read also the following two documents pertaining to the archdiocese of Bombay

THE SALESIANS, OSWALD CARDINAL GRACIAS AND NEW AGE PSYCHOLOGIST CARL ROGERS

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_SALESIANS_OSWALD_CARDINAL_GRACIAS_AND_NEW_AGE_PSYCHOLOGIST_CARL_ROGERS.doc
and

THE ST PIUS X SEMINARY CELEBRATES HINDU DEITY GANESH

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/THE_ST_PIUS_X_SEMINARY_CELEBRATES_HINDU_DEITY_GANESH.doc.

One Francis Lobo’s comment at the NCR article reproduces the AOCC’s March 11, 2013 blog, Should Cardinal Oswald Gracias have resigned from the conclave like Cardinal Keith O’Brien did?

http://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/should-cardinal-oswald-gracias-have-resigned-from-the-conclave-like-card-keith-obrien/
which may also be accessed at this ministry’s web site: http://ephesians-511.net/docs/SHOULD_OSWALD_CARDINAL_GRACIAS_HAVE_RESIGNED_AS_CARDINAL_OBRIEN_DID.doc.

Not only is the Cardinal not papabile, Indian Catholics are of the opinion that he should not have attended the conclave in the first place.

CARDINAL GRACIAS AS POPE GANESH I!

Out of the 17 that were published in response to the NCR article, there is one last comment that I wish to reproduce here; it was posted by one Petrus Romanus. It goes:

Yoga is of course an ancient physical and spiritual discipline, antedating the birth of Jesus Christ and therefore the church he founded. As an infant, Jesus and his family received certain visitors “from the East” who were reportedly following a star. They brought along gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, and may easily have introduced the Holy Family to yoga as well. The inspired texts of the scriptures record numerous details of postures which could easily pass for asanas, including a three-hour stint on a cross one Friday afternoon. […]
When Jesus headed the desert to pray, he may have included yoga in his daily routines, and taught his disciples to pray with more than words alone. The activity and the discipline enable the practitioner to discover connections among observations and ideas that might not otherwise emerge into consciousness — and yoga itself means, precisely, “connections.”
Yes, I am aware that Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) has spoken out against yoga. I am also aware that neither as cardinal nor as pope, Joseph Ratzinger appreciated what yoga is. I can say that had he been even a casual student and practitioner of any form of yoga, his physical and mental condition might have enabled him to continue his papacy rather than resign it.
Perhaps Cardinal Gracias, as
Pope Ganesh I, might authorize a set of recorded yoga exercises for the faithful of all ages and circumstances, and we’d have a better understanding of how health and Gospel are related. Or maybe he’ll just say, “Grab your cushion and meet me in the desert.” And if he does, I’ll be there.

It is difficult to figure out if this comment was written tongue-in-cheek or is in fact an apology for yoga.

But, the overall message of this brilliant piece of writing is crystal clear: elect Oswald Cardinal Gracias or any Indian and you have a Pope Ganesh I!!!!!

UPDATE JANUARY 26, 2013

This morning, I watched the last 15 minutes of a 30-minute Al Jazeera programme titled, “Rome in the Margins”, 9:00 am to 9:30 am IST. The subject was the emerging church of the global south in Africa and in Asia. The African interviewee might have been a priest but was not attired like one. He sounded off like a liberal who wanted to see changes in the Church’s policy on condoms, etc. You get the drift. The other person interviewed was Oswald Cardinal Gracias. He did not say anything that I can fault, and if he did, I must have missed it. However, the Al Jazeera commentator appeared to be examining the possibility of a future power shift away from Rome to local churches such as Asia and Africa. Now, that is the underground current that is sweeping the Indian church; in fact, there have been calls for an autonomous Indian church, which I have documented, and that is something Catholics like us do not want. With things as bad as they are under a hierarchy that is supposed to be subservient to the teachings of Rome, one can only imagine how openly heretical and New Age an autonomous or semi-autonomous Indian church will be.

↧

Quo Vadis, Papa Francisco? WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

March 28, 2013, 10:40 pm

≫ Next: What’s happened to the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

≪ Previous: Criticism of an article written by this ministry and of this writer by the “Fishwrap”, the National Catholic Reporter

MARCH 28/29, 2013

Quo Vadis, Papa Francisco?

01- WILL POPE FRANCIS WASH THE FFET OF WOMEN AT HOLY MASS THIS WEEK?

Pontiff Desires Simple Mass for Holy Thursday

Pope Francis to Celebrate Mass of the Lords Supper at Local Juvenile Detention Center

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pontiff-desires-simple-mass-for-holy-thursday

Vatican City, March 26, 2013 (Zenit.org) Junno Arocho Esteves | 515 hits

According to the Holy See Press Office director, Fr. Federico Lombardi, Pope Francis has expressed his desire that the Mass of the Lord’s Supper be very simple.

The Holy Father will celebrate the Mass in the chapel of the Casal del Marmo Penitential Institute for Minors (IPM). Cardinal Agostino Vallini, vicar general of the Diocese of Rome, and Fr. Gaetano Greco, chaplain of the Institute.

Of the 10 girls and 40 boys expected to attend, the Holy Father will wash the feet of 12, who will be chosen from different nationalities and diverse religious confessions. The youth will also participate in the mass by proclaiming the readings and the prayer of the faithful.

The youth as well as the IPM’s personnel will meet with Pope Francis after the Mass at the Institute’s gymnasium. Also expected to attend will be Paola Severino, the Minister of Justice, Caterina Chinnici, head of the Department of Justice for Minor’s, Saulo Patrizi, Commander of the Institute’s Penitentiary Police, and Liana Giambartolomei, director of the Institute.

The youth will give Pope Francis a wooden crucifix as well as a kneeler that they made in the Institute’s workshop. According to the communiqué released by the Holy See Press Office, the Holy Father will bring Easter eggs and “colomba”, a traditional Italian Easter cake in the shape of dove, for all present.

Due to the intimate nature of the Holy Father’s visit, the Holy See stated that journalists will be restricted to the outside area of the Institute, as well as no live coverage of the Mass.

From:
Vatican Information Service – Eng – txt
To:
VISnews engTXT

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:04 PM Subject: VISnews130326

POPE FRANCIS WANTS “IN COENA DOMINI” MASS TO BE SIMPLE AND INTIMATE

Vatican City, 26 March 2013 (VIS) – The Mass of the Lord’s Supper that Pope Francis will celebrate on Holy Thursday in the chapel of the Casal del Marmo Penitential Institute for Minors (IPM) will be, by his express desire, very simple, as reported by the Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J. Concelebrating with the Holy Father will be Cardinal Agostino Vallini, vicar general of the Diocese of Rome, and Fr. Gaetano Greco, chaplain of the Institute.

Around 10 girls and 40 boys will take part in the Mass. The Pope will wash the feet of 12 of them, who will be chosen from different nationalities and diverse religious confessions. The youth will also say the readings and the prayers of the faithful.

After the Mass, the Pope will meet with the youth and the IPM’s personnel in the Institute’s gym. Around 150 persons are expected to attend, including the Minister for Justice, Paola Severino, accompanied by the Head of the Department of Justice for Minors, Caterina Chinnici, the Commander of the Institute’s Penitentiary Police, Saulo Patrizi, and the Institute’s director, Liana Giambartolomei.

The youth will give the Pope a wooden crucifix and kneeler, which they made themselves in the Institute’s workshop. The Holy Father will bring Easter eggs and “colomba” (the traditional Italian Easter cake in the shape of a dove) for all.

Given the intimate nature of the pastoral visit, journalists will be restricted to the area outside the building and no live coverage will be transmitted.

OUR LETTERS TO POPE FRANCIS AND TO SOME VATICAN DEPARTMENTS

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
av@pccs.va ; cancilleria@arzbaires.org.ar
Cc:
cultdiv@ccdds.va

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 5:49 AM

Subject: YOUR HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS, PLEASE DO NOT WASH THE FEET OF WOMEN THIS MAUNDY THURSDAY…

To,

His Holiness Pope Francis,

Vatican City, Rome

March 25, 2013

SUBJECT: WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN AT HOLY MASS ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

Your Holiness,

We understand from news reports that You intend to wash the feet of six men and SIX WOMEN at Holy Mass on March 28, 2013, Maundy Thursday.

We pray that there is no truth in that information.

In case there is any truth in that information, we request You to please refrain from doing that and only wash the feet of twelve men.

If You wash the feet of women during the liturgy, it will send a wrong signal to many and give an impetus to some enemies of the Catholic Church.

We have nothing against Your washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday if it is done outside of Holy Mass, in a non-liturgical service.

We understand that the rubrics of the liturgy permit only the feet of ”viri” (men) to be washed by a priest; so we humbly suggest — in the event that You really do want to have the feet of women washed – that You change the presently-existing rubrics to include women before their feet are washed by You.

Yours obediently,

MICHAEL PRABHU

Catholic apologist, INDIA

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
cancilleria@arzbaires.org.ar ; av@pccs.va
Cc:
cultdiv@ccdds.va

Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:32 PM

Subject: ASUNTO: LAVADO DE LOS PIES DE MUJERES EN LA SANTA MISA DE JUEVES SANTO

A la atención de:

Su Santidad el Papa Francisco

Ciudad del Vaticano, Roma

25 de marzo de 2013

ASUNTO: LAVADO DE LOS PIES DE MUJERES EN LA SANTA MISA DE JUEVES SANTO

Su Santidad,

Hemos podido saber a través de ciertos informes que tiene intención de lavar los pies de seis hombres y seis mujeres durante la Santa Misa del 28 de marzo de 2013, Jueves Santo.

Rogamos que no sea verdad esta información.

Pero en caso de que haya algún tipo de certeza en ella, le solicitamos que por favor se abstenga de hacerlo y sólo lave los pies de doce hombres.

Si Su Santidad lava pies de mujeres durante la liturgia se enviará una señal equivocada a mucha gente y dará impulso a las críticas de algunos enemigos de la Iglesia Católica.

No tenemos nada en contra de que lave los pies de las mujeres el Jueves Santo si se hace fuera de la Santa Misa, por ejemplo en un servicio no litúrgico.

Entendemos que las reglas de la liturgia sólo le permiten a un sacerdote lavar los pies a “viri” (hombres), por lo que humildemente sugerimos-en el caso de que realmente quiera lavar los pies a mujeres- que cambie la normativa actualmente existente para incluir a las mujeres en el lavado de pies hecho por Su Santidad.

Suyo humildemente,

MICHAEL PRABHU

Apologista católico, INDIA

[My email letters to Rome in English and Spanish were on this ministry's letterhead –Michael]

From:
Croydon D’souza
To:
av@pccs.va ; cancilleria@arzbaires.org.ar

Cc:
cdf@cfaith.va ; ladaria@unigre.it ; servus@urbaniana.edu ; segreteria@propagandafide.va ; mjconde@ediurcla.it ; nonducorduco@fastwebnet.it ; mab_8@msn.com ; pellerey@unisal.it ; kkasteel@corunum.va ; arcivescovado@diocesi.genova.it ; uzgnadb@zg.t-com.hr ; erzbischoefliches-haus@erzbistum-koeln.de ; gombp@katolikus.hu ; primadodemexico@yahoo.com.mx ; archevechedkr@sentoo.sn ; cultdiv@ccdds.va
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:04 PM

Subject: LAVADO DE LOS PIES DE MUJERES DURANTE LA MISA DE JUEVES SANTO

A Su Santidad el Papa Francisco

Ciudad del Vaticano, Roma

27 de marzo de 2013

TEMA:
LAVADO DE LOS PIES DE MUJERES DURANTE LA MISA DE JUEVES SANTO

Su Santidad,

Hemos sabido a través de noticiarios que Usted tiene la intención de lavar los pies de seis hombres y SEIS MUJERES durante la Misa de Jueves Santo del 28 de marzo de 2013.

Rezamos para que esa información esté equivocada.

Si es exacta, le pedimos que por favor no lo haga y lave unicamente los pies de 12 hombres.

Si lava los pies de mujeres durante la liturgia, enviará una señal equivodad a muchos y dará ímpetu a algunos enemigos de la Iglesia Católica.

No tenemos nada contrario a que Usted lave los pies de mujeres el Jueves Santo fuera de la Santa misa, en un servicio no litúrgico.

Entendemos que las reglas litúrgicas permiten unicamente que los pies de los “viri” (hombres) sean lavados por un sacerdote; por lo cual sugerimos humildemente – en el caso que Usted quiera efectivamente lavar los pies de mujeres – que se cambien las reglas litúrgicas para incluir a las mujeres antes del lavado de los pies.

Le saluda atentamente,

CROYDON D’SOUZA

Apologista Católico, 601/602, Greenlands CHS, Opposite St Anthony’s Church, Malwani Village, Malwani, Malad (W), Mumbai, INDIA

A LETTER FROM A LATIN AMERICAN EUROPE-BASED APOLOGIST AND MY RESPONSE

From:
Apologist
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 2:46 PM Subject: Re: YOUR HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS, PLEASE DO NOT WASH THE FEET OF WOMEN THIS MAUNDY THURSDAY…

From what I understand, there is a huge issue in India about this matter, probably because of all the liturgical abuse that has been going on. From a European/Latin American point of view, where cases of liturgical abuse are rarer or less extreme, it seems as an exception to liturgy that can be granted by Bishops, in particular if it is the Bishop of Rome.

I think that for Westerners, you should explain why this matter is so important, because otherwise, the first reaction to your letter is very negative. Catholic communities of Europe and Latin America are very sensitive towards women’s responsibilities and place in the Church and in liturgy. In fact, this gesture of the Pope will probably be very positively viewed by Catholics from those regions.

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
Apologist Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:36 PM Subject: Re: YOUR HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS, PLEASE DO NOT WASH THE FEET OF WOMEN THIS MAUNDY THURSDAY…

I am not going by sentiments but by the rubrics of the Maundy Thursday liturgy and by the findings of my research into the matter based on email questions that I received in the past. You can read my document at

WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON HOLY THURSDAY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WASHING_THE_FEET_OF_WOMEN_ON_HOLY_THURSDAY.doc

Recently some liberal theologians raised the issue and my correspondence with them is also in the above document. There are wider implications to this issue of washing the feet of women on Holy Thursday. Personally, I have no problems with it.

Also, one of my good Indian conservative friends in the US wrote me that he planned to join the SSPX if this happens tomorrow. I just managed to talk him out of it.

From:
Apologist
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:55 PM Subject: Re: YOUR HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS, PLEASE DO NOT WASH THE FEET OF WOMEN THIS MAUNDY THURSDAY…

Indeed I suspected that it was a problem linked to liberal clergy who might use it as justification for the ordination of women. But it would in my eyes be – again – an unfair interpretation of a gesture that the Pope clearly intends otherwise.

I trust that the person in charge of the liturgy for the pontifical house will find a solution.

I agree with you, that it is better to respect the liturgical norms. What is happening, I believe, is that Pope Francis is not used to dealing with this type of problems, and therefore has a very candid and spontaneous approach, without realizing the implications it might have on other levels. He never lived outside of Argentina, and he might need time to understand this type of problems and decide how to deal with them. But I am quite sure that he doesn’t mean the gesture as a justification for the ordination of women. He is known in Argentina as very “conservative”, which is the word they use for people faithful to Catholic doctrine. Let’s pray and see what happens.

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
Apologist
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:56 PM Subject: Re: YOUR HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS, PLEASE DO NOT WASH THE FEET OF WOMEN THIS MAUNDY THURSDAY…

You understood… It will be very difficult for us in these ministries in future when liberals on the one hand keep shouting “But Pope Francis did this or that…” and the Traditionalists on the other hand have more ammunition to fire at us.

The joy of the liberals will be difficult to contain and will be difficult for us to tolerate. The latter we can continue to ignore.

Pope Francis is making our circle of apologists very anxious.

Pope Benedict’s convert Magdi Allam has left the Church; Pope Francis thinks nothing of distributing Holy Communion in the hand as against the preference of his predecessors, Cardinal Arinze, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith and others for the tongue… and so on. The reverence for the liturgy and the dignity of the seat of St. Peter appear to have diminished in the name of humility and simplicity… Nothing wrong with that per se, but we as yet cannot estimate the impact that all of this will have in the long term — whether it will pan out for ‘good’ or for bad. We don’t want Catholics leaving the Church for these of all reasons, for God’s sake!

We face great uncertainty. If there is laxity at the very top in the liturgy and other critical areas, there will be a free-for-all at the diocesan and parish levels; and, the Society of Jesus, already rightly held responsible for the non-evangelization of Asia over the past few decades because of their “social gospel” will turn out to be the greatest beneficiaries of this situation. I wonder if the Pope is even aware that most conservative Catholics blame his Jesuit order [the exceptions are few and far between] for almost every liberal and modernist situation in the Asian church. I think it is high time that I write a report on this issue, as I have been preparing my documentation for it since a long, long time.

1. Pope washes feet of young Muslim woman prisoner in unprecedented twist on Maundy Thursday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9960168/Pope-washes-feet-of-young-Muslim-woman-prisoner-in-unprecedented-twist-on-Maundy-Thursday.html
EXTRACT

Pope Francis continued his gleeful abandonment of tradition by washing the feet of a young Muslim woman prisoner in an unprecedented twist on the Holy Thursday tradition.

By Harriett Alexander, and agencies, March 28, 2013

While popes have for centuries washed the
feet of the faithful on the day before Good Friday, never before had a pontiff washed the feet of a woman. That one of the female inmates at the prison in Rome was also a Serbian Muslim was also a break with tradition. “There is no better way to show his service for the smallest, for the least fortunate,” said Gaetano Greco, a local chaplain.

Pope Francis
washed the feet of 12 inmates aged 14 to 21, among them the two women, the second of whom was an Italian Catholic. Mr Greco said he hoped the ritual would be “a positive sign in their lives”.

Catholic traditionalists are likely to be riled by the inclusion of women in the ceremony because of the belief that all of Jesus’ disciples were male.

The pontiff, who has largely disregarded protocol since his election earlier this month, urged his fellow clerics before the ceremony to prioritise the poor.

“We need to go out to the outskirts where there is suffering, bloodshed, blindness that longs for sight, and prisoners in thrall to many evil masters,” he said at a mass in St Peter’s Basilica.

“It is not in soul-searching or constant introspection that we encounter the Lord.”

Francis, the first leader of the Catholic Church from Latin America, led a mass with a mixed group of young offenders at the Casal del Marmo prison outside of Rome.

The 76-year-old, who was archbishop of Buenos Aires until chosen as pope, has already made a name for himself as a champion of the disadvantaged. In his homeland of Argentina he was known for his strong social advocacy, working in slums and shunning the lavish lifestyle adopted by some senior clerics. He lived in a small flat near the cathedral, flew to the Rome conclave in economy class, and chose to travel with his fellow cardinals by minibus rather than in the papal limousine.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio – as Pope Francis was previously known – had already washed and kissed the feet of women in past ceremonies in Argentinean jails, hospitals and old people’s homes, including pregnant mothers and AIDS patients. […]

2. Pope includes women for first time in Holy Thursday rite

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/us-pope-idUSBRE92R0B020130328
EXTRACT

By Phillip Pullella, Rome, March 28, 2013

Two young women were among 12 people whose feet Pope Francis washed and kissed at a traditional ceremony in a Rome youth prison on Holy Thursday, the first time a pontiff has included females in the rite.

The pope traveled to the Casal del Marmo prison on Rome’s outskirts for the traditional Mass, which commemorates Jesus’ gesture of humility towards his apostles the night before he died.

The ceremony has been traditionally limited to men because all of Jesus’ apostles were male. The Vatican spokesman said two of the 12 whose feet were washed were Muslim inmates.

While the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio included women in the rite when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, it was the first time women had taken part in a papal Holy Thursday ceremony. […]

3. Pope Francis washes feet of young detainees in ritual

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2028595
EXTRACT

By Nicole Winfield, March 28, 2013

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of a dozen inmates at a juvenile detention center in a Holy Thursday ritual that he celebrated for years as archbishop and is continuing now that he is pope. Two of the 12 were young women, a remarkable choice given that the rite re-enacts Jesus’ washing of the feet of his male disciples.

The Mass was held in the Casal del Marmo facility in Rome, where 46 young men and women currently are detained. Many of them are Gypsies or North African migrants, and the 12 selected for the foot-washing rite included Orthodox and Muslim detainees as well, news reports said.

Because the inmates were mostly minors — the facility houses inmates aged 14-to-21 — the Vatican and Italian Justice Ministry limited media access inside. But Vatican Radio carried the Mass live, and Francis told the detainees that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion in a gesture of love and service.

“This is a symbol, it is a sign — washing your feet means I am at your service,” Francis told the youngsters. “Help one another. This is what Jesus teaches us. This is what I do. And I do it with my heart. I do this with my heart because it is my duty, as a priest and bishop I must be at your service.”

Later, the Vatican released a limited video of the ritual, showing Francis washing black feet, white feet, male feet, female feet and even a foot with tattoos. Kneeling on the stone floor as the 12 youngsters sat above him, the 76-year-old Francis poured water from a silver chalice over each foot, dried it with a simple cotton towel and then bent over to kiss each one.

As archbishop of Buenos Aires, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio would celebrate the ritual foot-washing in jails, hospitals or hospices — part of his ministry to the poorest and most marginalized of society. It’s a message that he is continuing now that he is pope, saying he wants a church “for the poor.”

Previous popes would carry out the foot-washing ritual on Holy Thursday in Rome’s grand St. John Lateran basilica and the 12 people chosen for the ritual would always be priests to represent the 12 disciples.

That Francis would include women in this re-enactment is noteworthy given the insistence of some in the church that the ritual be reserved for men only: The argument is that Jesus’ disciples were all male, and the Catholic priesthood that evolved from the original 12 disciples is restricted to men. “The pope’s washing the feet of women is hugely significant because including women in this part of the Holy Thursday Mass has been frowned on — and even banned — in some dioceses,” said the Rev. James Martin*, a Jesuit priest and author of “The Jesuit Guide.” “It shows the all-embracing love of Christ, who ministered to all he met: man or woman, slave or free, Jew or Gentile,” he said. […]

*Who is the “Rev. James Martin”?

On February 22, 2013, UCAN news carried a most irreverent — considering the sanctity and gravity of the issue — article by Rev. James Martin. He is
culture editor of the liberal-left dissenting ‘America’ magazine which has been castigated by Rome, see http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/index.html. A priest who identifies himself as Fr. Osie wrote in the comments box, “What is your purpose in publishing this. To entertain us?” The article:

Rev James Martin tells us why he should be pope

http://www.ucanews.com/news/rev-james-martin-tells-us-why-he-should-be-pope/67481

Father Martin has come up with 12 reasons why he should be the one elected.

Dear Cardinals:

Eminences, I know you’ve got a tough job coming up in the conclave. You have to do the impossible: elect a guy who is super holy, wicked smart, speaks about a dozen languages and can run an international conglomerate. And if I can be a little blunt, chances are you may not know everyone in the room that day. Especially if you’ve just gotten that red hat you might be sitting in the Sistine Chapel listening to someone talking in French about aggornamiento and ressourcement and be too embarrassed to say to the guy on your left, “Who’s the heck is that?” Besides, everyone sort of looks the same: gray hair, red hat, glasses. It’s hard to keep them straight, no matter how many of those handy “Who’s Who” charts you might have studied.

So to make things easier, I’d like to suggest a candidate who you might not have thought about but upon a few seconds of reflection you’ll know is your man: Me.

Here are 12 reasons why you should elect me pope, which I’m calling: Twelve Reasons Why You Should Elect Me Pope.

1. I’m a man. That’s half the battle, right?

2. I’m baptized. And I’ve got the papers to prove it. No birther controversy here.

3. I speak several languages. Not well, but you know, who does really? I speak English, as you can see from this little essay. And guess what: Bonjour! That’s right: French! I started studying français when I was in seventh grade. (Notice I used the little thingy under the “c.”) That means I can talk to pretty much all of West Africa and France: that’s a lot of Catholics. Unfortunately, if I have to use the subjunctive or the pluperfect we’re out of luck, but all I have to do is avoid saying, “If I were” in any of my encyclicals and we’re golden.

But there’s more: Hola! That’s right: I speak Spanish. More or less. Or, “Mas o menos,” as we say in the biz. Now, in this case, I can’t really handle the past or future tenses, but that’s OK, because that means I’ll be speaking all about the present – which will make me sound forceful and confident. You know, “Now is the time!” Or “Ahora es la … well, ora, I guess.” Anyway, there are lots and lots of Spanish-speaking Catholics and once they hear my rendition of “De Colores,” they’ll be sold on the Servant of the Servants of God muy rapido.

4. I’m half Italian. I almost forgot: Ciao! I’m half Italian. On my mom’s side. So once I’m the Bishop of Rome I’ll easily be able to deal with any problems in the curia, because all the Italian curial officials will instantly recognize me as a paesan. Scandals? Finito! Mismanagement? Basta! (That’s Italian for “done” and “over,” in case yours is rustissimo.) My election will also satisfy anyone looking for an Italian pope: i.e., all the Italian cardinals, who you definitely want on your side. The other half of me, by the way, is Irish, which goes a long way in the States, believe you me.

5. I worked in Africa. I almost forgot my other language. Jambo! That’s right! I speak Swahili. Or Kiswahili. (That’s Swahili for Swahili.) Well, at least I used to. I worked in Kenya for two years. So for all those people who want a pope from the developing world, well, I’m not exactly from there, but there are three babies who were named after me while I was working in Kenya. (They’re not mine, if that’s a worry.) That’s got to count for something.

Now that you know that I speak English and Spanish and French and Swahili, you’re probably thinking, “Gee, why not Jim as the Pontifex Maximus?” Why not share that thought with the guy in red sitting next to you?

6. Books. You probably want a pope who is literate but maybe not someone who spends so much time writing books, what with all the stuff he has to deal with. I know that this was sometimes a criticism of Pope Benedict XVI – not that I’m casting any stones! But I’ve already written my books, so when I’m in the Vatican I’ll be 100 percent on the job. Nine to five. Weekends too, if things ever get really busy. Sundays, of course, I’ll be available for Masses.

7. Business experience! Speaking of jobs – guess what? – I’ve got a degree from the Wharton School. That’s one of the big business schools here in the States. Plus I worked at General Electric for six years. So here’s some good news: say arrivederci to any managerial problems in the curia. Ever heard of Management by Objectives? The marginal propensity to consume? The “Four Ps” of marketing? You will after I’m Supreme Pontiff. That place will run like a top. A top that makes money, too.

8. I’m ordained. I almost forgot: I’m already an ordained priest. That means that, since I meet all the other requirements, the only thing that left is for me to be willing to be ordained a bishop. And guess what: I’m willing. Now let me anticipate a minor objection. I’ll bet that you know that I took a vow as a Jesuit not to “strive for or ambition” any high office in the church, but I’ve got a nice, easy, canonically doable way around that roadblock. Once you elect me pope, I’ll be my own superior! After I put on those white robes, I can just call up the Jesuit superior general and say, “Hey, how about letting me accept that ordination as bishop and my election as pope?” And I figure he’ll have to say yes because he takes orders from me. Problem solved. Besides I’m not striving or ambitioning anyway. I’m campaigning.

9. Educated. The Jesuit training process is really, really, really long. I can’t even remember how many years I was in studies. That means that I studied philosophy (good to know), theology (really good to know) and a whole lot of other stuff like church history, which I think would be pretty helpful as pope. And guess what? I know Ancient Greek, too. That really impresses the scholarly types in the church. E.g., when scholars ask me, “What translation of the New Testament are you using?” I’ll say, “My translation.” They love that kind of thing. Plus, that appeals to the Ancient-Greek-speaking demographic that the church may have given up on.

10. Willing to travel. OK, I admit it. I’m not all crazy about air travel, what with all the delays and having to take your shoes off and sitting next to someone who keeps coughing up a lung, but it just dawned on me that this won’t be a problem at all. The Pontiff has his own airplane: Shepherd One. So once you install free movies in my gold-and-white plane I’m golden. I’ll go wherever you want me to go. To the ends of the earth, if need be. As long as I get an extra bag of peanuts.

11. Humility. I can already predict what your last objection is: My campaigning for pope may make me seem a tad less humble than you might hope for. But isn’t the fact that I’m willing to campaign a sign of my humility? A less humble guy would assume that everyone already knows that he’d be a good candidate and so wouldn’t say anything out of his pride. Kind of counterintuitive, huh? Ergo: Since I’m campaigning, I’m No. 1 when it comes to humility.

12. Cool Name. Everyone knows that the first big decision the pope makes is his choice of name. Plus, I know everyone’s always worried about continuity. With that in mind (I like to think ahead, which is a good trait) I’ve already picked my name. As you know, Pope Paul VI’s successor chose the name “John Paul I,” to show his continuity with Pope John XXIII and Paul VI. Everyone was pretty impressed with that. Next you had John Paul II. More continuity.

And of course next we had (or have, depending on when you’re reading this) Benedict XVI. If you elect me, and I hope you will, after I say “Accepto” (see I speak a little Latin too), I would choose my name: John Paul Benedict I. That takes care of everyone from John XXIII to Benedict. Continuity plus. Of course saying “JPB1″ might take some getting used to but Catholics are pretty flexible, and I’ll bet before long there will be lots of babies baptized John Paul Benedict.

Anyway, I hope that helps you make a tough decision easier, Your Eminences. Did I leave anything out? Well, I’m a fast typist, I can draw pretty well and I tell some really funny jokes. For example, here’s a good one: “What did the Jesuit say when he was elected pope.”

There’s only one way to find out.

UCAN sourced the story from the Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/12-pretty-good-reasons-why-i-should-be-pope_b_2735852.html?utm_hp_ref=religion, a
liberal-left, New Age-promoting news web site and blog, see http://ephesians-511.net/docs/UCAN_WANTS_TO_DO_AWAY_WITH_THE_PRIESTHOOD.doc.

Jesuit Fr. James Martin posts on dissident blogs such as at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=DE2868B4-3048-887F-8F92F2808CD479AB.

The America magazine blurb says:
America magazine, “The National Catholic Weekly”, “One of the nation’s oldest and most respected Catholic Magazines”. Don’t be fooled by that.

America
magazine: A column for the Jesuit magazine America, in which Rev. James Martin, S.J. criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s pro-life and pro-family message in Portugal as “bizarre,” and implied it was contrary to the Gospel, has been revised to omit the strongest language…- May 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com). See also below**

So, who are among the first “Catholics” to celebrate the washing of the feet of women by a Pope? Dissenters and the liberal-left, priests such as James Martin.

** A Jesuit guide to almost everything

http://womenofgrace.com/newage/?p=162#more-162

By Susan Brinkmann July 26, 2010

AS writes: “Our book club leader is asking us to review A Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything by James Martin for our next book. This book looks like New Age to me? I would appreciate your comments on this book.”

I can certainly appreciate why AS would think any book with the word “Jesuit” in the title is suspect, what with all the dubious teachings coming out of that order these days. And this particular book would certainly seem likely to spew dissent seeing as the author is the culture editor of the infamous America Magazine, a Jesuit publication not known for its faithfulness to Church teaching.

While I have not read the book (as a rule, I can’t get involved in doing book reviews because that would be like another full-time job), I was able to peruse its content on-line and found it to be very centered on the Ignatian way. It did not appear to be promoting any New Age ideas and even mentioned a few of my personal favorites, such as Avery Cardinal Dulles and Fr. Walter Ciszek. But as I said, I did not read the book and can only offer a limited assessment of its content.

Having said all this, I question why a Catholic book club leader would be recommending a book by an editor of a publication that is so well-known for its dissenting positions. Why play with fire when you don’t have to?

America Magazine had become so scandalous a few years back the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had to put pressure on the owners to remove its former editor, Fr. Thomas Reese. Under Reese’s tenure, essays were published that explored the moral arguments in favor of approving the use of condoms for HIV/AIDS, criticizing the 2000 document Dominus Iesus (on religious pluralism), an article about homosexual priests and even a guest essay written by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) and challenging the idea of refusing Communion to Catholic politicians who do not vote in accordance with the teachings of the Faith.

As for Fr. Martin himself, he recently criticized the pope for equating abortion and same-sex marriage and mentioned that a gay friend of his had recently left his position at the U.S. Conference of Bishops because “‘abortionsamesexmarriage’ had become one polysyllabic word among some of his bosses.”

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Fr. Martin’s book has anything in it that is contrary to the Faith, but he’s obviously comfortable around dissent (or what the cultural elites like to call “intelligent discourse”). I can only question why your book club leader would want to risk it when there are so many other books out there that could be read instead.

4. Pope washes women’s feet in break with church law

http://www.wral.com/pope-washes-women-s-feet-in-break-with-church-law/12282355/,
http://www.newser.com/article/da5adu101/pope-washes-young-womens-feet-on-holy-thursday-in-break-with-church-law.html
EXTRACT

By Nicole Winfield, March 29, 2013

ROME (AP) — In his most significant break with tradition yet, Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of two young women at a juvenile detention center — a surprising departure from church rules that restrict the Holy Thursday ritual to men.

No pope has ever washed the feet of a woman before, and Francis’ gesture sparked a debate among some conservatives and liturgical purists, who lamented he had set a “questionable example.” Liberals welcomed the move as a sign of greater inclusiveness in the church. […]

That Francis would include women in his inaugural Holy Thursday Mass as pope was remarkable, however, given that current liturgical rules exclude women.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters, who is an adviser to the Holy See’s top court, noted in a blog that the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to bishops in 1988 making clear that “the washing of the feet of chosen men … represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve.’” While bishops have successfully petitioned Rome over the years for an exemption to allow women to participate, the rules on the issue are clear, Peters said.

“By disregarding his own law in this matter, Francis violates, of course, no divine directive,” Peters wrote. “What he does do, I fear, is set a questionable example.”

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he didn’t want to wade into a canonical dispute over the matter. However, he noted that in a “grand solemn celebration” of the rite, only men are included because Christ washed the feet of his 12 apostles, all of whom were male.

“Here, the rite was for a small, unique community made up also of women,” Lombardi wrote in an email. “Excluding the girls would have been inopportune in light of the simple aim of communicating a message of love to all, in a group that certainly didn’t include experts on liturgical rules.”

Others on the more liberal side of the debate welcomed the example Francis set. “The pope’s washing the
feet of women is hugely significant because including women in this part of the Holy Thursday Mass has been frowned on — and even banned — in some dioceses,” said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of “The Jesuit Guide.” “It shows the all-embracing love of Christ, who ministered to all he met: man or woman, slave or free, Jew or Gentile.”

For some, restricting the rite to men is in line with the church’s restriction on ordaining women priests. Church teaching holds that only men should be ordained because Christ’s apostles were male. “This is about the ordination of women, not about their feet,” wrote the Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger. Liberals “only care about the washing of the feet of women, because ultimately they want women to do the washing.”

Still, Francis has made clear he doesn’t favor ordaining women. In his 2011 book, “On Heaven and Earth,” then-Cardinal Bergoglio said there were solid theological reasons why the priesthood was reserved to men: “Because Jesus was a man.”

On this Holy Thursday, however, Francis had a simple message for the young inmates, whom he greeted one-by-one after the Mass, giving each an Easter egg.

“Don’t lose hope,” Francis said. “Understand? With hope you can always go on.”

One young man then asked why he had come to visit them.

Francis responded that it was to “help me to be humble, as a bishop should be.”

The gesture, he said, came “from my heart. Things from the heart don’t have an explanation.”

How Should We Understand Pope Francis Washing Women’s Feet?

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/how-should-we-understand-pope-francis-washing-womens-feet?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register

By Jimmy Akin, jimmy@secretinfoclub.com, March 28, 2013

It has been widely reported that, when he was still the cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, the future Pope Francis washed the feet of women during the Mass of the Lord’s Supper. Now he has done so as pope.

Here are some thoughts on Pope Francis’s decision and what it means.

This Year’s Mass of the Lord’s Supper

It was surprising but not surprising when the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had chosen to celebrate this year’s Mass of the Lord’s Supper not in one of the papal basilicas of Rome but, instead, in its juvenile prison. That’s precisely the kind of gesture that we have come to expect from the new pope in the short time we’ve been getting to know him. It’s not traditional, but it’s humble and evangelistic. And it corresponds to Jesus’ remarks that, when we visit those in prison, we are spiritually visiting him (Matthew 25:36-40).

It’s also in keeping with things he’s done before, such as holding the service in a maternity hospital in Buenos Aires in 2005.

So what happened with the footwashing ceremony this year?

The BBC is reporting:

During Thursday’s intimate service, the Pope washed and kissed the feet of 12 young detainees to replicate the Bible’s account of Jesus Christ’s gesture of humility towards his 12 apostles on the night before he was crucified. The 12 inmates included two girls, one Italian Catholic and one of Serbian Muslim origin, local prison ombudsman Angiolo Marroni said ahead of the ceremony.

That’s certainly a dramatic gesture.

A Muslim Girl?

It had been announced, in advance, that the young people who were going to be participating in the ceremony would be coming from different religious backgrounds, so this wasn’t a total surprise, but it was a striking choice.

What should we make of it?

I think we should understand it in the same light that explains the initial decision to celebrate this Mass in a youth prison: Pope Francis wants to reach out to the young people in the prison and bring them the light of Christ.

He is taking the role of a servant and an evangelist.

What he is doing hopefully will have a profound impact on the lives of these young people, hopefully setting them on the right path both in terms of civil law and in terms of their faith life.

He’s also, by this action, showing the world that he takes his role seriously as a servant of all people and an evangelist to all people.

Washing and kissing the feet of a Muslim girl in jail signifies that rather dramatically.

It also raises questions.

Questions

Here are a few:

1. What do the Church’s liturgical documents say about footwashing?

2. How does Pope Francis’s decision relate to this?

3. If the pope is going beyond what the Roman Missal says, can the pope just do that?

4. If he can do it, can others?

5. What should we expect in the future?

6. How should we understand the rite in light of this?

Let’s look at each of these . . .

1. What do the Church’s liturgical documents say about footwashing?

There are two key places one should look for an understanding of the footwashing ceremony. The first is found in the document that governs the celebrations connected with Easter, which is called Paschales Solemnitatis. According to this document:

51. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came “not to be served, but to serve.” This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained. [Emphasis the author's]

Please take note of the highlighted phrase. It will be important later.

The second document is the Roman Missal, which states:

10. After the Homily, where a pastoral reason suggests it, the Washing of Feet follows.

The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to seats prepared in a suitable place. Then the Priest (removing the chasuble if necessary) goes to each one and, with the help of the ministers, pours water over each one’s feet and then dries them.

Meanwhile some of the following antiphons or other appropriate chants are sung. [Antiphons omitted]

13. After the Washing of Feet, the Priest washes and dries his hands, puts the chasuble back on, and returns to the chair, and from there he directs the Universal Prayer.

The Creed is not said.

There are several things to note here:

1. The text does speak of “men” having their feet washed. The Latin term that is used in the original (viri) indicates adult males specifically.

2. This rite is optional; it is done “where a pastoral reason suggests it.”

3. There is no specific number of men specified. It does not say twelve men are to have their feet washed. How many is a decision open to the celebrating priest.

4. Although I have omitted the antiphons for reasons of space, none of them speak of the “apostles.” They either use the more generic term “disciples” or they do not mention the disciples at all but rather Jesus’ example for us or his commandment to love one another.

2. How does Pope Francis’s decision relate to this?

Pope Francis’s decision goes beyond what is provided in these texts in at least one respect: Instead of washing the feet of adult males, he decided to wash the feet of young women as well.

The fact that one of them was a Muslim does not go beyond what the letter of the text specifies, since it does not indicate that the chosen men are to be Catholics (or other Christians).

One would expect that they would be Catholics, and one could argue that this is implied in the text, but since Pope Francis is now the individual who is ultimately responsible for interpreting the text, if he judges that it does not prevent washing the feet of non-Christians then it doesn’t.

His decision does go beyond the text in the matter of men, however.

3. Can Pope Francis just do things that aren’t provided for in the law?

Yes. The pope does not need anybody’s permission to make exceptions to how ecclesiastical law relates to him. He is canon law’s ultimate legislator, interpreter, and executor.

And it’s not uncommon, at least in recent decades, for a pope to make exceptions to the law in how papal ceremonies are performed.

John Paul II frequently held liturgies that departed from what the Church’s liturgical texts provide, particularly when he was making a form of dramatic outreach, and Pope Francis seems to be following in his footsteps.

4. If he can do this, can others?

Technically speaking, no. If a pope judges that, due to the particular circumstances of a papal celebration, an exception should be made, that does not create a legal precedent allowing others to do so.

After all, not everybody is in the same situation as the pope. They don’t have the same pastoral circumstances or the same legal authority, and so if he makes an exception in his application of the law in his own case, it does not create a legal precedent for others doing so who do not have his circumstances or authority. [Emphasis mine]

On the other hand, if people see the pope doing something, they are naturally going to treat it as an example to be followed.

People naturally imitate their leader. That’s the whole point behind Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. He was explicitly and intentionally setting an example for them.

Pope Francis knows that he is setting an example.

It has been reported, e.g., that when he was told that he didn’t need to pay his pre-conclave hotel bill that he insisted on doing so, saying expressly that, as the pope, he needed to set an example.

5. What should we expect in the future?

It’s hard to say.

On a practical level, I would expect that there will be more priests who do things similar to what the pope has done.

On a legal level, the matter is more uncertain.

We may get a clarification of the matter, perhaps from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I suspect that, if we do get a clarification, it is likely to be one allowing more flexibility in terms of who has their feet washed. [Emphasis mine]

Already, the Congregation for Divine Worship has, apparently, indicated privately that a bishop can wash women’s feet if he feels a pastoral exception should be made. At least, that’s what Cardinal O’Malley indicated he was told when he asked them about the subject (see here for more info).

We’ll have to see, though. They may not say anything.

6. How should we understand the rite in light of Pope Francis’s action?

There has been a tendency in some circles to see the footwashing rite as linked specifically to the twelve apostles, and this has been presented as a reason why it should be limited to men.

In the past, I myself promoted that understanding, because that is how it was first explained to me.

It’s a natural understanding, particularly when twelve individuals are chosen to have their feet washed, and in an age when altar girls and women’s ordination have been receiving attention.

However, as I’ve looked more closely at the texts, other elements have struck me:

First, as we mentioned, the number twelve is not mandated in the text. The number is the choice of the celebrating priest. That, right there, loosens the connection of the rite with the apostles.

Second, this event is recorded only in John’s Gospel, and John does not describe Jesus as washing the feet of “the apostles.” Instead, John says that he washed the feet of “his disciples.” Disciples is a more generic term than apostles. Although they are sometimes used synonymously, Jesus had many more disciples than he did apostles.

Third, none of the antiphons sung during this rite (which might give clues to its meaning) speak of the “apostles.” They either use the more generic term “disciples” or they do not mention the disciples at all but rather Jesus’ example for us and his commandment to love one another.

Fourth, none of the explanatory texts for this rite explain it in terms of an action directed specifically to the apostles.

The most direct explanation of the rite’s purpose is found in Paschales Solemnitatis, which says:

This indicates that we should understand that this rite “represents the service and charity of Christ”–not as a statement about ordination to the priesthood. To read it that way goes beyond what the texts indicate.

According to the texts, our focus should be on the service and charity displayed in the rite and how we should serve and be charitable to one another.

The rite should not be read in the matrix of issues like women’s ordination. This rite isn’t about ordination, the way the Church understands it.

At least that’s how Pope Francis seems to understand it.

A Final Thought

I’d add one more thing, which is that it’s understandable that we might be perplexed or concerned about this.

After all, we do live in an age in which authentic Catholic teaching involving gender is under assault. The last few years have seen a lot of flashpoints involving the idea of women’s ordination. It’s under-standable that issues like altar servers and footwashing would be viewed in that matrix. [Emphasis mine]

At the same time, we should keep this in perspective.

The footwashing ceremony is only an optional rite, and it was only made part of this Mass in 1955 by Pope Pius XII, so its modern liturgical use doesn’t even go back that far.

The question of who serves at altar is far more closely connected to who is likely to think about becoming a priest than the question of who has their feet washed on Holy Thursday.

If the Holy See were to decide to expand how the law is to be applied in this case, it would not signal the end of the world.

If the Church can survive altar girls, it can certainly survive a change in the discipline regarding who has their feet washed. [Emphasis mine]

The National Catholic Register is a 2013 finalist for the Best Catholic Newspaper award.

SELECTED COMMENTS [CONSERVATIVES -- THAT IS ONE IN TWO COMMENTS -- DISAGREE WITH CATHOLIC ANSWERS APOLOGIST JIMMY AKIN]

Dear Jimmy Akin: There is no other way to explain what the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter did today other than to call it what it is: “A wicked gesture against Our Lord and Saviour Himself.” In fact, Jesus Himself said this would happen on March 14, 2013 through Maria Divine Mercy. Read at the link below.

http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/this-wicked-gesture-during-holy-week-will-be-seen-by-those-who-keep-their-eyes-open/. I respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Jimmy Akin. I wish people would open their eyes to the prophecies of MDM and pray about them instead of ignoring them. A Pope is supposed to set an example. Disregarding your own Liturgical Rules that calls for 12 men and adding 2 women does not sound good. He should have changed the rules first if he didn’t like them instead of disregarding them altogether as if the rules do not exist. Bad, bad, precedent. All these parsing of what “men” mean is irrelevant to those of us who have been skeptically watching. -Fidelis

I disagree [with Jimmy Akin]. Jesus washed the feet of 12 men. I figured excuses were going to be made for our Pope. Hope there aren’t more changes against tradition. –T.G.

Mr. Akin, Your quote: “It’s not traditional, but it’s humble and evangelistic” is in error. To break traditions and to re-fabricate them according to one’s own ideas is quite egocentric and prideful. … It is a false showboat form of humility. A truly humble man guards tradition, preserving it intact and passing it on unmodified to the next generation. –Chris Lauer

Entirely spurious reasoning. The Pope, as Supreme Legislator can, indeed, change Ecclesiastical law like our legislative bodies can. But, to ignore the law entirely as he did is an act of the worst sort of monarchism and, indeed, smacks of the clericalism so many people abhor. It’s not Pope Francis’ Mass, it’s the Church’s Mass.
Leave it to the Jesuits to send us a Pope who is unfaithful to himself (in his office). (Yes, yes, fine: the Pope judges all and is judged by none, fine, but it remains a duty to speak the truth.) -JRP

“The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve’ (Matt XX: 28)…this tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”

-CDWDS document, Paschales Solemnitatis, 1988 –Oatmeal

Sadly it looks like the Roman Church’s liturgical tradition is going to continue to unravel. –Walt

Mr. Akin, You argue above that the use in John’s Gospel of “disciples”, rather than “apostles”, lends ambiguity to the link, since the terms are not always interchangeable (though they can be). However, does not the fact that this took place at the Last Supper strongly imply that only the Twelve were present to have their feet washed? -LV

I anticipated this, after seeing footage of him doing the same thing in his home town. Whatever his intention, it will be seen by very many secular priests as a big fat red line through the rules of the GIRM.

Now everything will be seen as up for grabs. He has also greatly hampered any efforts by those of us who are trying to bring back more faithful liturgical practices.

In our parish church on Holy Thursday there is a drama of the last supper acted out by adults with oral script while the priest separately goes about consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ up on the altar. Thank God and Benedict XVI for the EF in the neighbouring diocese. –Jonah

If the Pope wants to change it, then so be it. But just do it right. Change the rubrics and explain why they are being changed. Then follow the new rubrics. That’s both good leadership and the pastoral approach. –Stu

While the Pope can “get away” with breaking canon law as the supreme legislator, he is setting an example, as you point out, for others to follow. However, unless Francis changes canon law—and there is no time before this evening to promulgate it, it will be a sin for others to do the same. Francis, as pope, is leading his priests to sin. Fortunately, under the circumstances, probably only venial. But intentionally leading others into sin is about as evil as evil gets. –Cassandra

I have always placed the liturgical ceremonies of Holy Thursday as our commemoration of the institution of the priesthood and the institution of the Eucharist. There is no mention of any women being present at the Last Supper – truly extraordinary as the Mother of God was most definitely in Jerusalem, she would next day be at the foot of the Cross. Twelve men had their feet washed by Christ as these twelve would take the burden of Christ’s priesthood – thus when we wash the feet of females and those who do not share our faith, we lessen the focus on those who would be ordained. Today, we really need to concentrate the hearts and minds of those who are now ordained as priests and those who will be ordained or who are discerning a vocation to the priest – there is a journey now lasting 2,000 years that brings us to this time. Let’s stay the course! That this liturgical innovation dates only to 1955 is neither here nor there – it is like saying that the Roman Missal in its current form was only approved for use in its new translation from Advent 2011. –Martin Shanahan

PASCHALIS SOLLEMNITATIS – The Preparation And Celebration Of The Easter Feasts Congregation for Divine Worship

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWEASTR.HTM
EXTRACT

IV. HOLY THURSDAY EVENING MASS OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

51. The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came “not to be served, but to serve. [58] This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.

What is Pope Francis really saying?

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-is-pope-francis-really-saying/

Posted on 28 March 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Here is what I think Pope Francis is up to.

In this explanation I am not necessarily endorsing specific things that he is doing (washing the feet of females in a prison) or not doing (refusing the mozzetta, etc.).

I am trying to get at what I think Pope Francis is really up to.

Before liberals and traditionalists both have a spittle-flecked nutty, each for their own reasons, try to figure out what he is trying to do.

Firstly, we are not succeeding in evangelizing. We are going backwards, globally. Francis knows this. This has to be foremost in his mind. This fact was probably foremost in the considerations of the College of Cardinals. How could it not be? So, Francis is faced with the obligation to address the problem of evangelization.

In the wealthy west, the Church is often perceived (and it is so very often portrayed) as not being compassionate. The Church doesn’t care about women in crisis pregnancies (and therefore we don’t condone abortion or contraception because we are not “compassionate”. The Church doesn’t care about the divorced and remarried (because we don’t admit them to Holy Communion and therefore we are not “compassionate”). Likewise, getting down into the nitty-gritty of defending small-t traditions and fighting over their meaning, their larger value, history and worth today, we are not compassionate (because we talk about the details of worship we are therefore ignoring the real needs of people and we are therefore not compassionate).

There are all sorts of ways in which people have lost the sense that the Church is actually about compassion, properly understood.

I think what Pope Francis is up to is trying to project, re-project, is an image of the Church as compassionate. He is trying to help people remember (or learn for the first time) that she is actually all about compassion, charity in its truest form.

We’ve lost the message and we have to get it back.

For example, in his sermon for the Chrism Mass he indicated that priests need to be edgier, take more risks in getting out there with people. He is probably thinking (like a Latin American bishop might with enormous slums in the diocese) that you depart from certain things for the sake of connecting elsewhere. You risk being over-interpreted or losing control of the message for the sake of getting the real message out there again.

I’ll wager that, as a Jesuit, Francis doesn’t care about liturgy very much. He is just not into – one whit – either what traditional liturgy types or what liturgical liberals want.

Some liberals live and breathe liberal liturgy. On the other end of the spectrum, such as the undersigned, traditional Catholics think that liturgy is critical but for different reasons (“Save The Liturgy, Save The World”, comes to mind). Francis isn’t invested in either of these camps.

For Francis, I think, it is more a matter of “a pox on both your houses”.

Putting it in a vague way, Francis wants people to leave Mass feeling “joy”, or something having to do with the “kingdom”, etc. As he said at the Chrism Mass he wants people leaving Mass “as if they have heard the good news”.

Look. I am not saying his is the right approach. I am saying this is what I think he is doing in his liturgical and personal-style choices (where he is living, what chair he sits in, etc.).

Francis wants priests to talk to people and find out what they need and get involved in their daily struggles. Liturgy, for Francis, seems to be involved precisely in that. Do I think Francis may be missing huge points in this approach? Sure, right now I do. But I am leaving the jury out.

I don’t have to 100% embrace what Francis is doing even as I struggle to see and understand what I is up to.

I am quite sure, however, that Francis isn’t trying to ruin what Benedict and John Paul before him tried to construct. He is up to something else. He is getting at the problem of the Church not making any headway in evangelization.

Here is a problem.

Liberals will find it far easier than conservatives to claim that Francis’ actions are endorsements of their liberal thing. Remember this: Liberals could give a damn about the gender of the person whose feet are being washed. Their focus is really the gender of the one doing the washing. Liturgical liberals are included in this. They only care about the washing of the feet of women, because ultimately they want women to do the washing. This is about the ordination of women, not about their feet.

Before these liberals start taking their victory laps, I would remind them that Francis is not going to touch doctrine. He has clearly talked about the Devil. He has spoken clearly before his election about same-sex stuff as discrimination against children. He has firmly fought Liberation Theology.

What liberals forget in their present crowing is that even as Francis makes himself – and the Church – more popular by projecting compassionate image, he will simultaneously make it harder for them to criticize him when he reaffirms the doctrinal points they want him to overturn.

Bottom line.

Francis is pushing out to the world (ad extra) an image of compassion. I think he is correcting both sides, within the Church (ad intra), which may both be, both sides, losing the forest for the trees: we are not succeeding in evangelizing and we cannot sacrifice doctrine for the sake of mere popularity or worldly acceptance.

SELECTED [OUT OF 83] COMMENTS

I think a great deal has to do with him being a Jesuit, as you say. I have never known a Jesuit personally who gave a care about the liturgy, one way or another. So maybe we should not read too much into Pope Francis’ style as it emerges. Now if he doesn’t wear the mozzetta for the Via Crucis, well all bets are off! –Marcello

I think he’s going to have the effect—and very soon—of undoing a great deal of what Benedict did. Moreover, he is giving lots of ammo to those who want to put the worst possible spin on Benedict’s pontificate.

I’m not throwing a spittle flecked nutty. But I am coming quickly to terms with a sinking reality that the Benedictine reform is dead in the water. Yes, the priests were empowered and shown a fine example, but there was not enough time for momentum to develop or for the biological solution to take its effect. –Vox Borealis

Madness. Jesus Mercy. – Louis IX

I suppose my concern isn’t that Francis is washing the feet of a Muslim in a prison or not wearing the mozzetta. My concern is that Francis is projecting the image that he knows better. As Father Z wrote last week, Francis risks making this look like it’s all about him. I certainly don’t think that’s his goal, but that’s an impression that can be drawn from his actions.

It’s been a whirlwind two weeks since Francis was chosen so we all must give him time, even if we are uneasy about some of what we’ve seen. Hopefully, Francis will come to realize some of the outward signs of traditions he’s chosen not accept aren’t a sign of a disconnected Church, but a reflection of the traditions and beliefs that have made the Church endure for 2000 years. -Robbie

I am happy that I do not have to like the liturgy of the Holy Father, any of them for that matter, and can remain Catholic. I’ll leave it at that. It reminds me of when Benedict mentioned condoms in that interview with Peter Seewald. It was completely misunderstood and it took much heavy-lifting and hand-wringing by others to make it not sound heretical. I fear the same this time. Why do these men of God have to make our job as Catholics harder? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? – Lavrans

I don’t think it matters any more what he’s trying to do. He now has no moral authority, since he flouted the norms – and the usual result of flouting norms is chaos. –Nanette Claret

Thank you Father but I am having a spittle-flecked nutty anyway. Pope Francis has an enormous responsibility toward the liturgy and adherence to canon law. His love for the poor and for people on the margins is admirable and winsome, but it is not necessary in the least to bless a liturgical abuse in order to demonstrate love for an outcast. In choosing to engage in a liturgical abuse much loved by liberals, he has not put any pox whatsoever on the liberal camp. Rather, he has endorsed that camp’s views about the liturgy. He at the same time has undermined the Vatican’s authority, which is his responsibility to uphold. Why should anyone take what the Vatican says seriously if the Pope doesn’t? –Donato 2

Simply put, I’m scandalized, confused and frightened. Beyond that, I have no words. –David Andrew

I am a bit concerned about this, not because I think washing the feet of women is the lynchpin of the Catholic faith, but because Pope Francis is setting an example that it’s OK to break canon law.

Dr. Edward Peters has a great, level-headed as always, post on this:

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/popes-like-dads-dont-have-a-choice-in-the-matter/

I see all those who have been abusing the liturgy and violating canon law as being validated. I see the Bishops who won’t apply Canon 915 as being validated, even lauded, for standing up to that big bad Canon Law.

This is what pops in to my mind, but I’m new to the CC and don’t know much about these things, so Fr. Z., please relieve my fears. –O. Possum

I don’t know about any of this. We live in an insane age that thinks it has the right a complete understanding of every single thing we see at the moment it passes before our eyes. I do fear that Francis’ papacy will be a tragic one because of all the expectations (and I even hear these from the priests in my own parish) heaped on the poor man from the instant he walked out on the balcony overlooking St. Peter’s Square; it isn’t called the ‘room of tears’ for nothing I suppose.

In any case the man has barely been pope for two weeks, and a month and a half ago he was thinking only of the concerns of his Archdiocese in Buenos Aires without a second thought to the papacy, so give him a break. His papacy may turn out to be a disaster for the Church in which case it will be our Cross to bear patiently and without complaint, but then again it may not be so bad and may even might be a good thing. And no matter what your opinion of his recent actions PRAY FOR POPE FRANCIS with all your heart because he needs it. –Priam

I too am scandalized, confused and frightened, but I have many words. I don’t know how I can stay in a church where the pope not only refuses to refer to himself as pope, but refuses to follow church law. If he breaks one law, what assurance do we have he will not break more. I am not convinced that he will not change any doctrines. So many Jesuits want women priests, abortion and SSM. I can’t feel good about him not being in that camp. This foot free for all has scandalized me unbelievably. This, I fear, is only the beginning of the end. The only constant I have ever had in my life has been the unchanging Church. Now that too is gone. It will be a sad, sad Easter. –Pooh Bear

“Liberals will find it far easier than conservatives to claim that Francis’ actions are endorsements of their liberal thing.” And there is what has me worried most (aside from episcopal choices, perhaps). Francis may have said that the Church isn’t an NGO, but his emphasis on compassion-and-humility makes it that any liberal can portray it as such. In fact, any liberal (as measured relative to the societal mean) will see it that way too, as they won’t give a tenth of a penny about salvation and all the other elements that sets the Church apart from your run-of-the-mill NGO. At the end of the day, the Church must be compassionate, and it’s certainly helpful to be regarded as such. But the Church’s mission is not to alleviate poverty – I’d go so far as to say compassion can never strike a decisive blow against poverty; only good governance (freedom and rule of law) can do so. The Church mission is first and foremost to get souls to Heaven. To make it clear: I’m not saying Pope Francis has any other mission in mind. But what he does, is thus far giving a wholly different impression. And impressions count too. –Phil

Unfortunately, I don’t believe returning to tactics and techniques from the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s is going to evangelize anyone! It is what got us into the mess the Church is in today. –Acardnl

The great danger is that however well intentioned Pope Francis may be, others will interpret the gestures toward their own ends which will, in the end, do no good for the Church. I agree we should give him some breathing room but flouting law and tradition only undermines his own authority so that for all the help he wants to bring to the poor, the world will pay very little mind to what he has to say. After all, the next guy may change it all anyway, so what’s the bother?

I still do not think he has grasped the enormity of his office. He is not a bishop of a struggling Third World diocese. He is the Supreme Pontiff and should not only look but act the role. The humble little pastor of the poor is endearing to many pious souls but Mammon will tire of it very quickly and turn on him in a New York minute; what moral authority he has now will vanish in the blink of an eye. -Marcello

I hope you are right in your analysis, Fr Z. I noticed that for the Holy Mass in prison, the number of candles had also been reduced to one at each side… If Pope Francis is not bothered liturgically, why would he order this change as well, going against a simple Benedictine arrangement? Maybe God is telling us that the Novus Ordo is beyond a reform of the reform…maybe we should be looking forward to its abolishment some time in the 21st century, to be replaced by the vetus ordo or the byzantine mass all over the world. -Ambrose

I think it will be difficult for Pope Francis or the CDWDS Prefect to address reports of liturgical irregularities while the Holy Father is breaking rubrics himself [without modifying them beforehand as far as we know]. –Dr. K

That is a charitable way to look at what he is doing Fr Z. I never thought it possible but less than a month into this papacy it is safe to say it is a failure. Go ahead, jump all over me and say it has only been 2 or 3 weeks blah, blah, blah. If indeed we look at this in the best possible light as Fr Z just did. It reeks of incompetence and ignorance. Or he could be doing something on purpose. Many were saying that the next Pope needed to be someone who could speak through the modern media. Well, message heard loud and clear Francis!
If he is not doing this on purpose, he is incredibly naive. Once the modern leftists and the media get a toe in the door they open it with great force. We were already getting our brains bashed in by the secular liberal world. Now, by showing them “compassion” it will only be taken as a sign of weakness. The wolves will redouble their efforts. It was hard enough to fight for Truth when we had an Orthodox Pope. Now, this will disintegrate very, very quickly. Francis strikes me as a very powerful man. As a very forceful man. The media portrays him as meek and humble but his actions have been hostile and aggressive. If you are going to do mental gymnastics and twists to fit this Pope into Traditional Catholicism and explain away every thing he is doing you will go mad Fr Z!
This battle is LOST! This Pope has done more for the progressives in 2 weeks than the last 2 Popes have done in 30 years for traditionalists.
And we are arguing if he is doing it on purpose or not!?
It does not matter. The damage and scandal is just as damaging no matter what the intent.
A Pope elected by the curia, at a time when people were talking of cleaning the curia… and this Pope diminishes the Papacy. Uh oh!
God help him.
God help us.
God help the world.
God help our Church.
God help me see that I am wrong… -Potato

If a Pope is prepared to simply ignore whatever he wants it doesn’t bode well. People may put a positive spin on what he is doing- but it seems at the moment that the Papacy is all about him and not much else. In terms of liturgy it seems he doesn’t give two hoots about beauty or reverence, and doesn’t seem to care about following the rubrics as laid down. I fear a succession of deeply depressing events during the course of this pontificate, events that will do nothing to help bring about Christian unity, and do everything to push many people over the edge towards sedevacantism.

Hand on heart I feel they have elected the wrong man, and we are doomed to a return to 1970s style bland liturgy and catechism that is just monumentally awful, with emboldened liberals thrusting their heretical ideas onto impressionable young minds. –Alex P

As for me, the dam is breaking. I hoped against hope that all the signs weren’t true, even as they were mounting: reportedly endorsed civil unions, reportedly spoke dismissively of the Regensburg address, showed no care for the liturgy while archbishop of Buenos Aires, reportedly said that some priests over emphasize sexual morality and that this is an impediment to evangelization, and seems hostile to the primacy of Rome. There is no doubt about it: at the liturgical level and level of sensibilities, he is an out an out liberal. Like poohbear, I too fear that these attitudes will infect doctrine. Here however we must have faith, faith in Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail. Our faith requires only that the Pope not teach error in matters of faith and morals. Jesus did not promise that none of the successors of Peter would trash the liturgy or flout canon law.-Donato

“I am trying to get at what I think Pope Francis is really up to.”
Why would we HAVE to figure out what he is up to? I’m very much afraid that Dr. Peters is correct. Why reform the law when it is easier to flout? Very much saddened to witness this by the Holy Father as well as the apologists working over time to excuse. –Keith

1. Can anyone imagine this level of liturgical knowledge, general outrage, and public education ten years ago? We’re much stronger and more knowledgeable than we were in the “pro multis” days.

2. Any pastor worth his collar won’t want anything to do with the foot washing ceremony after this. He can’t win. So this might be the death knell of this Bugnini innovation.

3. The ne0-evangelists can’t hope against hope anymore. They have nowhere to hide, and frankly owe the traddies an apology. Going forward, they are going to have to decide whether obedience in liturgy and beauty matters or not to the new evangelization. It’s a time for choosing for those folks. -Rellis

A few weeks ago would breaking liturgical law have been considered productive to evangelization at this blog? –David Werling

I wanted to respond to two thoughts mentioned by others. First, someone said the Holy Spirit chose Francis. I would disagree with you and so would the former Cardinal Ratzinger. In 1998 I believe, he wrote that the Holy Spirit does NOT choose the Pope and the best evidence of that is the fact we’ve had some bad Popes (Alexander VI, Urban VII).

Second, someone mentioned that much of what we’re seeing has to do with the fact Francis is a Jesuit. I suspect that has played a huge role, but Francis is no longer a Jesuit who happens to be the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. He’s the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, don’t misunderstand me. I don’t believe he should cast aside all that has formed him life, but the Papacy is bigger than just being a Jesuit, correct? –Robbie

One card at a time, Pope Francis is showing us his philosophy. I agree with Vox Borealis that the reform of the reform is toast. It’ll slide into oblivion and be replaced with all that many of us have fought against for 40 years. Many of our Bishops that have wavered on the edge will swing back to the “left”.
Having said all that, I must add that this is our Cross to carry for at least 6-10 years. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back next time. –Sword

I only have one problem with what Pope Francis did. He should have FIRST revised the official liturgical rules, and then went ahead and washed women’s feet. I love Pope Francis a lot and think he is a holy man, but this is the sort of thing that can cause division and a lack of obedience to spread. –Dave M

To poohbear and david andrew : My friends in Christ, just keep your eyes on Jesus, read the Catechism and the Bible, pray and ask for the prayers of our Blessed Mother and our Saints and be thankful for all the many joys and blessings to be found in the Sacraments and in the little things that make life worthwhile. We’re going to be tested and we must keep the faith. “Be ye not afraid”.
If I were you I wouldn’t waste my time speculating about what is going on in Rome right now. As I said in a post the other day, I feel we’re on a slippery slope and it’s imperative to keep focused on Jesus. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart. Lean not unto thine own understanding.” We’ve been given all that is needed but we must trust and obey our Lord and Church teachings. Thank God they’re all written down… let us write them on our hearts! – D B Wheeler

What is Pope Francis really saying when he states that the Moslems worship the same God as Christians do? –Nancy D

A person can give a good example and a person can give a poor example. Francis may have given us both at the same time.

I think he could have solved this (as the churches chief legislator) by simply issuing a Motu Proprio modifying the Mandatum. Problem solved. –pseudomodo

“For example, in his sermon for the Chrism Mass he indicated that priests need to be edgier, take more risks in getting out there with people. He is probably thinking (like a Latin American bishop might with enormous slums in the diocese) that you depart from certain things for the sake of connecting elsewhere.” Father, with all respect, I heard all this stuff in the 60′s and 70′s. It didn’t effectively evangelize anybody then, and I have no confidence that it will be more successful now. My attitude is to hunker down and await the coming storm, and pray that we will have the strength to persevere. When the storm breaks, all the departures from tradition will not buy any good will or forbearance from the world. Rather, they will be a source of weakness. –wecahill

I asked myself, were I the devil, what would I want for Easter? The answer, of course, is the uproar we’re having now. I do not have the good fortune of living in a conservative/traditional-minded diocese. (If I revealed which diocese, many on this thread would be shocked. X diocese has such an appearance of tradition that even the liberal bastion next door would be surprised.) On the Feast of the Exultation of the Cross, 2007, four of our priests ‘came out’ regarding the TLM. All had made preparations quietly for years, betting against the odds–one beginning in his seminary days, I believe. They did not enjoy support from the bishop, and not all their fellow priests reacted well. (I don’t hesitate to use the word cruel in certain instances.) But the law is now on their side, and they are making a difference, although progress sometimes seems awfully slow.

What I’m trying to say is, yes, it would be great if Francis were another Benedict, but he’s not. If the only time we can expect to make headway toward liturgical renewal is when a conservative pope is sitting, then I agree, let’s pack up and quit right now–isn’t there anyone else who finds this notion utterly ludicrous? Since when has any lasting change come from the top down? If we’re going to have reform, it MUST be implemented from the bottom up. (Think about that the next time you run across one of those “This means YOU” ads.) I’m sorry Pope Francis isn’t observing his own rubrics; we should be honest and admit that few priests do. We can hold them to a higher standard. We must be both patient and persistent.

And we need the good natured pluck of the little boy who, when shown a pile of manure, joyfully attacked it with a shovel. “With all this @&$%,” he said, “There has to be a pony in here somewhere!”

Somewhere, in all this @&$%, is a reform of the reform. –Therese

Fr I wish I shared your certainty about his intentions in regards to the issues you raise. I do not share your confidence, especially in regards to the Liturgy. Things appear to be “spirit of VII” full steam ahead despite the approach of humility and trying to make the Church relevant to those who have dismissed it as uninterested in the unfortunate of this world. The “reform of the reform” is over and the approach, whatever the direction it is headed in is more like that of a heavy earth mover than a piece by piece approach. There will be a lot more surprises to come as he breaks with tradition at every opportunity. –Hank Igitur

Sure you will get some new people into the Church with this method and at the price of others being fed up with the instability and disorientation. Yeah, we all know it is on your soul leaving the Church but that doesn’t stop them. People leave for the very chaos that they are going through now. The “Catholic Come Home” thing that has been going on the last few years probably brought in some people. People who may have left during the crisis years because they saw something familiar in Benedict and the Church. More stability etc. And now they will exit in distrust and with resentment. So in the end it is the shifting of numbers. And I don’t believe at all this is the right approach. The Church is supposed to be a huge umbrella where everyone can take shelter and feel at home. The continuing shifting of groups, reaching for one while putting off another is a lose, lose situation. What surprises me most is the hubris with which this is being done and at such a rapid pace. Did no one learn of the dizzying effect this had in the 60′ and early 70′s ? For a Pope to subject the Faithful to this, with no explanation doesn’t strike me as humble at all. At least with each symbol or restoration that Benedict did there were explanations, reasons grounded in sound Tradition and logic. Setting himself against Benedict’s reforms and John Paul II’s conservative moments is how it is coming off to folks. And Rome knows that which makes the silence about why day after day all the more deafening. –Mitchell

Washing women’s feet?

By Fr. Dwight Longenecker, March 28, 2013

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/03/washing-womens-feet.html

Today Pope Francis washed the feet of twelve detainees in a youth detention center. Two of them were female.

Last year I wrote this post* explaining why the rubrics call for men to have their feet washed. Jimmy Akin explicates the texts and offers an excellent commentary here**. **See pages 8 ff.

What are we to make of the Holy Father disregarding the rubrics which call for “selected men” to have their feet washed, and what does his washing feet of females say about the link between the foot washing and the apostolic ministry?

Jimmy Akin points out that the church documents don’t actually link the foot washing with the apostolic ministry, although that is one level of symbolism. Instead it states that the foot washing is primarily a sign of service.

Clearly, the Holy Father wishes to emphasize this symbolic aspect of foot washing more than the link with the apostolic ministry. At the heart of the symbolism of foot washing are the Lord’s words, “I have not come to be served, but to serve.” and “The greatest among you must be the slave of the least.” By taking a step to the lowest of the low in society and washing their feet he is emphasizing the heart of the ceremony–at the expense of the other rich symbolism of Holy Thursday.

What do I make of it? It’s okay. He’s the Pope. I’m concerned that his willingness to disregard the rubrics may give the wrong signal and give carte blanche to every other priest who wants to use the liturgy to make a personal point. I personally wish he had found a way to combine all the elements of this rich symbolism together–maybe by choosing to wash the feet of selected priests and brothers who spend their lives serving the poor. He would thereby have also re-emphasized his role as “the servant of the servants of God”. By doing this within his basilica of St John Lateran (I know he hasn’t yet taken possession of it) he would also be showing through rich and traditional symbolism, the role of the Bishop of Rome as the servant of the poor by washing the feet of those priest members of the Body of Christ who serve the poorest of the poor.

On the other hand, by taking a radical step and washing the feet of poor young prisoners – women as well as men – he not only reminds us of the radical nature of the symbol, but also the unexpected and sometimes upsetting example of the Lord himself – who upset some religious traditions in order to make a point.

In the gospel Jesus repeatedly flouted some strict rules for a greater good, and so upset the religious legalists. Did the Pope break the rubrics? At the end of the day the rubrics are there to serve the gospel–not the gospel to serve the rubrics.

*http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/04/men-only-foot-washing.html,
see further below; the above article seems to be a complete reversal – or adjustment – of his initial position.

SELECTED [OUT OF 35] COMMENTS

I fear that this is a case of the right thing done the wrong way. The Holy Father’s actions would have had more impact if he had changed the rubric instead of defying it. –Wineinthewater

If one takes Sacrosanctum Concilium seriously; the Holy Father as the Bishop of Rome and the Chief Liturgist not only for that Diocese but also for the Church… one may conclude that if the Chief Liturgist chooses to ignore the liturgical rubrics, then he is sadly setting the example that could be followed by all other bishops and priests – ignore the rubrics for a “higher cause”. If this is the pattern he is setting, I fear we’re back to the 1960′s-70′s with clown Masses and pizza and beer instead of break and wine – as long as the “innovations” (deviations from the rubrics) serve a perceived “higher cause”. –Robert

There is no excuse for this and none should be given. We all know the ramifications to his public witness to his own disobedience. This is beginning to look like a show of self love in the name of humility. We must wait for his appointments before we form any convictions but so far, his judgment is starting to smell of a wreckovator. – Carol

I appreciate your kindness toward the Holy Father, but this is a sad thing to watch. Yes, we’ve always had priests who loved innovation – they were disobedient to Rome. But when Rome improvises? The fall out from this is anybody’s guess. I feel especially sad for faithful priests who hold fast to doctrine in the face of an incredibly hostile culture. They may have ’70′s mindset’ bishops, but they could always look to the Holy Father… -Anne

Why is it OK for the pope to violate liturgical rubrics &, in doing so, set a very bad example for priests & bishops? Is he deliberately advocating disobedience to Church law in a era of widespread disobedience on the part of clergy & laity alike? Why take a chance on causing even more harm when Catholics are already walking a tightrope in so many areas? I don’t care if he’s the head of the Church–as such, he’s even more obligated to set the example for all Catholics. Guess it’s OK for me to disobey now as long as it benefits the poor & marginalized, right? I’m following his example. Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would approve of it. One of the holiest days of the year for Catholics & he excludes his fellow Catholics from this Mass. How wonderful! –Ben

As Pope Benedict said “One must not just come in as pope and start to make things the way he would like to.” I am really concerned at these changes which are making the previous popes look like evil men. Something is not right. –Taad

Men only foot washing

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/04/men-only-foot-washing.html

April 2, 2012 By Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Thomas MacDonald writes well here about the foot washing to take place at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Thursday.

What he doesn’t mention is that the rubrics at the Mass call for men to have their feet washed. I wonder how many parishes have “creative” priests who use this as an opportunity to be “inclusive”. I’ve already had one person ask my advice on Facebook on how to respond to his priest who wants his seven year old daughter to be one of the people having their feet washed.

We should get this straight. The tradition and the rubrics mandate that men are to have their feet washed. Not little girls, not women, not boys. Men. Why is this? Because the foot washing ceremony is not only an example of Christ being the lowest servant of all, as Tom’s article makes clear, but it is also a consolidation of the apostolic ministry.

How often have you heard this one? “Jesus never ordained priests and bishops–the whole masculine hierarchy thing is a man made invention.” Not so. The Church teaches that the Last Supper was not only the institution of the Holy Eucharist, but also the ordination of the first presbyters of the church. Our Lord establishes the Eucharist and says to the twelve, “Do this in memory of me.” As the Passover is re-configured into the Eucharist, so the twelve tribes of Israel are re-configured into the apostolic ministry. Furthermore, when we read the text closely we see that the whole passage which we call ‘the high priestly prayer of Christ’ not only establishes Christ as the great High Priest, but we also see how he is sharing every aspect of his priestly ministry with his apostles.

Twelve men are chosen to bear the authority of Christ on earth and at the Last Supper he passes on his authority and ministry on to them. This is why in John’s gospel, at the Last Supper, Christ’s long discourse has as its theme “As the Father has sent me, so I have sent you.” (John.18.18) The entire long discourse is his delegation of authority and ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. The fact of the matter is that despite the Lord’s mother being the holiest of people, and despite the fact that he had many holy women in his entourage, Jesus chose twelve men to be his apostles.

The foot washing therefore has a strong resonance with the establishment of the apostolic ministry. As Christ has served them, they are to serve the rest of the church and the world. The twelve men who have their feet washed therefore represent the twelve apostles as well as representing the whole people of God. As Christ has become the slave of all, so the apostles too are to be “the servants of the servants of God.”

Washing the feet of little girls–sweet though it may be–does not have quite the same symbolic power.

SELECTED [OUT OF 33] COMMENTS

Don’t start me on the female altar servers mistake. Yes, without being a raving heretic or sedevacantist, I can call it a mistake. The Pope is guaranteed infallibility, but this is very clearly defined and does not mean that every single thing a particular Pope says is infallible, nor does it mean that every liturgical change a particular Pope permits is infallible or written in stone. There are many good, orthodox Catholics, including a priests I know personally, who believe, with clearly reasoned arguments, that the permission to use female altar servers was a grave mistake. I believe that one day that decision will be reversed. In the meantime, it in no way excuses people from the Church rule regarding the Washing of the Feet. For several important reasons the Washing can only be done to men. –Veritas

What was the mistake? I thought it was approved by Pope John Paul II. -Will

Will, disagreeing with something a Pope has allowed is a very sensitive topic. One group see you as a heretic who challenges Church teaching, the other group see you as a sedevacantist – someone who thinks the present Popes are illegitimate. I can assure you I am neither. I believe absolutely in Papal Infallibility.

However, this is a very carefully defined dogma and does NOT mean that everything a particular Pope does, says or allows is correct. For example, Pope Alexander VI was, I believe, an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment for Catholics. His personal life was by any moral standards, appalling. If I had lived at his time I hope I would have been brave enough to join vocal opposition to his lifestyle. However, I also believe that God totally protected him from formally teaching any heresy. The Church was protected by Papal Infallibility.

I greatly admire Pope John-Paul II. The example of living faith he showed us by the way he handled his physical decline and death was beautiful. However I believe he allowed several things to become established that were a mistake. One of these changes was the introduction of female altar servers. -Veritas

Thanks for this post, Father, here’s another good one that goes along with yours:

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/lawtext/index/6/subindex/97/lawindex/31

Q. Can the priest wash women’s feet on Holy Thursday?

A. According to the Sacramentary, “The men [vir] who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers, he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them.”

In 1988 the Congregation for Divine Worship reaffirmed that only men’s feet are supposed to be washed: “The washing of the feet of chosen men [vir] which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve’ (Matthew 20:28). This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”–Paschales Solemnitatis, 51. In both cases the Latin word vir is used which means that men is not referring to mankind but only to males. Therefore, only men may have their feet washed on Holy Thursday. The practice of having the congregation wash each other’s feet is also not allowed as the instruction refers only to the priest as the washer of feet. – Erika

What makes the situation “muddier” as Jimmy Akin posted back in 2005 is that Cardinal O’Malley was permitted to do this — http://jimmyakin.com/2005/03/quo_vadis_viri_.html. Mark Shea (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/04/women-and-footwashing.html) points to the USCCB website which indicates it is permitted (http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-resources/triduum/holy-thursday-mandatum.cfm). It bothers me that my own parish does this, but knowing that this matter can be argued from both sides makes me not want to even say anything.- Tom Grelinger

Apparently, Pope Francis has a different opinion on the matter. –James,
March 28, 2013
[This last post was made TODAY. All the other (32) comments were posted between April 2 and 7, 2012]

Popes, like dads, don’t have a choice in the matter

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/popes-like-dads-dont-have-a-choice-in-the-matter/

March 28, 2013

Pope and dads set examples whether they want to or not. If I have dessert despite not having finished my supper, my kids do not experience that family rule as something presumably oriented to their welfare, but rather, as an imposition to be borne until they, too, are old enough to make and break the rules. Now, none will dispute that Pope Francis has, by washing the feet of women at his Holy Thursday Mass, set an example. The question is, what kind of example has he set?

As a matter of substance, I have long questioned the cogency of arguments that the Mandatum rite should be limited to adult males (a point lost on Michael Sean Winters in his recent nutty over a Mandatum-related post by Fr. Z that linked to my writings on the subject). But I have never doubted that liturgical law expressly limits participation in that rite to adult males, and I have consistently called on Catholics, clerics and laity alike, to observe this pontifically-promulgated law in service to the unity (dare I say, the catholicity) of liturgy (c. 837). Pope Francis’ action today renders these arguments moot. Not wrong, mind. Moot.

By disregarding his own law in this matter, Francis violates, of course, no divine directive, nor does he — to anticipate an obvious question — achieve the abrogation of a law which, as it happens, I would not mind seeing abrogated. What he does do, I fear, is set a questionable example at Supper time.

We’re not talking here about, say, eschewing papal apartments or limousines or fancy footwear. None of those matters were the objects of law, let alone of laws that bind countless others.

(Personally, I find Francis’ actions in these areas inspiring although, granted, I do not have to deal with complications for others being caused by the pope’s simplicity).

Rather, re the Mandatum rite, we’re talking about a clear, unambiguous, reasonable (if not entirely compelling or suitable) liturgical provision, compliance with which has cost many faithful pastors undeserved ill-will from many quarters, and contempt for which has served mostly as a ‘sacrament of disregard’ for Roman rules on a variety of other matters. Today, whether he wanted to, or not, Francis set the Catholic world an example, about solidarity with outcasts, certainly, and about regard for liturgy.

A final thought: we live in antinomian times. One of the odd things about antinomianism (a condition that, by the way, does not always imply ill-will in its adherents though it usually implies a lack of understanding on their part) is that antinomianism makes reform of law not easier but harder: why bother undertaking the necessary but difficult reform of law when it’s easier simply to ignore it?

It’s a question with reverberations well beyond those of a foot-washing rite.

March 29, 2013, 9:00 am

For a more detailed examination of information compiled prior to March 28, 2013, please read

WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON HOLY THURSDAY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WASHING_THE_FEET_OF_WOMEN_ON_HOLY_THURSDAY.doc

↧

What’s happened to the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

June 21, 2013, 10:40 pm

≫ Next: St. Michaels Church Mahim refuses Communion to a Kneeler – Has Jesus Christ been insulted?

≪ Previous: Quo Vadis, Papa Francisco? WASHING THE FEET OF WOMEN ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

JUNE 15/19/20, 2013

What’s happened to the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

I have always been a faithful penitent, and hence you will find this lengthy compilation of information

CONFESSION-THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CONFESSION-THE_SACRAMENT_OF_RECONCILIATION.doc
in the “CATHOLIC ISSUES” section on this ministry’s web site, to which four contributions have been made by US apologist Ron Smith.

To avoid your reading here a repetition of my strong feelings on this issue – and on its decline and virtual disappearance in the postconciliar Indian Church — I recommend your perusing the above-referred document which also contains a letter from me to a Catholic forum on page 41.

Elsewhere in the document, some reasons for the decline are attributed by me to modern counseling/New Age techniques that preclude the confessing of one’s sins to a priest. Unfortunately, these techniques are increasingly being propagated by priests as the above-referred document indicates; check out the eighteen articles in the PSYCHOLOGY series at this ministry’s web site, including

PSYCHOLOGY AND NEW AGE SPIRITUALITY 01

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PSYCHOLOGY_AND_NEW_AGE_SPIRITUALITY_01.doc

PSYCHOLOGY AND NEW AGE SPIRITUALITY 02

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PSYCHOLOGY_AND_NEW_AGE_SPIRITUALITY_02.doc

PSYCHOLOGY-A TROJAN HORSE IN THE CHURCH

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/PSYCHOLOGY-A_TROJAN_HORSE_IN_THE_CHURCH.doc

and a revealing report

SANGAM INTEGRAL FORMATION AND SPIRITUALITY CENTRE, GOA-NEW AGE PSYCHOLOGY, ETC.

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/SANGAM_INTEGRAL_FORMATION_AND_SPIRITUALITY_CENTRE_GOA-NEW_AGE_PSYCHOLOGY_ETC.doc.

I have taken up the matter of the non-accessibility of priests for hearing confessions with successive bishops of my archdiocese including in my recent letter of February 4 to the present incumbent George Antonysamy.

The present report was ready for the web site since over two years now, but a recent letter from a formerly-active charismatic prayer group leader of Goa precipitated its publishing. Here is that letter:

From:
Kenneth D’Sa
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:59 PM

Subject: Re: WE COMPLETE A DECADE OF INTERNET MINISTRY, PRAISE THE LORD

Congratulations on your 10 years of a very unique internet ministry, filled I’m sure with a lot of hard work, loneliness, frustration and of course, persecution! Most in your place would have given up within a week – leave aside 10 years! God bless you Mike. Do keep up the good work. My prayers and good wishes go with you and your loved ones, always. And thanks for all the updates you keep sending. Your reports bring to light a lot of things which are hidden and put under the carpet not only by so-called charismatic leaders, but also mainly by the clergy.

I wish you would try and bring out an article on the clergy and their attitude towards the “Sacrament of Reconciliation”.

In my own personal experience, and I don’t mind being quoted, I HAVE BEEN REFUSED CONFESSION by priests because “IT WAS NOT TIME FOR CONFESSION”. Last Sunday, I was refused confession by a senior priest at Don Bosco’s, Panjim because it was SUNDAY!!! A typical attitude of the Levites of the time of Jesus! Today, there is also the new fashion confession … FACE TO FACE … why? What happened to the closed confessional? Why does the priest need to see the face of the penitent, especially girls and women? Also, are they so busy that they cannot find time to sit for confession? What is that “so much of work” that is so important and urgent that they have to do? Anyway, that’s today’s church … putting people off and driving them away to preachers like Johnson Sequeira and others. Can we blame them?

Take care of your precious self, Mike. You are precious in His Kingdom…..my prayers and good wishes remain with you.

Much love and prayers, Sonny

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
Kenneth D’Sa
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:55 PM

Subject: Re: RE: WE COMPLETE A DECADE OF INTERNET MINISTRY, PRAISE THE LORD

Dear Sonny, THANK YOU.

You are on the dot as usual. There is a report with feedback from around 60 priests to a question from me. It is yet to be released by me. I shall inform you when it is published*. I had also taken up this issue recently with my archbishop. Love, Michael

*Here is the letter that I wrote to about 120 priests, half of whom replied:

From:
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
Subject: CONFESSION PROBLEM Sent: Saturday, 22 January, 2011 To:

Dear Father,

Yesterday, Angela and I assisted a team from Bangalore in giving a full-day retreat in a convent school run by Salesian nuns, which is located in the compound of a parish church in Chennai. [This was the second retreat we gave]

A day before the retreat, I telephoned and requested the Salesian asst. parish priest [who had arranged the programme] to hear my confession before the commencement of the retreat. He informed me that he would be busy with school administration in the morning, and could not give me a commitment even for the rest of the day. Even when I repeated that I was ready to come to him at any time of his convenience before the start of his day’s work, or even later, he insisted that he was busy. When I finally confronted him firmly, asking him “Are you trying to avoid hearing my confession, Father“, he finally agreed to hear my confession at 8:25 am; the retreat was to commence at 9:00 am.

In the meanwhile, I shared this information with the Bangalore team over the ‘phone.

Early the next morning, after the leader of the Bangalore team arrived in Chennai and took up the issue with him, the priest rang me up at 7:00 am and reminded me of my appointment with him for confession at 8:25 am and then to join for breakfast with the sisters.

The previous night, after considering his initial reluctance, I had decided not to meet him, but now I said I would be there.

Although I started from home well in advance, I could reach the church only at 8:40 am due to an unexpected traffic diversion and the ensuing traffic jam because of the Republic Day parade practice. I could not find the priest anywhere. When I finally ran into him at 4:30 pm, he did not even mention our confession appointment, so I, too, let it pass.

Is it not one of a priest’s primary pastoral obligations to hear confessions, especially if I am whole-heartedly prepared to adjust my time to his convenience?

Later, my friend from the Bangalore team told me that there is a Canon Law that the priest has to obtain permission from his superiors to hear confession because he belongs to a religious order! I cannot accept that as being true.

This priest is an assistant parish priest in the church and has initiated a lot of “liturgical innovations” at Mass, I understand. I believe that the priest came to know from the same Bangalore team leader that I was in the know about this, as I had earlier expressed my concern to my “friend”, and therefore the priest was avoiding me so that I could not ask him about it, though in truth it had not even crossed my mind to do so.

I would like you to be very clear and explicit about all the issues involved, Father.

And, is there any truth in what my friend, who is a very good Catholic, said about Canon Law, superiors’ permission, etc?

I am taking this issue very seriously. I will not quote your name against what you respond to me.

Love, Michael

COMMON PORTION OF MY RESPONSE TO THE FIRST 39 LETTERS RECEIVED FROM PRIESTS [EXCEPT NOS. 29 AND 37 TO WHICH I DID NOT RESPOND. I GAVE AN EXCLUSIVE REPLY TO NO. 44]:

Dear Father, Thank you so much for your prompt and informative/supportive response which I very much appreciate. […]

I am not at all upset about the incident or with the priest.

I did not take up the matter with the parish priest because I did not want to make an issue out of it. I was more concerned that the assistant parish priest had apparently been able to convince the other half of our retreat team, seven persons from Bangalore, good Catholics, that there was a canonical reason that he had not acceded to my request for confession.

I have checked Canon Law and it does not apply in this case.

In my letter I had forgotten to add the information that when Angela and I had given a two-day retreat to the Muslim and Hindu students of another school on the same campus two months ago in November, the same Salesian Asst. parish priest had not only found the time to meet us several times before, during, and after the programme between 7:30 am and 6:00 pm but had also heard Angela’s confession immediately on her request.

It was only this time that he avoided me, and it’s a safe guess that it was because he heard that I was concerned about his experimental innovations [abuses] during the Liturgy of the Holy Mass.

Love, Michael

RESPONSES FROM PRIESTS [IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER]

1. From:
Name Withheld 1
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

It is a pity that the priest was not available to hear your confession. Canon Law does not require that a religious priest needs to get permission from his Superior to hear someone’s confession. Canon Law is very liberal about the sacrament of confession and allows even a priest dispensed from the vow of celibacy — and is therefore laicised — to hear the confession of anyone in danger of death. The last important gesture before his death was to hear the confession of that thief on the cross and to absolve him. Try to keep no feelings about that priest and have peace of heart because the Lord knows everything. In the absence of a priest make an act of contrition, saying also Ps. 32 and you will be free from your sins. In case of any mortal sin one needs to confess to a priest at the earliest opportunity. God Bless you!

From:
Name Withheld 1
To:
prabhu
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:38 PM Subject: Re: LITURGICAL ABERRATIONS

Dear Michael,

The topic ‘liturgical aberrations’ is a good one… but the authorities concerned will not take action. But as a source of data, it would be good to have those articles on the web site. You could send a collection also to the Vatican. The priest you referred to might have been disinterested in meeting you. You will have to get used to such things. But keep praying that your ministry will not arouse many hostile reactions. God Bless! Name Withheld 1, Salesian, Retreat preacher, Kolkata

2. From:
Name Withheld 2
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:27 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mike, confession is a personal need. You can opt to confess to any priest who is not barred by the cannon law. Some matters or sins are reserved to the Bishop and so cannot be absolved. And if a priest refuses to hear confession it is his problem. He has not to give any reason. Only in case of emergency no priest can refuse to hear confession. This is only in case of serious point of death. When you request a priest hear your confession he can either give you time or he may not. It is up to him. If it is not urgent matter he is free.

We cannot oblige any one to hear our confession these are two free actions of two free people. Though every priest is invested with the power to forgive it is not obligatory.

That is why pastorally this slackness has crept in. that is why confession has become not a priority in the lives of people

Jesus had always told his followers to seek forgiveness because the kingdom of God was at hand. it is for the each individual to seek this sacrament where and when possible.

So please do not feel bad if that priest refused to hear your confession.

I am sure just because you have sought to go for confession God forgives you. That is all that is needed. It is not the priest who forgives it is God who forgives.

From:
Name Withheld 2
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:51 PM Subject: yes

As I told you Mike, you are free to seek to hear confession. But some times the priest may not want to hear the confession. As there could be some reason for which he is not free to tell. In union with the Divine Word,

Name Withheld 2, SVD, Indore

3. From:
Name Withheld 3
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:33 PM Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

I was in the midst of a very important task, but when I read your mail, I was so disturbed that I have now suspended what I was doing and I will attend to your query. Michael, before I proceed any further, let me state forcefully that every priest whether religious or diocesan is duty bound to hear the confessions of all those who live in the parish in which he is posted. Besides this, there may be people from different parishes and dioceses who visit his parish and even they who come to his church for confession are entitled to go to him for confession. If the priest from one diocese goes to another diocese for a short duration and wants to carry out liturgical functions in that diocese for the general public, then only he must obtain the permission of the bishop of that diocese. If his visit is to his home, than he can offer Mass and confession for the members of the family without reference to the bishop. For example when I go to Bangalore for solemnizing a wedding of my relatives, the parish priest of Holy Ghost church gives me delegation to be the main celebrant and perform the marriage rites. I am quoting the relevant canon law clause that makes it obligatory for a priest to hear the confession of a person.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

Can. 986 §1 All to whom the care of souls has been entrusted in virtue of some function are obliged to make provision so that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably seek to be heard and that they have the opportunity to approach individual confession on days and at times established for their convenience.

§2. In urgent necessity, any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death, any priest is so obliged.

An Explanation: Canon 980 means that the person is a genuine Catholic.
Canon 986 2 means any priest even if he does not belong to that diocese has to hear the confession of a person in danger of death.
Michael I had experienced the same when I as a lay person I approached a priest before mass, he said “If I sit in the confessional, a line would gather.” He could have heard my confession in the sacristy. We diocesan priests are priests of the people. I remember that in a diocesan church I had gone for evening Mass. A priest was in the compound and the church was packed, I asked for concession and both of us sat on the steps and he heard my confession.

Many people including youth come to my room for confession. We must be responsive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Before Mass and after Mass, I sit on a chair for a few minutes and I have had the most beautiful confessions of daily Mass goers who have not gone to confession for 30 to 40 years. When we refuse to hear confession, that person may not ever come again. I hope that I have answered you.
Keep up the good work that you are doing. With Love, Blessings and Prayers.

From:
Name Withheld 3
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:25 PM Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

As you have stated, the priest could have felt that you would confront him. Women come easily for counseling and confession – not so men. The first time that fellow priests and nuns asked me to hear their confession, it was a sudden thought of “Would I be able to deal with them positively and spiritually”. But when in all humility as a priest I realised that when I sit in the confessional, and know that it is Christ who is really dealing with the penitent, then it is very easy. Hence, when an Archbishop suddenly asked me to hear his confession, I knew that Jesus would be the one speaking, advising spiritually and forgiving, I always left it to the Lord and as always, He brings peace & forgiveness to the person.
May God bless you as a couple. This Sunday’s Gospel precisely stresses the apostolate of the laity. There were so many women who helped Jesus in his ministry. Love Blessings and Prayers. Name Withheld 3, Diocesan, Mumbai

4. From:
Name Withheld 4
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:44 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

At the outset I must say that it was the duty of the Salesian priest to hear your confession. Your friend who quoted you the Canon law did not give you the number unfortunately but, I think, he has most probably misunderstood canon 969 which reads as follows:

Can. 969 §1 Only the local Ordinary is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful. Priests who are members of religious institutes may not, however, use this faculty without the permission, at least presumed, of their Superior.

The first half speaks of secular priests and the second of religious priests. With the ordination of every religious priest (in your case the Salesian priest) the permission of the superior is already presumed and, in any case, being an assistant PP he is presupposed to have the permission already.

Imagine a man dying in a plane and asks for a priest (if there is one on board) to hear his confession. The priest would commit a serious error if he refuses on grounds of permission. I hope things are clear now.

Wishing you more energy and blessings from the Lord in your ministry. Name Withheld 4, Jesuit, Mangalore/Rome

5. From:
Srampickal
To:
‘prabhu’
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:06 PM Subject: R: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Normally when a priest is ordained and appointed as asst. pp, he is given the powers to hear confessions and administer all sacraments. I do not see why he has a problem. May be he has another story to tell.

Again as a general norm, I never make judgments on anyone (that is HIS job up there).

May be he has his reasons. I need to hear from him. Without hearing both sides I cannot take a story as real.

Better contact a person nearby who can talk to the priest also. Why not ask the PP there?

From:
Srampickal
To:
‘prabhu’
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:58 AM Subject: R: CONFESSION PROBLEM

I like the ministry you are in.

Can you do a little help to popularize COMPANION among your clientele?

Let me know what you can do. I can send you some extra copies. Regards, Jacob Srampickal,
Jesuit, Rome

Fr Jacob Srampickal passed away. I would not recommend “COMPANION” to anyone. See

COMPANION INDIA-WHY I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS MAGAZINE TO CATHOLICS [To be updated]

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/COMPANION_INDIA-WHY_I_WOULD_NOT_RECOMMEND_THIS_MAGAZINE_TO_CATHOLICS.doc

6. From:
Name Withheld 5
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:33 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael Prabhu

As far as I know, whenever a religious priest resides in a diocese (a diocese where his community resides), he has to get the confession faculty from that bishop till he moves to another diocese for his transfer (for simply for a visit or a course to another diocese is not included). With that faculty he can hear confession of anyone from any diocese. If he said, he was busy, he must have been busy. Poor chap. Leave him free. Name Withheld 5,
Salesian, Bangalore

7.
From:
James Manjackal
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:03 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

My dear Michael,

It is obvious that he was avoiding you. He does not need any one’s permission to hear confession UNLESS HE IS FORBIDDEN by the church to hear the confession or under SANCTION.

Canon 986 says” All to whom by virtue of office the care of souls committed, are BOUND to provide for the hearing of the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them, who reasonably requests confession and they are to provide these faithful with the opportunity to make individual confession.”

Because he is a religious priest belonging to a particular order or congregation, he does not need any permission from his superior to hear the confessions of any one especially he the asst. parish priest.

As far I read your letter and understand, he was avoiding you. He has no reason not to hear your confession. Only a visitor priest, when he comes to a place needs the permission of the local superior (usually parish priest) to hear confession, that too when a penitent asks, he can hear without any permission.

How are you? I love you and pray for you. If you need more clarification I can write to you. The priest can simply say that he had no time!!! An easy excuse. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2011. Click here to visit my website

Fr. James Manjackal MSFS, Retreat preacher, Munich

8. From:
Name Withheld 6
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:40 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,
Please do not discuss issues regarding your own personal confession with anyone. It does not look nice for any of us to comment on. I am now 39 years a priest. I wish to tell you as a senior traditional priest to keep this matter a very low key. Whatever he does in his parish, he knows what he is doing — he must be doing it with his bishop’s permission. You are a man who preaches retreats. I wonder, why you get so worked up on such trivial matters, I think, you are greater than those little things. God bless you in what you do for the church and its people. I am sure, you are and you will be blessed by God. With warm regards and God’s blessings

From:
Name Withheld 6
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:49 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

I quite understand your predicament and the situation. However, I would like to point out to you that we priests have not yet become “angels” or “angel-like” human persons. We too have short comings like all other people. Sometimes, a little understanding from a person like you may make some of us “weak” priests better persons in future. Leave him to be himself. Some day soon he will realize his folly. Your guess may be correct, but a man like you, a great retreat preacher, holy person, can take it with a pinch of humility. I hope I am not preaching a retreat to you. Good luck in your ministry and good work for the people of God. God bless you and Angela. Love, Name Withheld 6. Diocesan, Mangalore

9a. From:
Name Withheld 7
To:
Michael Prabhu (E-mail)
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:45 PM

Subject: TR: Votre consultation sur la confession

Dear Michael

Thnak you for your message and for your trust. I submitted your problem to a canonist that is a friend of mine, and here the reply he sent me. An Assistant Parish Priest has the right and duty to hear confession. Confessions have to be organised in the Parish.
I don’t think you will be successful if you complain to the Bishop or to Holy See. They have to deal with so many more important abuses and disorders! They will consider this sad event as a detail in comparison with the rest. Let us keep praying for each other. United in prayers, In Cordibus Jesu et Mariae, Name Withheld 7, Benedictine, France

9b. De:
m……0@free.fr
Envoyé: samedi 22 janvier 2011 14:28 À: P. Jean Objet: Votre consultation sur la confession..
Dear Fr Name Withheld 7,
We, baptized, we should be peace-makers, even if somebody (especially a priest) is wrong.
Of course, we could pursue him, or let know the story to the bishop (however, this could be possible) or even to the Holy See (but it would be a waste of time, and Our Lord Jesus would probably not enjoy that).
(By the way, why not to ask the Parish Priest? If the Assistant refuses all the confessions, this MUST be done)
But all the saints would explain that it is better to find a peaceful solution.
Here, to choose a priest who accepts hearing confessions.
If no other priest is available in that place, ask the parish priest.
It is his duty to organize the confessions in his parish (Can 986).
From a canonical point of view, it seems that since he IS assistant, he has the right and the duty of hearing confessions.
It is obvious that he has received all the required permissions to do that, both from bishop and religious superiors (and the proof is that he granted an appointment).
He must hear confessions of people, provided that the request is reasonable (for instance, at a reasonable time…)
However, a priest has the right to refuse hearing a particular penitent, for special reasons:
if somebody is very scrupulous, or asks to confess every day; or if a person (for instance a woman) had probably strange/bad intentions.
There may be other reasons.
If not, the Code of Canon Law says:
Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another [Catholic] rite.
But if that priest seems very strange, and, for instance, “has initiated a lot of ‘liturgical innovations’ at Mass’”, does it reluctantly and in a hurry, it is perhaps better to ask another priest, isn’t it? Name Withheld 8, France

11. From:
Name Withheld 9
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:19 PM Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,
I have read your letter w.r.t confessions and replying to your query about Canon Law. I could say that all priests who have the faculty to hear confessions which is given by their local ordinary can hear confessions of anyone UNLESS the local ordinary has revoked it for certain reasons while the priest can do all other ministries. When that faculty is later restored than that priest can resume hearing confessions. In certain places the local ordinary or Religious Superior can make certain restrictions to certain priests of whom to hear confessions and in particular jurisdictions of the diocese. So some priests if they do not possess the faculty to hear confessions outside the diocese or other jurisdictions, if he hears confession it would be valid but illicit.
In your case I presume this priest has the faculty to hear confession as he is in a particular parish and he has not mentioned his inability in that sense but has deferred it due to other reasons to which he has even agreed later to hear it. So as per law, it is assumed that he has the faculty to hear confessions as per my judgement of the case you enumerated.
If you want to know more of the Canon Law, you could read or download Canons nos 965- 986 which speak of the sacrament of Penance.
I hope I could throw some light as I am not an expert in Canon Law but to what comes to my knowledge I have shared above. Regards, In Jesus Christ, Name Withheld 9, Diocesan, Mumbai

12. From:
John Jay Hughes
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:49
PM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael:

I am deeply distressed to learn of the difficulty you encountered in trying to go to confession. Request for confession is a priority for any priest in the world. I know of nothing in canon law which justifies what your friend told you about a priest, whether a member of a religious order or not, having to obtain permission to hear someone’s confession.

We priests are weak sinners, like everyone else. But that a priest would fail to respond at once to a request for confession is, I can only repeat, deeply distressing. As a priest myself, and in the name of the whole Catholic community, I apologize for this grave failure in pastoral duty.

Should you wish to talk to me about this, now or at any time, please call my private number: 314-862-4338. That is answered only by me, so please leave a message if you get the answering machine.

May the Lord bless you richly and heal the wound you have received from one of his priests. Fr. Jay Hughes, St. Louis, USA

13. From:
Name Withheld 10
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mike,
As per Canon Law, a priest is bound to provide for hearing of confession (can. 986) and in urgent necessity they are bound all the more. Unless in case of a priest (here, he belongs to a religious congregation) whose right to hear confession has been revoked by his superior (Canon 974# 4) whereas once a faulty is given and not revoked then he is bound to in keeping with Canon 986. Name Withheld 10, Diocesan, Mumbai

14. From:
prabhu
To:
Name Withheld 11
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:09 PM

Subject: THANKS FOR CALLING, AND SHARING

Dear Father,

I’m so glad that you called. I learnt some things about confessing and confession from you. I shall try to apply them in my life. You must have spoken for 45 minutes or an hour. I lost track. I sleep only by midnight, even later, so there is no problem for me whenever you may call. About 10-15 minutes after we hung up, I noticed that I had replaced the receiver improperly on the hook. I corrected it at about 10:00 pm IST. My apologies, Father. Maybe you tried and found that you could not get through to me.

Fr John is from St. Louis, USA. Probably St Louis, Missouri. It can’t be the Netherlands. Our correspondence is below. He had written that lovely article* and I wrote and thanked him for it. It was a brief meeting on the internet 13 months ago.

About the price that you paid, several priests — including from Goa – have shared that with me. They are very conservative and have been posted [punished] in villages where they can access nothing including the Internet and even using the mobile phone is difficult! I once again thank God for priests like you who are an edification to lay people like us.

Love, Michael & Angela

*After 55+ Years, Still in Love with Priesthood. Former Anglican Recounts Joy of Celebrating Mass

From:
Name Withheld 11
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:05 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Hi Michael, I said hi to Fr. John on your behalf. He is in the States and was wondering how you got his email. I did try to connect to you two times. But the message which I was getting while ringing to you is that this telephone does not exist. It is due to faulty network. Nor could I get back in touch with you. The call was not getting connected. Anyway it was nice to speak with you. May our conversation help us to grow in the Lord and work for his Church. Bye and God bless you.

From:
Name Withheld 11
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:22 PM

Subject: Re: THANKS FOR CALLING, AND SHARING

Thanks Michael and Angela for the note again. And may God bless your work. Bye for now and God bless you. Name Withheld 11, Diocesan, Canada

15. From:
Name Withheld 12
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:29 PM
Subject:
Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Brother Prabhu, Greetings of Peace to you

This is a short response to your letter about Confession.

Even though every priest has the duty to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation by helping the penitent, he needs to get special permission by the bishop for this faculty.

Generally once this is given by one bishop, a priest in India gets permission to listen to the confession all over the country. However, I come to know that this faculty is to be given when he goes abroad.

The faculty for confession is special and it can be revoked from a priest in case he had some problem or secrecy, or other similar issues. In general, every priest is given the faculty to hear confession. However, if his faculty is revoked by his bishop, he looses that faculty everywhere.

Whatever be, spiritual life is predominantly a matter of love for God.

Where there is no love and forgiveness, there is no Christian life. Name Withheld 12, OFM Cap., Tamil Nadu

16. From:
Name Withheld 13
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:33 PM

Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

DEAR MICHAEL.
THERE WAS A CANON LAW LIKE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BUT NOW ANY PRIEST CAN ADMINISTER CONFESSION ESP WHEN SOMEONE IS IN A PARISH. GOD BLESS U. FR THAMBU. Name Withheld 13, Jesuit, Chennai

17. From:
Name Withheld 14
To:
prabhu
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:36 PM Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,
Thanks for the mail regarding the problem faced by you regarding confession to your asst. parish priest. First of all I agree with you that as asst. parish priest he has the obligation to assist parishioners at the sacrament of reconciliation. The time, of course, can always be adjusted according to the convenience of people and the priest concerned, but he just cannot refuse to attend to the parishioners.
Secondly, as asst. parish priest, he should have already obtained the necessary faculties from the diocesan bishop to administer sacraments in the parish, and therefore there is no need for seeking permission from his religious superior as such. If on the other hand he is just a visitor to the parish and someone approaches him for confession, he needs to take permission of the parish priest before he sits for hearing confession. Here in this case he already the asst. parish priest, so he does not need any such permission. All the best and God bless, Name Withheld 14, SVD, New Delhi

18. From:
Name Withheld 15
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:07 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael, Peace of Jesus!

- I cannot understand why he made such a big fuss about hearing your confession. Of course he has a duty at least in charity, to hear a confession, when you were fully ready to agree to whatever time or conditions, he demanded.

- As far as I know there is no canon law that a religious has to get such a permission. In fact being an asst P.P. means he surely has permission to hear confessions. The rule about getting faculties to hear confessions, were more strict in the past. The rules are far more simple and better today.

All the best! In union of prayer. Name Withheld 15, Redemptorist, Mumbai

19. From:
Name Withheld 16
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:35 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Hi Prabhu,

Nice to hear from you, even if it is for a query, hope u are fine and keeping in good health.

With regards to your query- any priest cannot hear confession just by the fact of ordination,

Even after ordination he is explicitly given permission called the ‘faculty to hear confessions’ – which is obtained from the Bishop or the religious superior of the concerned priest.

The faculty can be revoked by the same person who gives the faculty- when the concerned priest is prohibited from hearing confession.

According to Can 986: ‘All to whom the care of souls is committed by reason of an office are obliged” – that is usually the parish priest and assistants. Others are not obliged unless it is urgent necessity (the old cannon law used to make a distinction between the obligation out of justice and out of charity, that is the duty of the Parish pastors and in urgency any priest.) As a religious the priest you are speaking of is not obliged to hear your confession, but if he is appointed as asst. PP, he is obliged to hear.

Normally the pastor is supposed to fix a time and make it known when confessions will be heard but this does not allow him to restrict confession only during that time. “In urgent necessity any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions” (unless he is prohibited to hear) and in case of danger of death any priest can hear (even if he is prohibited)

As per the The Rite of Penance- (10b) “The confessor should always show himself to be ready and willing to hear the confessions of the faithful whenever they reasonably request this.” Documents of Liturgy, 1963-1997

I hope this suffices your need. Name Withheld 16, Neo-Catechumenal Way, Maharashtra

20. From:
Name Withheld 17
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:11 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Thanks for your kind letter.

Any Ordained Priests who works in a diocese with the valid permission of the local bishop – is obliged to hear the confession of the penitent who approaches him for confession. There is no second explanation for this. He is canonically bound to celebrate the sacrament of Penance. All other works takes priority for celebrating the Sacrament. No doubt when he has some other important works, surely he can request the penitent to approach him in accordance with the mutually stipulated time. That is perfectly o.k. Name Withheld 17, OFM Cap., Mysore

21. From:
Name Withheld 18
To:
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:16 AM

Subject: Issue about Confession

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email. I am sorry to hear about the unpleasant experience you had to undergo in receiving absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation. So here is my response to the questions you have posed.

Firstly, I feel any priest should have made some time possible for hear confession or at least give you an option of going to another priest, should he be not able to do so. Unfortunately many of us priests have failed in what is our primary duty and as a result the lay faithful suffer for the same.

Secondly with regards to the Canon Law implied by your friend I state here the pertinent canon:

Can. 969 §1 Only the local Ordinary is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful. Priests who are members of religious institutes may not, however, use this faculty without the permission, at least presumed, of their Superior.

Being an assistant to the Parish priest I would normally presume the priest has the faculty to hear confession but of course I cannot ascertain this. But the fact he did not state this as the reason itself would give me good reason that he has the faculty to do so.

I hope this answers your questions. May the Lord bless you and Angela for all the good work you do in His Vineyard. Do also keep me in your prayers.

God’s Blessings, Name Withheld 18, International Catholic Programme for Evangelization, The Philippines

22. From: Name Withheld 19
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu,

I hope that you and your family members are doing well. I wish and pray for the same.

I am sad that you had a bitter experience for the healing sacrament.

There is a need of permission to hear confession. But if he is an asst. parish priest he might have received it, when he was appointed. So I think he can hear the confession.

i do not know why the priest behaved like that. I can say that you talk with the priest and correct him. It may be great help for his own soul and for the sanctification ministry.

Pray for me, I will pray for you all. Thank you, yours in Christ,

From:
Name Withheld 19
To:
prabhu
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:13 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu,

Very nice to hear from you. Your understanding is very clear. Name Withheld 19

23. From:
Name Withheld 20
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:12 PM Subject: may God bless you

Dear brother Michael Prabhu!

Thanks for your email. In every parish the parish priest and the assistant parish priest have normally the faculty to hear confession in the parish territory. It is surprising to quote the Canon Law in this way. Sacrament of Reconciliation is so vital in the Christian life. I feel sorry that it has happened for you. How a priest is authorized to forgive sins in the name of Church and on behalf of our Lord who always welcomed sinners with love and compassion. Priest must be always ready to spend the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It should be our priority.

Please rest assured of my prayers and may God bless you, Name Withheld 20, Former National Director, Pontifical Mission Societies, Bangalore

24. From:
Name Withheld 21
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:13 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Confession is a priority. A priest can’t refuse to hear a confession when asked because he is “too busy”! Unless he is saying Mass in a few minutes, he MUST hear your confession. Assuming he is the assistant parish (or school administrator) priest it follows that if he is assigned there he has faculties to hear confessions. Faculties are a license to practice priesthood in a specific area, usually given by the Bishop or religious superior. You don’t have to ask for these faculties. He would not be an assistant without faculties. It is a no brainer. Even though I am retired and have no specific assignment nevertheless I have faculties from the Cardinal to say Mass and hear confessions. If I have faculties, so does the reluctant Salesian. Hope this helps. Name Withheld 21, The Philippines

25. From:
Name Withheld 22
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:21 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu, Thank u for your letter.

I would rather speak about the topic personally when I meet you. Please call me before coming to make sure I am here.

Yours fraternally in the Precious Blood of Jesus, Name Withheld 22, OCD, Mumbai

26. From:
Name Withheld 23
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:57 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your mail. Saw this only this morning as my internet had been on the blink!

I am very poor in canon law. Yet I remember that a visiting priest may have to be given permission by the parish priest before he can hear confessions.

But a priest who is already an assistant, who is functioning, should not need permissions. If he were under any sort of censure, he could have directed you to the parish priest.

I think the main problem is that Confessions are ‘going out of fashion,’ which may be a crude way of putting it, but true. Sad. Our Catholic Church needs lots of renovation. They are paying a lot of attention to form, whereas it is the Spirituality that needs attention.

I do not think that my views are worth quoting. Otherwise I do not mind going on record.

You are very much in my mind and my prayers. With warm regards and love, to Angela and to You,

Name Withheld 23, Trichy

27. From:
Name Withheld 24
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:42 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

First of all I am pained to hear this. This is unfortunate. When I get ordained I don’t get faculty of confession automatically. My bishop gives a letter stating that I can hear confession of the faithful in my diocese as well as wherever I go. Nowadays some bishops give this faculty for a year, then every year they renew.

When a religious priest comes to the parish, they have to receive a letter from the bishop. If he is an assistant, he will get one when he is appointed to the parish. BUT NO ONE CAN DENY CONFESSION for the penitent if he has the FACULTY. Now I am very sad that happened to you. You go to another priest with whom you feel comfortable. I am really sorry to hear this. Let us not play with the SACRAMENTS. Name Withheld 24, Executive Secretary, CBCI, New Delhi

28. From:
Name Withheld 25
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:00 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael, Greetings and blessings to you for the New Year
The principle ‘Salus
Animarum
Est
Suprema
Lex’ means that the salvation of souls is the highest good. So, in an urgent need for confession, a priest is bound to give his time. The Faithful could find other priests (if there are) with whom they could make their confession if there is a genuine inability of the priest to hear the confession.
Regarding Canon Law, YES, to hear confessions, even a validly ordained priest needs the permission of the Archbishop or Bishop of the place. But here again the principle Salus Animarum Est Suprema Lex applies where a validly ordained priest, even without the permission of the local ordinary can listen to a confession if the situation is serious and the soul has to be saved. Name Withheld 25, Diocesan, Bangalore

29. From:
Name Withheld 26
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Hi Michael, Greetings. Thanks for writing in. Give me a few days time to respond to your query.

From:
Name Withheld 26
To:
prabhu
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:17 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael, Greetings. Kindly read below for answers to your questions.
I am making an attempt to answer your query in a general manner.
If I present your question once again in my own words:
a) I am told that a priest must obtain permission from his superiors (if he belongs to a religious congregation) in order to hear confession? Is this true?
b) Is it not one of the primary pastoral obligations of a priest to hear confessions?
c) Would it be proper for a priest to refuse or avoid hearing confession on the ground that “he was busy with school administration” or any other activity?
d) Where the penitent is willing to adjust his timings according to the availability of the priest, would it be proper for the priest to avoid hearing confession?
The Canons 959-997 specific deal with the sacrament of penance.
Let me first place a general perspective of the Sacraments according to canon law.
According to Can. 840 “The sacraments were instituted by Christ the Lord and as actions of Christ and the Church, they are signs and means which express and strengthen the faith, render worship to God, and effect the sanctification of humanity. Accordingly, in the celebration of the sacraments the sacred ministers must use the greatest veneration and necessary diligence.”
According to Can. 843 §1 “Sacred ministers (read priest) cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.
According to Can. 848 “The minister is to seek nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by competent authority, always taking care that the needy are not deprived of the assistance of the sacraments because of poverty.”
—————
Q a) I am told that a priest must obtain permission from his superiors (if he belongs to a religious congregation) in order to hear confession? Is this true?
Every priest who wishes to hear confessions must be grated the “faculty to hear confessions” by the local ordinary (see Can. 969).

This faculty is normally granted by the bishop (see C 969).
Further this faculty is granted in writing (see Can. 973).
A priest who belongs to a religious congregation also needs to be granted the faculty to hear confession from the bishop.
Commentary: It is normal for all those who are ordained priests to receive this faculty at an appropriate time after the ordination.
A priest who has been granted faculty by one bishop can utilise this faculty universally (See Can. 967).
A priest who has been appointed to the office of asst. parish priest (pastor) also receive the faculty to hear confessions unless specifically revoked (see Can. 967§3).
—————-
Q b) Is it not one of the primary pastoral obligations of a priest to hear confessions?
A pastor (including the asst. parish priest) is the “pastor of souls” (Can 843§2) and it is his primary pastoral obligation to provide the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times (see Can.843 §1). No pastor can deny the sacraments except for a just and proper reason.
Further, Can. 986 §1 states that “All to whom the care of souls has been entrusted in virtue of some function are obliged to make provision so that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably seek to be heard and that they have the opportunity to approach individual confession on days and at times established for their convenience.
§2. In urgent necessity, any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death, any priest is so obliged.”
—————-
Q c & d) Would it be proper for a priest to refuse or avoid hearing confession on the ground that “he was busy with school administration” or any other activity? d) Where the penitent is willing to adjust his timings according to the availability of the priest, would it be proper for the priest to avoid hearing confession?
In the light of what has been said in (b) above, it is the duty of the pastor to provide suitable times for confession and not to refuse a penitent. The reason that “he was busy with school administration” is unjustifiable. Where the penitent is willing to adjust his timings according to the availability of the priest, it is only proper that the priest must reach out pastorally to the penitent in providing the sacrament of confession.
————————-
The relevant canons for your quick reference:
Can. 966 §1 The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of can.
969. Can. 967 §2 Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of Can. 974 §§2 and 3.
§3. Those who are provided with the faculty of hearing confessions by reason of office or grant of a competent superior according to the norm of Can. 968, §2 and 969, §2 possess the same faculty everywhere by the law itself as regards members and others living day and night in the house of the institute or society; they also use the faculty licitly unless some major superior has denied it in a particular case as regards his own subjects.
Can. 968 §1 In virtue of office, a local ordinary, canon penitentiary, a pastor, and those who take the place of a pastor possess the faculty of hearing confessions, each within his jurisdiction.
Can. 969 §1 The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.
Can. 970 The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted except to presbyters who are found to be suitable through an examination or whose suitability is otherwise evident.
Can. 973 The faculty to hear confessions habitually is to be granted in writing.
Can. 974 §1 The local ordinary and the competent superior are not to revoke the faculty to hear confessions habitually except for a grave cause.
§2. When the faculty to hear confessions has been revoked by the local ordinary who granted it as mentioned in can. 967, §2, a presbyter loses the faculty everywhere. If some other local ordinary has revoked the faculty, the presbyter loses it only in the territory of the one who revokes it.
§3. Any local ordinary who has revoked the faculty of some presbyter to hear confessions is to inform the proper ordinary of incardination of the presbyter or, if he is a member of a religious institute, his competent superior.
§4. If the proper major superior of a presbyter has revoked the faculty to hear confessions, the presbyter loses the faulty to hear the confessions of members of the institute everywhere. If some other competent superior has revoked the faculty, however, the presbyter loses it only with regard to the subjects in the jurisdiction of that superior.
Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Can. 978 §1 In hearing confessions the priest is to remember that he is equally a judge and a physician and has been established by God as a minister of divine justice and mercy, so that he has regard for the divine honor and the salvation of souls.
Can. 979 In posing questions, the priest is to proceed with prudence and discretion, attentive to the condition and age of the penitent, and is to refrain from asking the name of an accomplice.
Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.
Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can. 984 §1 A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.
Can. 986 §1 All to whom the care of souls has been entrusted in virtue of some function are obliged to make provision so that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably seek to be heard and that they have the opportunity to approach individual confession on days and at times established for their convenience.
§2. In urgent necessity, any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death, any priest is so obliged.
Name Withheld 26, OFM, Bangalore

30. From:
Name Withheld 27
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 1:05 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu,

This priest who dilly dallied to hear your confession has a mental block against you because of the things you have mentioned. He is either afraid of you or he is afraid of not being able to keep the confessional secret of the confession because he probably has a grouse against you for opposing his innovations. So he probably feels hearing your confession may tempt him to even inadvertently expose your sins.

So morally he may feel it is better to steer away from you rather than fall in bigger sins.

That he has to tell his religious superior is rubbish because the Ordinary of the place (bishop) usually issues a permission to them to hear confessions as soon as they are appointed in the diocese and a formal request is made for the same.

Why not leave the priest alone as he may be justified in refusing to hear your confession if he sees harm coming to him out of it. Like in the case of a priest knowing about the robbery done by the Sacristan, the priest refuses to hear the robber’s confession doubting that the confession was a means to shut his mouth in telling the truth to the authorities.

I feel you have greater things to do rather than deal with this petty thing wherein the particular priest who is the organiser himself must be fearing of being traumatized to hear your confession. Please give the priest a break!

Name Withheld 27, SFX, Goa

From:
prabhu
To:
Name Withheld 27
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:48 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Fr. Name Withheld 27, […]

BUT!! I think that you may have read too much into what I shared with you. That maybe because you do not know me or my ministry so well.

The analogy of the robber-sacristan does not hold here. I have not committed any crime to confess. I am just a penitent. The good priest was not expected to surmise anything from my requesting to confess as a routine as explained to him, before giving the retreat. He was not expected to surmise that I might discuss his errors in the confessional. I wasn’t going to. The two issues are distinct and separate. Moreover Canon Law 212.3, if I am correct, gives me as a lay person, the duty and right and obligation to bring up PUBLIC unchecked clerical error when noticed.

I did not say anything about the priest being guilty of moral error but of error in his obligation to celebrate Mass strictly according to the rubrics. Don’t you agree with me on that?

Love, Michael Prabhu

31. From:
Name Withheld 28
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:10 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

You are taking me too seriously. I am not an expert in all the issues related to canon law and my words should not be final.

Well, recently, there was a discussion among the canon lawyers about the same question. It was a lady requesting her parish priest that her confession be heard and the parish priest refusing to hear her confession. (c. 986)

The arguments for and against were made. What I remember of the few vital points of the discussion is that even a parish priest can deny a particular confession be heard provided he makes arrangement for another confessor.

The normal reason why a parish priest should not hear the confession of someone is when he is sure that the penitent is an accomplice in the sexual sin, and absolving an accomplice, he incurs automatic suspension. Are you an accomplice with his sin???!!! Or to ask in other way, “What if he was under an automatic suspension?” Is he bound to tell you about his situation?? NO!
Another situation is when superiors are asked to hear the confession of their students. (c.985)

C. 986 says every one to whom the care of souls is committed are bound to provide for hearing of the confessions of the faithful.

It does not necessarily mean that they themselves have to hear the confession. A priest may be ill disposed to hear the confession of another priest as he may be “spiritually weak” or probably he has never heard the confession of a priest and he is “embarrassed” at the request etc. There can be so many human factors why a priest may refuse to hear confession. And in such cases, it is his duty to ask the penitent if he could arrange for another confessor.

I don’t know if you became “scrupulous” about confession??!! The law teaches us that even if one cannot actually go for individual confession, but if he repents and resolves to approach the sacrament of confession, the next available occasion, he is free to receive the sacraments. If you have repented of your sin, I am sure God has already seen your contrition. And the Lord does not turn away a repentant sinner. So, I would fraternally advise you, to receive the sacrament of confession as a gift from the Lord and do not make an issue with the sacraments. Sacraments are not mere rituals. They are to establish and re-establish relationships with God and with one another. And if the same is used to bring discord and disharmony, I think we have missed the point.

Of course, a religious does not need the permission of his superior to hear confession unless he is specifically forbidden to hear confession for grave reasons.

From:
prabhu
To:
Name Withheld 28
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:36 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Thank you so much for your prompt and informative response which I appreciate.

To answer your queries, No, I am not an accomplice in anything with him, nor am I scrupulous about confession.

[Rest of the letter as on page 2] Love, Michael Prabhu

From:
Name Withheld 28
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 6:20 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Thank you for the reply. I am happy that the retreat went well. Yes, as human as we are it tickles the ears to hear the confession of a woman than a man; and that of a lay man than that of a priest and companion.

I am happy that you did not allow the things to go beyond proportion.

From:
Name Withheld 28
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:37 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Your dispatch ‘Emperor Emmanuel Church Exposed’, I once again published in our Archdiocesan Newsletter the article and I got a good feed back.

What kind of retreats do you preach? It will be good to know because we want couples who are giving retreat and who are gifted in music too. Will you be able to come to Imphal to preach retreats?

Now I understand why you complained that the priest readily agreed to hear the confession of Angela and not yours!! Ha ha ha! Good Michael! I will remember you and your ministry in my prayers Name Withheld 28, Diocesan, Imphal

32. From:
Name Withheld 29
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:34 PM Subject: Greetings from Fr Nn

Dear Mr Michael,

Happy to hear that yourself and Angela conducted a retreat for Sisters. Good work. Congratulations.

Then about that Asst. Parish Priest and the case of your confession, what I have to say is that being the Asst. Parish Priest of the place he has all the faculties needed to hear the confessions of all who approach him for confession. So here there is no question of getting permission from superiors. He must have had some other reason for not hearing your confession.

Hearing confessions is one of the primary duties of any priest, especially of the parish priest. Priests are appointed to sanctify the faithful.

Even if one is not the parish priest of the place, to my understanding if any one approaches a priest for confession the priest is automatically authorised to hear the confession of the person who asks for it. This is was what I was told long ago by my spiritual director and I have been following this rule. It has happened to me that while I was visiting other places people have approached me for confessions and I have readily obliged. I suppose what I have said is enough to clear your doubts. With kind regards and all good wishes, sincerely yours in the Lord, Name Withheld 29, SSP, Mumbai

33. From:
Name Withheld 30
To:
prabhu
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Every ordained priest is separately given a faculty (power) to hear confession of the faithful by the Bishop or Superior (incase of religious order). Without this faculty he cannot hear confession even though he is validly ordained priest. In some cases this faculty is revoked by Bishop/Superior which means the priest cannot hear the confession. I am not very clear what your friend meant when he said that this priest needs to take a permission from his superior. If this priest has faculty to hear confession of his parishioners he does not need to take permission from his superior.

The Canon 986 says All to whom by virtue of office the care of souls is committed, are bound to provide for the hearing of the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them, who reasonably request confessions, and they are to provide these faithful with an opportunity to make individual confession on days and at times arranged to suit them.

The above canon law says that valid priest who has faculty to hear confession should provide faithful with an opportunity to make confession ON DAYS AND AT TIMES ARRANGED TO SUIT THEM. As I understand you properly I think the priest said he was busy. He did not refuse to hear your confession. Also it would be wrong to conclude that the priest was avoiding you because he will be questioned by you about “liturgical innovations”. These are two different issues.

Name Withheld 30, Diocesan, Mumbai

34. From:
Name Withheld 31
To:
prabhu
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

1. For hearing confession priest needs permission from his Ordinary. General permission is granted to all priests in the Archdiocese of Madras Mylapore if he is not banned by his superiors or any bishop in the Catholic Church.

2. The priest you mentioned may have some ban from his superiors or any bishop in the Catholic Church. If no ban is there his primary duty is to hear the confession than work in the school (Canon Law says). Priest should not delay the confession of the one who ask for it.

3. If he is appointed as assistant parish priest, he should have the faculty of hearing confession. I guess he avoids you.

I am always in your service.

Could you clarify one thing? Is it allowed to Use “Om” symbol or sound by Catholics in the church? Priests in Varanasi are using it. Is it O.K. or is there any ban from CBCI? Name Withheld 31, VC, Retreat preacher, Bangalore

35. From:
Name Withheld 32
To:
prabhu
Sent:
Wednesday,
January
26, 2011 10:43 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Regarding confessions, every priest is given a faculty by the Bishop to hear confessions, since he was an assistant parish priest, he could have heard your confession. About the canon law, the priest ordained for the diocese is permitted to hear confessions. If he has to go to another diocese, he has to have the permission of the local Bishop. As a religious and a assistant parish priest, serving the diocese, there was no need for any permission. Please continue praying for priests.

The Emperor Emmanuel report was very enlightening. Also your report on the “Risen Lord on the Cross” images.

More & more people are installing the image of the Risen Lord. In our very parish, they are circulating the Risen Lord images to all the families.

There is an urgent need for the awareness of subtle errors that are creeping in the Catholic Church.

1. The whole emphasis is on “Celebration” which has evolved through the charismatic understanding that the Lord is risen and so there is need to ”Rejoice & Celebrate”. In fact, Fr. Erasto of the Blessed Sacrament Fathers openly teaches that Christ died and rose at the same time.

2. Actually, resurrection is the result of the passion of Christ. Therefore, the need of a crucifix to remind us as long as we are in the world we have to carry our cross and die on it. Here the emphasis is more on penance, sacrifice, mortification and a continuous purification through the Blood of Jesus. What is strange is that the charismatic or the new movements’ call on the Blood of Christ without going through his passion or meditating on his suffering.

3. The world is suffering and it needs a God who is on their side. When they look at him struggling on the cross innocently, it definitely gives them hope to live. By just focusing on the “Risen Lord” and bypassing his suffering does not give us hope.

4. Whenever an ”Exorcism” is done, the priest uses the “Crucifix” and not the “Risen Lord”. Satan is defeated by seeing the wounds of Jesus bleeding and the smell of the Blood suffocates him.

5. Hence, it is highly recommended to keep a crucifix either big or small to ward off our homes from all evil and to continue to protect us, so that the Lord sees the blood on our lintel and passes by. Our Lady of La Salette gives us a crucifix with added tools – hammer & pliers. Actually Our Lady of La Salette is seen wearing this crucifix and she has promised that this crucifix would emanate “Light” during the dark days.

6. How improper would it be to take away the crucifix from St. Francis Xavier’s hand and replace it with the “Risen Lord”.

7. “Every time anyone kisses the Crucifix or looks at it with devotion, the Gaze of the Blessed Trinity is fixed upon that soul – and at the same moment a wondrous beauty is added to that soul, and a reward treasured for an endless glory” -Words to St. Gertrude.

Thanking you very much for all your mails and your fervent love for the Church. Keep doing the good work. “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” – Phil 1:6.

God Bless you. Keep good health. Praying for you. Continue praying for priests. Name Withheld 32, Diocesan, Mumbai

36. From:
Name Withheld 33
To:
prabhu
Sent:
Wednesday,
January 26, 2011 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,
I am sorry to hear that you could not make your confession, because the priest was very busy or because he was not interested. There is no canon law which forbids the priest who was in his own parish from hearing confessions. It is unfortunate that some priests do not make themselves available for the sacrament for which they are ordained. Kindly pray for all such priests.
But after you really took up the matter with him he was ready to hear your confession but you had made up your mind not to make your confession to him and when he gave you time you could not reach on time. So to my mind, he is not entirely at fault.
Yours in the Lord, Name Withheld 33, Diocesan, Retreat preacher, Bhopal

37. From:
Name Withheld 34
To:
prabhu
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Thank you for trusting me with your problem.

The fact that that priest is already in the pastoral ministry, he has the faculties to hear confession. Also, now in our country, if you have the faculties in one diocese, you may hear confessions also in other dioceses.

Hence there could be some other reason why he was not keen to hear your confession.

1. Is he emotionally close to you? Some priests do not like to hear the confession of their friends, as they feel – rightly or wrongly – that could affect their relation.

2. If the person concerned has some conflict with priest.

3. Some priests today are not keen on hearing confessions, as they think that many come out of routine.

4. Some are just not interested… I AM ONLY THINKING LOUDLY.

I suggest that one day you make an appointment with him, and just talk it over. “Father, I have the impression you do not wish to hear my confession…” Then you will know from him the true reason – provided he tells the truth.

You are most welcome to ask me any question you wish. Name Withheld 34, Diocesan, Udaipur

38. From:
Name Withheld 35
To:
michaelprabhu
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:02 AM Subject: Confession

Dear Michael,
Thank you very much for your letter dated 22nd instant. I have read it will interest and concern as it is a delicate issue you have brought up, especially so since it is related to the sacrament of confession.
At the outset I must remark that the impression I am getting from the whole episode is that there is something that is making the asst pp feel ill at ease about hearing your confession or for that may be anybody’s confession. In all charity you could give him the benefit of doubt and seek someone else to make your confession.
Secondly as a religious priest he does not need his superior’s permission to hear confession. The common practice is that when a religious priest comes into a diocese the bishop must be informed about his arrival and ministry. Earlier it was needed to get the bishops permission to hear confession in his diocese. I am not sure whether it is in the Canon Law now.
In any case my honest opinion is that this is a matter to be ignored since it is dealing with the sacrament of confession. If any other sacrament is denied or refused then the matter can be taken up with the bishop. You can find any number of confessors anywhere.
I hope my answers are ok with you. Please feel free to get back any time. With love and prayers,
Name Withheld 35,
Salesian, Kolkata/Siliguri

39. From:
Name Withheld 36
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:45 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Brother Michaelprabhu, Greetings in the precious name of Jesus!

I am saddened, by your email. A religious priest should be all the more pastoral and reach out to hear confession, rather be busy with school administration. It is the privilege of an ordained priest, provided he has the faculty from the Local Bishop. You can take this issue up with the Local Ordinary or the Salesian Provincial, of that particular region.

God Bless You and your Family. Name Withheld 36, Redemptorist, Bangalore

40. From:
Name Withheld 37
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:42 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mike, Greetings.

I am in Rome. I am not a Canon Lawyer. As a pastor, I feel that any priest should hear anybody’s confession on request.

If he is busy, he should still make time as confessional ministry is more important that whatever other GREAT thing he does. The matter should have been brought tot he notice of his PP or his provincial.

Avoiding hearing the confession of ”a public and notorious character” is another matter. Name Withheld 37, Salesian

41.
From:
Name Withheld 38
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:42 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mr Prabhu,

I do not see how an assistant Parish Priest can make the excuses mentioned. A priest on transit needs the permission of the P. Priest to hear confessions in the jurisdiction of that P. Priest. This presupposes the visitor has the faculty from his bishop to hear confessions. But in the case mentioned, I do not see any impediment to hearing confession. I am still quite busily occupied and am not able to quote the relevant canon law etc or to give a detailed explanation.

God bless! Name Withheld 38, SSP, Bangalore

42. From:
Name Withheld 39
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mr. Michael,
Thank you very for you have taken me by confidence to share with me the difficult experience with me inspite of the fact that you know me very little. Could you please introduce you little more and give me more details of your spiritual status for not having confessed with the Assistant PP. I did not understand from your letter what prevented you from going to another priest if you were so desperately looking out to confess. I will be very happy to help you out in the best way possible for me. Thank you very much. Love and prayers, Name Withheld 39, Jesuit, Kannur

43.
From:
Name Withheld 40
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 9:11 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu, I find the whole thing somewhat funny!

Every priest at the time of ordination receives the power of forgiving sin, i.e. of administering the Sacrament of Confession. However, the power is bound and cannot be exercised without the Bishop authorizing him to hear confessions. The Bishop may authorize him to hear the confessions of all the faithful in his diocese, or of hearing the confessions of only children, or only men. These restrictions are generally enjoined upon newly ordained priests. Later, all restrictions are cancelled.

In our case, only the priest concerned can give the real reason of avoiding hearing her confession. I guess that the real reason is the known opposition of the penitent to his innovations. I wonder whether it is possible to put this right, so I think that the decision to go for confession to another Confessor is the only wise solution. God bless! Name Withheld 40, Salesian, Bangalore

44. From:
Name Withheld 41
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:56 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mr. Michael Prabhu,

I have received your kind mail dated 22nd January 2011 and thank you for the same. I have studied the contents of your letter, in which you state that “I would like you to be very clear and explicit about all the issues involved, Father.”

It would be difficult and unfair for me to give my learned counsel on the matter since I have not heard the other side of the issue. I request you to kindly take up the matter with the local competent ecclesiastical authority.

With every good wish, Name Withheld 41, St Pius X Seminary, Mumbai

45. From:
Name Withheld 42
To:
prabhu
Sent:
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael, Greetings! Sorry I missed this mail... only today while I was deleting all the mails I came across this... it is a pity that the priest in question did not go out of his way to hear your confession... priests should go out their way to listen to the confession of a faithful... as for the permission aspect... if I go to another diocese or country I need the permission of the bishop to hear confessions. But if the priest is in a particular place for sometime it is obvious that he has been allowed to hear confession. Even a parish priest who knows that you are a priest can ask you to hear confession in his parish. But in India no one really takes the permission aspect seriously but in countries like Italy, yes. But at any time, the priest should be ready to hear confessions. Take care, Name Withheld 42, Salesian, Bangalore

46. From:
Name Withheld 43
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu,

Hope you are in good health and spirit. I returned from Kerala on 4th. Here I don’t have easy access to internet. Hope your ministry goes well. What about your family? Hope all are doing well.

Regarding your mail, as far as I know, the permission to hear confession is to be obtained from the Bishop. Normally after the ordination we get it from the Bishop. When we are appoint to a place normally the Bishop grant the right to hear confession. And as he is an assistant parish priest normally he suppose to have the faculty or hearing confession with in the parish and normally outside the parish with the permission of the respective parish priest for public hearing of confession. But when a penitent approaches for confession, priest has the duty to hear the confession, because it is one of his prime duties. With love Name Withheld 43, OSST, Bangalore

47. From:
Name Withheld 44
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 9:58 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mr. Michael Prabhu,

I read your letter with keen interest. I do not know the asst. parish priest whom you are refering to, in your email. However, I am sorry to hear that your request was turned down repeatedly by him and it irritated you most.

As far as the canon law is concerned, to the best of my knowledge, an assistant parish priest has the faculty to hear confessions in his parish territory and with the permission of the local parish priest in any other parish in the same diocese. The bishop is the one giving faculty to hear confessions (and not the provincial or religious superior) and he gives it at the time of the appointment of the priest as vicar or asst. vicar or when any priest requests for it (in the case of religious who come transferred from some other diocese). The priests who are appointed as confessors, retreat/recollection preachers, spiritual directors and so on (just like the parish priests and asst. parish priests) have usually the necessary faculty.

In any case, I think these legalities can be bypassed whenever any faithful asks for confession urgently. I am not sure whether there are ambiguities in my explanation here. Kindly ask any canonist if there are further doubts. Regards.

Name Withheld 44, Salesian, Bangalore

48. From:
Name Withheld 45
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:11 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,
It is a challenge to live life today whether the Religious or for the Lay person. Each individual interprets laws as they wish. I will advise you to pray for everyone. God bless you and your mission. With love, Name Withheld 45, Jesuit, Chennai

49. From:
Name Withheld 46
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Mr. Prabhu
Greetings! At the very outset, I must apologise for this delay in replying to you. I was out of station a good bit. Furthermore I was also caught up in a meeting organized by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At any rate, regarding two of the issues you have raised, Canon Law has the following to say:
1. A priest needs the faculty to hear Confessions

Canon 966 #1 states: “For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he give
absolution”.

2. As regards priests who belong to a religious institute, there is Canon 969#1 which states: “Only the Local Ordinary (i.e. the bishop) is competent to give to any priest whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful. Priests who are members of a religious institute may not, however, use this faculty without the permission at least presumed, of their superior.”
These are two canons which concern what you asked. Name Withheld 46, Doctrinal Commission, CBCI, New Delhi

50. From:
Name Withheld 47
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:22 PM Subject: CONFESSION PROBLEM

I was reading your mail and I think that it is too hard to answer to such a problem of confession by mail, especially in English. The best would be for you to meet the bishop and ask him to do something. Name Withheld 47, France

51. From:
Name Withheld 48
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:23 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

If he has been appointed as Asst Parish Priest, he must have the faculties. Name Withheld 48, Diocesan, Mangalore

52. From:
Name Withheld 49
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:13 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michaelji,

Thanks for the mail. I think I had responded to your mail briefly saying it would be better to consult a canonist regarding the matter. I have been on the move for some weeks and even now i am out of Delhi. Besides, the question you have raised do not come under the purview of my expertise or authority.

As far as my knowledge goes a priest need not have permission to hear confessions in ordinary situations. There are exceptions of course, for instance, a priest if he is party to a sexual act cannot absolve his partner.

As for the priest not wanting to hear your confession or making excuses for not doing so, is not a good pastoral practice, but I do not want to judge him as he may have some compelling reason. Therefore the case you present cannot be commented on unless his version is heard. I am no authority to pass any verdict on his conduct. His Ordinary, the superior, can seek his clarification in this matter. If you feel any priest is habitually neglecting his pastoral duties, you can approach the legitimate authorities. With good wishes Name Withheld 49, Social Commns. Commission, CBCI, New Delhi

53. From: Name Withheld 50
To:
prabhu
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:30 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Hello Michael Prabhu, Peace of The Lord be with you.

You have sent me an Email regarding Confession Problem.

Can you please call me in my Mobile Number: xxxxx xxxxx? I prefer to talk to you on this issue than to send you an Email. Thank you and God bless you.

Yours in the Service of the Lord, Name Withheld 50, DCCRS, Tuticorin

54. From:
Name Withheld 51
To:
prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:57
AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Hope you are well over there. Thank you for your trust and confidence in me.

First of all I acknowledge my incompetence in this matter, but I can guide as per my theological studies.

1. Every Catholic (diocesan or religious) priest (even asst. parish priest) who has the faculty for confession has the obligation to hear the confession of a penitent when approached. Otherwise the priest concerned will have to answer to God.

2. The faculty for confession is the special authority given by the Local Ordinary (Local Bishop) when a priest incardinated into the diocese

3. No religious superior can stop him from hearing confession under obedience.

4. Only the Local ordinary (the Bishop of the diocese) can stop the priest from hearing confession (i.e. taking away the faculty for confession) for grievous reasons.

5. The priest may tell the penitent to come some other suitable time to make the confession.

6. Since confession comes within the realm of internal forum, penitent instead of being hurt forgive the priest and may better go to another priest available at the moment

7. If priest is not available may make a perfect act of contrition and receive God’s mercy and may go ahead; but make sure to make a sacramental confession as soon as possible.

Looking for forward to hear from you, With God’s blessings upon you, Name Withheld 51,
Simla-Chandigarh Diocese

55. From:
Name Withheld 52
To:
prabhu
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

It is his primary duty to be available for confession. Jesus bless you abundantly! Name Withheld 52, Diocesan, Satna

56.
From:
Name Withheld 53
To:
prabhu
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:35 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Regarding your confession with the Salesian priest: I don’t think Canon Law would have anything to say about obtaining permission from the Superior before sitting for confession. I don’t think – I may be wrong, but I am not in the know-how. But Michael, don’t pay much attention to it. There a so many things happening in the Church today that so many people are leaving the church, and they say it is due to the hurts caused by the priests. One decent man told me recently, that due to a particular hurting incident, he went up to the priest and said gently: ‘Due to priests like you our faith is in doldrums today’. So, Michael, leave the matter there, forget about the incident, and go about doing the good work you are doing. The way to attack evil is to go about going the good that we are doing with the help of the Holy Spirit. Praise the Lord!

I will continue to keep you, Angela and the family in my humble prayers, and kindly ask you to do the same for me. God bless you. Yours in Jesus, Mary and Joseph Name Withheld 53, Diocesan, Goa

57. From:
Name Withheld 54
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:12 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael,

Today I checked my email and found your letter concerning the ‘Confession problem’ that you had written quite long ago.

Your friend is right in saying that there is a Canon Law that a member of the religious institution has to obtain permission from his superior. Canon 969 says ‘The local ordinary (Bishop) alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confession of any of the faithful; however, presbyters who are members of religious institutes should not use such a faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior’.

All the best. Kindly remember me in your prayers. Yours sincerely, Name Withheld 54, Diocesan, Mangalore

58. From:
Fr Joe Lobo
To:
prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:24 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael, Jai Yesu!

I am deeply sorry for the delay in this response to your letter […] Now, to answer your question, a validly ordained priest, who is given the faculty for hearing confessions, is bound to hear confessions. For he is ordained a priest and given the faculty for administering sacraments, especially for hearing confessions, for others and not for himself.

But, even if a priest has been validly ordained and licitly given the faculty to hear confessions, only in the jurisdiction for which he is appointed. If for some reason, he is suspended from or forbidden by the Bishop or his Superior from hearing confession, then he cannot hear confessions. As any judge who can exercise his judicial powers, so also a priest can exercise his faculty to hear confessions only in his jurisdiction.

In the case you have mentioned, I fail to understand how a priest who you say is an assistant parish priest can refuse to hear confessions. If he still persists in avoiding to hear confessions, you may better approach his Parish Priest to whom he is an assistant or/and his Superior if he is a religious.

I do hope I have answered your question. I am happy that you, unlike quite a few today, have great faith in your need for and the efficacy of the sacrament of confession.

Please pray for me. I will do the same for you. With regards and blessings, Yours in J.M.J, Fr Joe Mary M. Lobo, Birur

P.S. I do not mind your including my name. I’ve spoken the truth.

59. From:
Name Withheld 55
To:
prabhu
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Michael, Praise the Lord!
You must have great patience with me. I have this email ID but as I am most of the time with retreats, I am unable to see any. My retreats take me to remote places where the Mother Teresa sisters work and they have no such facilities.
Neither do I have any laptop or anything. So, only when I come back I am able to see things. Please pardon the delay.
Actually, you should address this problem to Fr. Nn as he is a Doctorate in Canon Law and knows these matters clearly.
In my personal opinion, as a priest for now thirty-three years, I cannot accept any priest refusing the Sacrament of Confession to a needy faithful unless of course he is specifically forbidden to hear confession. It is true one must get the
faculty to hear confession. But if one is an assistant parish priest, he certainly will have the faculty from the Bishop. I do not know what could be the reason why he did not oblige you. It would be good and in a spirit of reconciliation to have a
little friendly chat with him and clarify the matter. After all we are the disciples of the Lord.
I do appreciate the great work you are doing to defend the faith and I admire your courage and fortitude in exposing the terrible things that are going on. My prayerful support in these as I know how difficult it is to go on in this battle.
Courage. God bless you. Sincerely, Name Withheld 55, Salesian, Retreat preacher, Kolkata

60. From:
Name Withheld 56
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:35 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Prabhu, Sorry for the delay in replying to you. Was busy with retreats. I’m sorry to hear of the difficulties you faced for a confession with a Salesian priest. I being a diocesan priest, I’m not aware of the permission the Salesian priest has to take from his superiors. Probably, he might have learnt that you heard of his innovations which he introduced in liturgy and wanted to avoid you. Give this matter a forgiving touch and pray for him. I too will pray for you, Name Withheld 56, Diocesan, Retreat preacher, Goa

Here is the letter that I wrote to 11 seminarians, 7 of whom replied [chronologically copied]:

From:
prabhu
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:50 AM Subject: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Seminarian friends,

I trust that you will respond even if this letter is not personally addressed to you.

Yesterday [January 21, 2011] Angela and I assisted in giving a retreat… [The rest as in the letter to priests]

God bless you and your vocation. Love, Michael

1. From:
Seminarian 1
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:57 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Michael,

From what I know about the Dominicans, they have a standing dispensation from their community prayers in order to hear confessions. Ideally, a priest is not supposed to refuse confession. I am very sure that there is no need for permission from superiors to hear a confession. That is ludicrous.

I think we must also keep in mind that priests these days are very busy and stretched to the limits. Ask any teacher about how stressful their day is. Think about how it must be for a school principal who has to put up with parents, teachers and students in a day. Spend a day with a principal and you will know what the stress is like. I’m talking as a student of Education Administration.
This issue is close to my heart because a young priest friend of mine was recently admitted to the ICU and another 37 yr old priest died of a heart attack.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK YOU MUST APPRECIATE THAT THE PRIEST HEARD YOUR CONFESSION. PERIOD.
If you really care about this issue, you must debate the issue about whether principals should also hold charge as asst. parish priests.
The solution to this is to stop giving priests dual charge. Being asst. parish priest is no less of a responsibility.
If you care for priests, help reduce their burden.
I had great regard for you all this while but after this mail, I discover that you are a clergy basher. No wonder many bishops choose to ignore you.
Please be more sensitive to the issues faced by our priests. We need to pray for them and care for them. Not bash them. God Bless! Seminarian 1, Goa/Ohio

From:
prabhu
To:
Seminarian 1
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:20 PM

Dear brother Derek,

It was good to receive your letter so promptly. Reading it was a humbling experience for me.

I had written individual personalised letters to 120 out of the many priests in my address book, and when I received your letter, I had just received around 28 responses from 20 or 21 priests including several theologians and canon law experts from India, France, and the States, even two from Rome. I expect more today. It all could get to my head, so I truly appreciate your letter.

Early this morning, I sent this letter to 11 of my seminarian friends and you have been the first to respond. See how the Lord has blessed me with all of you.

I do hope that you will still remain my friend and continue to advise me even if you believe that I am doing you know what, { clergy bashing} which is something I would never want to do because priests are anointed by the Holy Spirit of God like no other of his creation on earth.

I love my Church and as long as there are young men like you who have the courage to face up to anyone and to speak up as you did with me, there is hope for the Catholic Faith of our children and grandchildren. So keep it up.

Yes I do understand the problems of priests. I have one in my family. I do not know how I can solve their problems regarding duties etc. as kindly suggested by you, Derek. It is neither my area of expertise nor calling. Knowing the effective reach of my ministry, people have brought me documented cases of moral and financial issues concerning priests, but I am not there to judge them on that, so barring 1 or 2 cases which were however ALSO connected with other serious doctrinal error, I have never taken them up.

In the matter of this asst. p.p., I wrote [only this morning] a follow-up letter to those 20+ priests who responded. It reads:

“I am not at all upset about the incident or with the priest. A penitent requesting for confession and being put off is a serious issue if there is no valid reason for the confessor’s doing so, don’t you agree?

I did not take up the matter with the PP because I did not want to make an issue out of it. I was more concerned that he had been able to convince the other half of our retreat team, 7 persons from Bangalore, good Catholics, that there was a canonical reason that he had not acceded to my request. I have checked Canon Law and it does not apply in this case. In my letter I had forgotten to add the information that when Angela and I had given a two-day retreat to the Muslim and Hindu students of another school on the same campus two months ago in November, the same Salesian asst. parish priest had not only found the time to meet us several times before, during, and after the programme between 7:30 am and 6:00 pm but had also heard Angela’s confession immediately on her request.

It was only this time that he avoided me, and it’s a safe guess that it was because he heard that I was concerned about his experimental innovations during the Liturgy of the Holy Mass.”

I [publicly] pursue the cases of only those priests who are in PUBLIC and PERSISTENT unremorseful violation of Holy Church’s teachings and which the Bishops make no effort to correct and which result in scandal and/or loss of Faith among the faithful.

There are just a very few, maybe 10 bishops who have steadfastly refused to reply to me. I am sure they have good reason to do so. If they met with me personally as several now have, they would change their mind, I believe.

About once a year, I might get a letter like yours from some lay person or the other, and I always welcome them because it helps me to maintain the right perspective and keep myself in check, maintaining objectivity when I write.

When I publish my articles I make it a point to include the condemnations and criticisms of this ministry that I receive from stable and faithful Catholics to give a balanced view. Of course, since a couple of years, I obscure the names and email addresses of the people who write so that they cannot be identified.

Only last night a Goan priest from Canada rang up and talked to me for the first time ever. He was positive about my approach and he tried to connect me through conferencing to an American priest who had written just once to me and now for the second time.

The Goan priest told me the sad story of how when he tried to talk to the Bishops in Goa to correct public error, he was sent away to Canada. There are at least 2 other priests in Goa, and 1 in Mumbai who are being persecuted because they stand for orthodoxy.

Yes, brother, it is difficult to be a priest in today’s Indian Church, even a seminarian. People with my temperament could never get through. Each time I see a good priest — and I am absolutely certain that you will be one, as I also just re-read your lovely letters of June 2010 – I marvel at how much they have been through to get there, and how much they endure to remain there.

It happened that 10 minutes after posting that email to you this morning, I was in church offering the graces of the Mass for priests.

I’ll sign off here, brother and I look forward to your continuing to discipline me in future because I know that you do it in love. Michael

From:
Seminarian 1
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:40 PM

Michael, I appreciate the spirit with which you read my letter. Please continue to be a faithful lay person and we will pray for our priests. Seminarian 1, Goa/Ohio

2. From:
Seminarian 2
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 9:43 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Greetings dear Prabhu
I read the Contents and noted the points.
To the best of my knowledge, all pastoral priests appointed by the bishop generally have faculty to hear confession in their own parish territories, unless he is explicitly denied the faculty.
Another issue is that a priest can actually deny a faithful confession if he feels that the person does not have the intention for conversion.
Apart from these there are also some sins which can be absolved only by the Bishop. I cannot quote as of now but will try to do it soon. Your Servant in Christ Seminarian 2, Chennai

3. From:
Seminarian 3
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:30 PM
Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Mike,

I just read your mail. I will get all the details for you on this matter and when I become a priest in 6 years and you wanna confess even at 3 in the morning, my room is open always, remember that. To confess or any pastoral help you are free to come to me anytime and I mean ANYTIME. That’s what I am here to do and I’m all ready.

From:
Seminarian 3
To:
Michael Prabhu
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 9:58 AM Subject: RE: CONFESSION PROBLEM

I just found out from one of our senior theologians here in the seminary that there could be many possibilities for that priest not hearing confession. I’ll list them.

1. He could have failed his ad auds and is not allowed to hear confession, as the church doesn’t see him fit enough to hear confessions and to lead God’s people to the right path with his advice.

2. He could be out of his jurisdiction and in this case he will have to seek permission from his superiors or the ordinary which would mean the bishop

3. He could be a priest hearing confessions in his diocese or outside but he could be forbidden to exercise his faculty of confession due to some grave manner.

4. He could be lazy; in this case you could report him to his superiors or the bishop and more so you have to pray that his superior is not lazy too.

5. His faculty for hearing confession could have been taken away by his bishop (who has the power and the authority to do so) for some grave reason.

6. Any other reason which I can’t see now but which may exist if the bishop or ordinary sees proper.

I hope this reply has come of some assistance. If there is something we have missed now, you can tell me where I have missed out. I have spread your Metamorphose ministry like wildfire in the seminary, much to the dismay of my professors and I have been named as a fundamentalist but now since I operate quietly and slowly, they have been quiet again.

Seminarian 3, Mumbai/Goa

4. From:
Seminarian 4
To:
prabhu
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 2:25 AM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM

Dear Brother,

I am very sorry; I had exams and didn’t check my mail frequently. I am just managing to catch up with all the past mails. It’s quite some time since you sent this mail, so I just wanted to check whether you still needed the clarification or has someone already addressed it. With prayerful wishes, Seminarian 4, Rome – NOW AN ORDAINED PRIEST

5. From:
Seminarian 5
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 6:37 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION QUERY REMINDER

Hi Michael,

I’m sorry about the previous email. Though I received it, I did not notice it. Well, I am currently studying philosophy, so I do not know about Canon Law, but I have asked a priest from my community.
According to him, when a religious priest is transferred to a different diocese, he needs permissions from the local bishop to administer the sacraments, including confession. For all other situations, he doesn’t need any permission. And there is no requirement to ask permission from superior, only the ordinary bishop of the diocese in the situation mentioned above.

But the priest also told me that if a person comes for confession, you cannot deny confession.
He has recommended to google for faculties and canon. Regards, Seminarian 5, Bangalore

6. From:
Seminarian 6
To:
prabhu
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:01 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION PROBLEM: REMINDER

Hi Michael,

No excuse for the late reply […]

It’s a non standard situation so there can largely be any opinion. Please understand that I am not taking either persons side

1) My friend told me that there is a Canon Law that the priest has to obtain permission from his superiors to hear confession because he belongs to a religious order. — TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, SINCE HE AN ASSISANT PARISH PRIEST OF THAT PARISH ITSELF, OBVIOUSLY HE HAS FACULTY TO HEAR CONFESSIONS.

—-SOME POINTS TO CHECK —

A) DOES THE PARISH BELONG TO THE SAME RELIGIOUS ORDER (I.E. – PARISH IS RUN BY THE RELIGIOUS ORDER) OR IS THE RELIGIOUS PRIEST ON LOAN TO THE PARISH BY HIS RELIGIOUS ORDER -

B) WHETHER THE PRIEST HAS BEEN GIVEN THE FACULTY BY HIS SUPERIOR TO HEAR CONFESSIONS OUTSIDE HIS ORDER IN THE PARISH: CANON 969-1

2. IN RARE CASES (MAYBE RAREST OF RARE) A PRIEST WHO KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO CONFESS HAS THE RIGHT ON MORAL GROUNDS TO AVOID HEARING THE CONFESSION OF A PERSON, FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY. ONCE HE HEARS, HE IS BOUND BY THE CONFESSION SEAL TO REVEAL NOTHING AND HE MAY FEEL HE KNOW SOMETHING SERIOUS WHICH NEEDS TO BE REVEALED FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

3. THE PENITENT HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HIS PRIEST, BUT VICE VERSA IS NOT POSSIBLE except in RAREST OF RARE cases as mentioned above.

4. SO IF THERE ARE NO MORAL GROUNDS DIRECT (EXTERNAL) OR INDIRECT (INTERNAL) TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANY PRIEST HAS NO RIGHT TO REFUSE A WILLING, WAITING PENITENT, WANTING CONFESSION. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS NO MORAL GROUND WITHIN, THAT THE PRIEST MAY OR MAY NOT BE WILLING TO STATE.

5. THE IDEAL SITUATION HOWEVER WOULD, HAVE BEEN FOR THE PRIEST TO FRANKLY TELL YOU THAT HE IS UNABLE TO HEAR YOUR CONFESSION WHEN YOU PHONED, IF HE DIDNT WANT TO, WITHOUT NECESSARILY REVEALING THE INTERNAL REASON IF ANY AND ARRANGE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE PRIEST TO DO SO, WHICH IN MOST CASES SHOULD BE QUITE EASY FOR A PRIEST LIVING IN A COMMUNITY.

6. SINCE YOU NEVER ARRIVED AT 8.25AM AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INFORM HIM REGARDING YOUR DELAYED ARRIVAL, THERE MAY BE A LOT OF PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS UNWILLING OR DISINTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR CONFESSION. PRESUMPTION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO ERROR.

7. WHATEVER HIS REAL MOTIVES ARE, WE MAY NEVER KNOW AS GOD ALONE KNOWS THE HEART. THE BOOK OF SIRACH SAYS, IT IS THE GREATNESS OF A PERSON TO OVERLOOK ANOTHERS MISTAKES, SO EVEN IF IT WAS A MISTAKE ON HIS PART, YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE GREATNESS BY OVERLOOKING IT. MY SUGGESTION IS DEMONSTRATE GREATNESS, BY LETTING GO AND FORGIVING, IF ANY HURT HAS BEEN CAUSED TO YOU, RATHER THAN NURSING A GRUDGE, WHICH WILL BENEFIT NEITHER PARTY, ESPECIALLY YOU.

8. I CANNOT COMMENT ABOUT THE LITURGICAL INNOVATIONS AS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF LITURGICAL NORMS AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE CHECKED BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IN THE DIOCESE.

This is my opinion after consulting a more senior priest in the parish. Please feel free to consider it or reject it.

Regards, Seminarian 6, Bombay – NOW AN ORDAINED PRIEST

7. From:
Seminarian 7
To:
prabhu
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 7:46 PM Subject: Re: CONFESSION QUERY REMINDER

Dear Michael, Greetings from Rome!!!

Hope you and your family is keeping well.. Sorry for the delay in responding your email.

Well after reading your email, these are some of my responses, though I am not a competent person to answer.

As far as I know “The Salvation of Souls is the supreme law of the Church”.

Canonically a priest after Ordination gets a written permission from the Bishop to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation. “Can. 973 The faculty to hear confessions habitually is to be granted in writing.”

As your friend said it is true that a religious priest should get the permission from his superiors for hearing the confession.

For more details you can refer the Code of Canon Law Title IV. The Sacrament of Penance (Can 959 – 997).

It would be good to clear this topic with a Canonist who is specialized in the laws of the Church because in certain cases the parish priest can grant asst. parish priest to hear confessions if he has not yet received the written permission.

Every Diocese will have an Authorized Canonist, it would be better for you to enquire with the Canonist of your diocese because for certain things the Episcopal Conferences can make its laws only for its Diocese.

Michael if in case I get more clarity from any competent persons here on this matter will surely get back to you.

Do also keep me in your prayers as I have been falling sick very often after Christmas…

Assuring you of my prayers for you, family and your ministry. In Christ Seminarian 7, Rome

THE LETTER I WROTE TO THE LEADER [NAME WITHELD] OF THE BANGALORE TEAM THAT I ASSISTED IN GIVING THE JANUARY 21, 2011 RETREAT IN CHENNAI:

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
NAME WITHELD
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:09 PM

Subject: REPORT ON THE REFUSAL OF THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION BY THE PRIEST WHO INVITED US TO GIVE THE RETREAT

Dear NAME WITHELD,

I just completed the report which I have attached herewith.

I recall the letter that I wrote to you, subject “CONFESSION AND CANON LAW” on March 6, 2011

[From:
prabhu
To:
NAME WITHELD
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 9:58 AM Subject: CONFESSION AND CANON LAW],

from which I quote

“[In future] I can work with you only if your confidence in me stands unchanged.

I hope that I’m wrong, but that does not appear to be the case now.

Brother, I cannot preach one thing, or write about one thing, and ignore the same when I see it in a person, even if it is with the organizers [of a retreat] or the ones who have invited me. I would then be a hypocrite or partial or a compromiser.

You know that almost every major ministry is silent in the face of major errors that abound in the Church and her institutions, preferring to look the other way in order to receive further invitations. I doubt that such decisions are influenced by the Holy Spirit; which is why the Renewal is dying a slow death all over the world, stifled by its own leaders who are walking in the flesh.

Even if numbers are sometimes there, it is almost always the same old faces, and you and I know that the lack of knowledge of most retreatants is so poor, they flit from retreat to retreat for years on end, always receiving [usually the same fare], rarely being able to give, and are more subservient to dominant leaders than to the prophetic voices that God chooses to use now and then.

I have always believed that you are not one of them. I rejoice to see your entry into ministry.

To come to the subject of my letter, Fr. Nn’s avoiding hearing my confession is indefensible. I was quite taken aback and surprised when you said first that I could have made my confession anywhere else, and next that there was Canon Law involved in his being unable to confess me. I was waiting for you to get back to me on which Canon Law you were talking about, but you have not brought it up, so I have. I believe that Fr. Nn mentioned Canon Law to you, so maybe you could get the clarification from him and give it to me so that I might be enlightened.

What I observed was that Father Nn agreed to hear my confession only after you reached Chennai and talked to him. He then called me up and asked me to come at once. My personal sharing was only with you and I did not intend/expect it to go back to Father since I lost my eagerness to confess to him because of his repeated excuses. Moreover, I wrote immediately to him on his refusal, declining rather, explaining what I felt, but he did not care to reply. That was the second time.

The other thing that I shared personally only with you in just one sentence after the first retreat we gave 2010 end was my concern that Fr Nn was possibly involved in liturgical abuse during his celebration of the Eucharist. Apparently, he has come to know of this too from you and has been avoiding meeting with me ever since, probably fearful that I might bring it up with him.

Do you think that I am wrong on either issue? Would you not enquire from Fr. Nn whether what I learnt is true, and correct him in the Lord if it was so, or would you let it pass because he is your good, longtime friend?

And do you think that that there was a different way that I could have asked Father if he was avoiding hearing my confession? I know of no other way than a simple, truthful, direct question, “Father, are you avoiding hearing my confession?” I did so, but I did not ask him why.

I believe that Father Nn is wrong on both counts [I have started a section on Liturgical Abuses on my web site]. If you think that Fr. Nn is correct and justified, then I am in error and you should not consider asking me to join your team again.

If you believe that Fr. Nn has erred, then you can please let me know that. I am always at your service, and even if we do not minister together, we are still good friends, because nothing can change my high regard for you as a person and as a Catholic.

[...] I believe that when one is in ministry, even though one always remains a sinner [which I am; I made my confession yesterday evening], it is one’s integrity in the littlest of things that counts in the ultimate analysis.

Assuring you always of my prayers and support, Love, Michael“

NO RESPONSE

From:
prabhu
To:
NAME WITHELD
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 8:08 AM

Subject: CONFESSION AND CANON LAW: SENDING AGAIN […]

NO RESPONSE

From:
prabhu
To:
NAME WITHELD
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:40 AM

Subject: Re: CONFESSION AND CANON LAW: SENDING AGAIN […]

Dear Nn, I pray that all is well with you and your family and team members.

I am sure that you are very busy, but I do hope that you will find the time to respond to my questions and concerns.

Love, Michael

NO RESPONSE

NAME WITHELD
elected to not respond to my three letters of March 2011. It remains to be seen if he replies to the letter that I sent him today, June 18, 2013, along with the present report.
The attachment contained the above pages under this letter dated June 18, 2013.

THE LETTER I WROTE TO FR. NN, THE SALESIAN ASSISTANT PARISH PRIEST, ON JANUARY 20, 2011:

From:
prabhu
To:
Asst. Parish Priest
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:36 AM Subject: from Michael Prabhu

DEAR FR Asst. Parish Priest,

I AM TRYING TO REACH YOU.

I HAD COPIED YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER WRONG, SO I CANNOT CALL YOU.

I NEED TO KNOW IF I CAN MAKE MY CONFESSION TO YOU TOMORROW MORNING BEFORE THE RETREAT AND AT WHAT TIME IT IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU. Please contact me on 2461606.

Dear Fr Asst. Parish Priest,

After I wrote those lines, I got a call from Ms. Prem and she gave me your number. Then I immediately called you.

I wanted to make a confession before I started the retreat and needed to know when you would be free BEFORE the program started. You said it can be done during the day, anytime. You know that once the sessions start it will not be possible for me to leave the venue or to locate you as I don’t own a mobile phone. Only when I asked you directly if you were trying to avoid me or hearing my confession you agreed to meet me at 8:30 am. I said then, that I would meet you.

After hanging up, I thought that I got the impression even when I called you on the 26th December on your sacerdotal ordination anniversary, and I said that we were driving up to meet you and wish you for Christmas, you said that you were busy and couldn’t assure me of any definite time to meet. I understand fully, knowing that was Sunday and Christmas, and also your commitments in the parish. So I said we would come some other time during the vacation. But again you said that I need not trouble much about it; at that time too I had felt that you did not want to meet me.

Is there some reason for that? Am I wrong in what I feel? If so, I apologise and am open to correction.

Our family confesses regularly, Father. Wherever I go, I find priests too busy with other things to hear confession. It is rarely I see a priest sitting in any church in Chennai, and sometimes the priests come so unwillingly. I have had not one but several such experiences. I do know that you have a commitment in the school. But you are also first and foremost a pastor. I did not at any time suggest that I should meet you during school hours or once assembly begins. I was hoping that you would be happy to confess me and eagerly invite me saying ’come anytime’ before the program just as you found the time to invite us for breakfast the last time.

I am now inclined to skip confession or complete it today if I can find another willing priest in the churches near our home.

Love and prayers, Michael

THE LETTER I WROTE TO FR. NN, THE SALESIAN ASSISTANT PARISH PRIEST, ON JUNE 19, 2013:

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
Asst. Parish Priest
Cc:
NAME WITHHELD
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:47 AM

Subject: REPORT ON THE REFUSAL OF THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION BY YOU AT THE JANUARY 2011 RETREAT ON YOUR CHURCH PREMISES

Dear Fr. Asst. Parish Priest,

You will recall the second retreat [the first was in 2010] that I gave, accompanied by my wife Angela, to the students of the school in your church compound on January 21, 2011.

You will also recall that, as is customary for me before I preach a retreat, I telephonically requested you a day in advance of the retreat, to hear my confession on the morning of the retreat, prior to its commencement. But you declined to make yourself available to me, citing your busy-ness. Though, on my pursuing the matter with you, you finally consented to give me time, I later decided that I would make my confession at a future time, elsewhere.

Without imputing any motive to your decision, I shared this with Bro. NAME WITHHELD over the phone. However, Bro. NAME WITHHELD asked you about it on his arrival in Chennai the next morning after which you called me up and asked me to come over to be administered the Sacrament. But, because of the short lead time and a traffic diversion due to the rehearsal for the Republic Day parade, we reached the church a few minutes late and could not locate you anywhere.

The matter would have rested except that Bro. NAME WITHHELD tried excusing you citing some Canon Law or the other. I know that your friendship goes back many years and that he has even attended your ordination. I do not let personal relationships affect the ministry that I am called to do in the Church. If I did, it would eventually impact my preaching and writing. Our family has always experienced difficulty in getting a priest to hear our confessions at many parishes in Madras-Mylapore archdiocese, and so I viewed this matter seriously.

In March 2011, almost two months after the retreat, I wrote thrice to Bro. NAME WITHHELD with whom I have had a close friendship since 2002, even staying over at his home. However, he elected not to reply to me even though he used to be a prompt correspondent and ardent supporter of my ministry apart from being a benefactor.

To ascertain the veracity of Bro. NAME WITHHELD‘s assertion that there was some Canon Law issue in your being unable to hear my confession – though you did hear Angela’s at the first retreat we gave in 2010 — I wrote individually to 120 priests, 60 of who replied, and to 11 seminarians, 7 of who replied.

A few priests misunderstood that I was upset or hurt over the incident, or that I was in the state of grievous sin [I was not] and offered me advice. But the rest understood that I was a regular penitent and only concerned about the attitude of many priests to being readily available for hearing confessions.

My letter to the priests and seminarians was more to draw out their comments on your making it difficult for me to make my confession than for my seeking from them a clarification on Canon Law, as I was already clear about that.

It has been informed to me by your staff and parishioners that you initiate innovations in the Sunday Holy Mass liturgies which can only be termed as abuses or aberrations. No priest or even bishop may tamper with the rubrics of the Mass. In doing so, they are acting in open disobedience to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You will recall that after the conclusion of our retreat, we were standing around in front of the church when one of your parishioners joined us. The lady referred to an audio-visual show that you introduced in one of your Tamil Masses and exclaimed, “Rombo nalla irunthathu, Father” ["It was very good"] or something very close to that.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a programme that has to be made entertaining for the congregation and for which we have to be congratulated.

It is matter of great seriousness and regret when the custodians of the liturgy become its violators and when the pastors of the flock lead the sheep astray.

At my web site, you will find dozens of documents, articles and reports on the Holy Liturgy as well as on its violation by priests and laity.

In fidelity to the principles of truth, impartiality and non-compromise that I strictly adhere to in my ministry, I have collated my own letters and the priest’s and seminarians’ responses into a report that will be published on my web site tonight. I have already sent last night it to Bro. NAME WITHHELD whose name has been withheld by me in the final edition of the report, whether he replies to me or not.

In your case, Fr. Nn, since as a priest you are one from whom we expect pastoral care and proper guidance, whether I include your name and identity in the final report will depend on your response — or lack of it – to this letter from me.

The referred report is attached herewith.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Prabhu

THE THREE RESPONSES THAT I RECEIVED FROM FR. NN, THE SALESIAN ASSISTANT PARISH PRIEST, ON JUNE 20, 2013:

From:
Asst. Parish Priest
To:
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:55 PM

Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE REFUSAL OF THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION BY YOU AT THE JANUARY 2011 RETREAT ON YOUR CHURCH PREMISES

Dear Mr. Michael
Greetings of peace and joy in the Lord. How are you? Regards to all at home.
I still do remember the warm reception extended by you in your home.
Please accept my apologies for not making myself available to hear your confession. This is already a wound in itself for me and may I beg you not to publish it. Expecting your favourable reply Regards, Asst. Parish Priest

From:
Asst. Parish Priest
To:
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:57 PM

Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE REFUSAL OF THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION BY YOU AT THE JANUARY 2011 RETREAT ON YOUR CHURCH PREMISES

As above

From:
Asst. Parish Priest
To:
michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:00 PM

Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE REFUSAL OF THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION BY YOU AT THE JANUARY 2011 RETREAT ON YOUR CHURCH PREMISES

Dear Michael
how is your ministry going on..pls enlighten me also about.. and I skipped mentioning that I could not download the attachment you sent in your mail due to some error. Thanks

Asst. Parish Priest

From:
Michael Prabhu
To:
Asst. Parish Priest
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2013 11:05 PM

Subject: Re: REPORT ON THE REFUSAL OF THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION BY YOU AT THE JANUARY 2011 RETREAT ON YOUR CHURCH PREMISES

Dear Fr. Asst. Parish Priest,

I acknowledge receipt of your three consecutive letters. Thank you for replying. You have shown that you could reply if obliged to [There were earlier letters from me which did not elicit any response from you.]

I had forgotten that you had visited our home. That was after the first retreat. The remembrance of that good time was eclipsed by the confession incident at the second retreat we gave, and I completely forgot it. I’m sorry.

Your apology for not making yourself available to hear my confession is joyfully accepted.

I have not held any rancour or animosity against you. I did what I did because I had to, both as a Catholic lay person and as a lay person in a ministry that is unique in its nature.

In response to your kind letter, I will not use either your name or your email id in the final draft of my report which I had held up until now, while waiting to hear from you.

I am confident that after reading the letters of the 60 priests and 7 seminarians, you will never turn away a penitent in future.

As you could not open it yesterday, I am once again attaching the final draft of the report here for your perusal.

If you are still unable to open it, I will send you the URL for it after my web master uploads it at our web site tomorrow.

You did not respond to me on the matter of your liturgical innovations/abuses in the Holy Mass. The issue still remains…

Since you kindly inquired, my ministry continues to grow in its reach, acceptance and impact. It will help if you go to the section captioned “LITURGY”. [However, the attached file will be found in the "REPORTS" section]. Our web site is www.ephesians-511.net.

In my ministry, I am always at your service, Father.

Let us pray for each other.

God bless you,

Michael

See

CONFESSION-THE SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/CONFESSION-THE_SACRAMENT_OF_RECONCILIATION.doc

↧

St. Michaels Church Mahim refuses Communion to a Kneeler – Has Jesus Christ been insulted?

June 26, 2013, 6:41 pm

≫ Next: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

≪ Previous: What’s happened to the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

St. Michaels Church Mahim refuses Communion to a Kneeler – Has Jesus Christ been insulted?

http://mumbailaity.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/st-michaels-church-mahim-refuses-communion-to-a-kneeler-has-jesus-christ-been-insulted/

By
The Voice Of Bombay’s Catholic Laity, THE LAITYTUDE June 24, 2013

June 22nd 2013 will go down as a very sad day in the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Mumbai as in my opinion Jesus has been insulted.

One of the persons who came for the 6 am mass and knelt down to refuse communion was refused communion by an Assistant Parish Priest Fr. Blaise and told that he would receive Jesus only if he stood up.

Mr. Dominic Fernandes a daily mass goer and a resident of Mahim for many decades who was also in the line then told the priest that what he has done is totally wrong and is not acceptable. He was then taken away by an usher, Mr. Tim.

The said complete incident was witnessed by the new Parish Priest Fr. Simon Borges who was standing at the side of Fr. Blaise and also distributing Holy Communion. He too did nothing.

After the mass and novena got over the said usher Mr. Tim was confronted by many catholic daily mass goers and his explanation for communion to be given to only standees was that it flies away. He also spoke about Canon Law.

What could be the reason for the Church authorities refusing to give communion to a kneeler?

Does it take extra time?

Has the mass got less relevance to the Church authorities as compared to the novena?

Some years ago during the last stint of late Fr. Salvadore Rodrigues had just taken over he had also made announcements that communion would not be given to any person who kneels.

It is a pity that such was the stand taken by person who was the Episcopal Vicar of the Mumbai Church.

How many priests have got guts to refuse communion to persons who are not properly dressed?

Yes Jesus is being persecuted and will continue to be persecuted not by outsiders but by insiders.

It is high time that the religious come out openly against their fellow brothers for doing these types of acts as more and more people may leave the church or will it be a case of turning the blind eye?

↧

Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

June 26, 2013, 6:45 pm

≫ Next: St Michael’s church in communion row

≪ Previous: St. Michaels Church Mahim refuses Communion to a Kneeler – Has Jesus Christ been insulted?

February 04, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy

Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore

Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

My wife and I have been attending the Sunday Eucharistic services in English regularly for about 15 years.

2. The lectors unfailingly introduce the two readings thus, “The first reading”, and “The second reading”.

It is not required for them to do so.

3. The Responsorial Psalm is NEVER recited or sung. It is ALWAYS replaced by a hymn which has no connection whatsoever with the Psalm of the Sunday.

4. After each reading, the lector incorrectly says, “THIS IS the Word of the Lord”.

5. At the conclusion of the Second Reading, the lectors incorrectly say, “Please stand FOR THE [GOSPEL] ACCLAMATION”.

8. Now and then, we have noted some priests departing from the rubrics and ad-libbing the prescribed prayers.

Things get worse, if that is possible.

There are several more liturgical issues that concern us but we would like to end that topic here.

Before we end, there are a couple of related matters that we would like to include.

Praying for you to be greatly blessed by our God to usher in a new Spirit-filled era in our Archdiocese,

We remain,

Yours obediently,

Sd. /-

Michael and Angela Prabhu

Printed without the masthead and mailed by Registered Post [RT118538795], Acknowledgement Due, on Feb. 5, 2013

The letter was delivered to the office at the Archbishop’s House on February 6, 2013 as per the postal receipt.

A reminder copy, personally given by me to Fr. Kiran, the archbishop’s secretary, on 9.3.2013, was not accepted by him.

FOLLOW-UP

March 11, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy

Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore

Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT: 1. Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

SUBJECT: 2.
The Convenor of the “Forum for CATHOLIC Unity” is NOT a Catholic

On February 6, 2013, as per the Acknowledgement Due postal receipt, my first referred letter dated February 4 was delivered at the Archbishop’s House.

The second referred letter in the form of a report dated March 9, 2013, was delivered personally by me to Fr. Kiran, your secretary, at the Archbishop’s House on March 9, 2013*.

Another example of discordance is when a prayer such as the one for the Year of Faith is prayed. The entire choir joins in.

I am constrained to share with you all of this because Fr Kanickai Raj will not entertain any suggestions or discussions.

It is my humble suggestion that you attend different Masses incognito to verify for yourself the truth of what I write to you.

Yours obediently,

Michael Prabhu, 12 Dawn Apartments, II Floor, 22 Leith Castle South Street, Chennai 600 028. Tel: 2461 1606

*NB. It would help if your secretary verifies our copies of letters hand-delivered at your office, but he declines to do so.

May 20, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy

Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore [Acknowledgement receipt dated May 24, 2013 received by me]

Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT:
Liturgical errors/abuses/aberrations at the 9:30 am Holy Mass, Pentecost Sunday, May 19, 2013, at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

Permit me to recall to you my first letter of February 04, 2013 succeeded by a follow-up letter on March 11, 2013, after which you acknowledged receipt of them vide yours of March 15, 2013. It is now almost 15 weeks since my first communication to you, but I find that little has changed in respect of the issues that I brought to your attention.

My wife and I attended the Sunday 9:30 am Mass on May 19, 2013. I do not know who the celebrant was, but he was assisted by Deacon Charles. After the opening prayer, an “Introduction” to the liturgy was made by a lay person, one of the dozen or so “animators” used by Deacon Charles at all Masses wherein he assists. The celebrant invited the congregation to shout three times “Praise the Lord, Hallelujah”. The Responsorial Psalm — suited for Pentecost – was substituted with an unconnected hymn by the choir. The Second Reading was taken from I Corinthians 12. My Missal says that it should have been Romans 8: 8-17. There was the usual “Please stand for the Gospel Acclamation”. The Deacon’s homily contained no reference to the Second Reading or the Gospel of the day. In developing on the First Reading, he spoke negatively about those Catholics who attend prayer meetings, advising us several times to understand that the Holy Mass is the supreme sacrament of the Church. There was no need for him to group the two distinct situations together. It came off as a veiled criticism of charismatics since he failed to use the occasion to warn the congregation about the real danger which comes from the Pentecostals. Some time after the homily, a group of “animators” gathered below the altar rails with lit candles. On “Vacation Bible School” [VBS] Sunday, May 5, the VBS students were the “animators”. Some time after the Holy Communion service was over, Deacon Charles got fully into his element. Reminding us that it was the birthday of the Church, he announced that a cake would be cut and invited children ["You'll get a cake if you come"] to come up and receive their share. While the cake was cut in what I understand to be the sanctuary, cake was fed to the mouths of some children while others walked away from the altar eating of pieces of cake held in their fingers, to the accompaniment ["Let's all sing together 'Happy Birthday' for our Church"] of “Happy Birthday Mother Church” — or so it sounded to us — from the choir. The congregation was then invited to “clap your hands”, and everyone – well, almost — complied happily as the Deacon thanked them. Next, the “animators” were named and thanked by the Deacon and the audience [I now find it difficult to regard us as a congregation] when he once again called for applause, which he got in full measure.

Finally, the Deacon invited potential animators [for future Sunday Masses] to give their names to “Mrs. Joan”.

I have avoided including in this letter the continuance of other errors, etc. that I wrote about in my first two letters.

Apparently, my letters to you have not gone down well with the Parish Priest*
and the Deacon. I was one of only three laity who attended the sessions for VBS teachers at the DPC. Deacon Charles was given my contact information by the others, but he still did not contact me. I turned up to take the VBS classes after making my own enquiries.

My wife and I attended the Good Friday service, entering at 2:30 pm under the wrong assumption that we were 30 minutes early but the Church was already packed. We managed to find two seats on the side by the Sacred Heart altar, in the fourth row. A member of the 7:15 am Sunday choir had “reserved” three seats in the pew behind us and she did not allow anyone to occupy them till almost 3:10 pm though by that time latecomers were seating themselves on the floor. She was finally obliged to remove the items with which she had blocked the seats. To my right, a senior charismatic couple had brought their 4-year old along with a crayon set and colouring book which were put to good use. The only time they intervened was to make him raise his hands in the Orans position for the Lord’s Prayer, emulating them, the priest and a majority of the faithful. A young woman in the front of us used her cellphone while a lady in the first pew, the sister-in-law of a Salesian priest, chatted incessantly — through many of the most solemn parts of the Good Friday service — with the ladies to her left and to her right, and another member of her group used the cellphone a few times before leaving midway. *The Parish Priest profusely thanked the choir, mentioning the choir master by name, and asked us why there should be objections from some people to publicly thanking the choir who have toiled so hard to provide excellent singing. He spent almost three minutes expanding on that message. But he did not mention the lectors and many others who serve at Mass. Deacon Charles does that in his unique way every Sunday. I do not cast any aspersions on the Deacon’s integrity, zeal and reverence which are outwardly most exemplary. But neither he nor the Parish Priest are masters or owners of the liturgy for them to innovate and manipulate it in any way. As its servants, they are obliged to restrict themselves to the rubrics.

The Deacon himself, in his Pentecost homily spoke of the supremacy of the Mass and took joy in the birth anniversary of the Church. He should therefore be the last person to undermine the sacredness of the proceedings during Mass and to flout the guidelines set for priests and deacons by the authorities of the universal Church. The entertainment approach of the clergy has contributed to the laxity and irreverence of the laity that I have recorded for you earlier in this paragraph.

Yours obediently,

Michael Prabhu, 12 Dawn Apartments, II Floor, 22 Leith Castle South Street, Chennai 600 028. Tel: 2461 1606

Printed without the masthead and mailed by Registered Post [RT151917117], Acknowledgement Due, on May 23.

June 25, 2013

To,

Most Rev. George Antonysamy, Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore

Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,

SUBJECT:
Liturgical errors/abuses/aberrations during the Sunday Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas [and elsewhere in the archdiocese] continue unabated

I have been writing to you for almost five months as summarised below and this will be my final personal appeal to you.

1. My letter of February 04, 2013, Registered Acknowledgement Due

2. Reminder to the above handed over by me to Fr. Kiran, your secretary on March 9, 2013

3. Report, “The Convenor of the ‘Forum for Catholic Unity’ is not a Catholic” dated March 9, 2013
personally delivered by me to Fr. Kiran, your secretary on March 9, 2013 [NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED TILL DATE]

4. Follow-up letter to serial nos 1 and 3 dated March 11, 2013 handed in at your office’s reception desk the same day

Your response dated March 15, 2013, assuring me that

my letters were “forwarded to the concerned person”

b) whatever I write “will be given due consideration”

5. My Registered Acknowledgement Due letter dated May 20, 2013 on abuses at the Good Friday and Pentecost services.

Over a month has past since my last letter to you, and virtually nothing has changed at the Sunday Masses.

I attended the 9:30 a.m. Masses on May 26, June 2, 9 and 23, 2013. Though I have maintained separate weekly records, I will provide you with just a few limited details in the form of a running list since they are mostly the same as earlier:

-The applause [clapping of hands] to “thank” the animators and others continues at every Mass, invited by Deacon Charles ["Let's give them a big round of applause"]. I noted that he does the same at the Tamil language Masses.

-A hymn unrelated to the psalm for the Sunday continues to be sung by the choir instead of the Responsorial Psalm

-The flower arrangements continue to obstruct a view of the priest for some of the congregation

-Priests commence the Credo [I Believe…] before the Congregation is on its feet.

Since the Deacon is preparing the ‘animators’ before-hand why then do such problems and errors continue:

-Most readings continue to end with “THIS IS the Word of the Lord”

-After the second reading, most invitations ask us to “Please stand for the GOSPEL ACCLAMATION”

May 26, 2013: The First Reading [taken by a lady], chapter and verse not read out; the Deacon read the Gospel, concluded [correctly] with “The Word of the Lord”, and joined the congregation in responding with “Praise be to you O Lord Jesus Christ”. June 2, 2013: Little children were used to give the “introduction”, etc. Their voices were inaudible. Such reading defeats the purpose of having someone read. June 23, 2013: The first reading by a little girl was completely inaudible from first word to last. No one made a move to adjust her microphone. In a “good” service, lectors are properly schooled and are familiar with the Bible. The readings are to be proclaimed not read like from a school text book with poor punctuation, wrong emphases and important Biblical names including that of the book itself often mispronounced.

There are two aspects in my communications to you. One is the disregard of the rubrics of the Mass by the celebrant, and in this case, also by the Deacon, Charles. The other is the growing irreverence that is observed in the congregation to which I believe the clergy has contributed by commission as well as by omission [a lack of catechesis?]. People walk around venerating statues, even to the crucifix in the sanctuary at the left hand side of the priest during Mass, drinking water from bottles [before receiving Holy Communion] and using their mobile phones. On June 23, 2013, a youth in my row was checking his email! People entering late nod and smile at one another; some converse seriously during Mass. In my estimation 40 to 50% of the faithful enter after Mass has started, some of them are unabashed regulars; On June 23, a family of three entered when the Our Father was being recited. Young women are immodestly dressed with skin-tight jeans, and very short tops, often sleeveless. Young men have worn T-shirts with messages like “Evil Doer”, “Hell Rider” and “F**K”. Because I requested the youth to stop checking his email last Sunday, he and two others intimidated me for almost ten minutes after Mass saying he had his “priorities”. Deacon Charles himself, apparently aware of my letters to you but doing nothing to rectify what you wrongly referred to as my “complaint[s]“, has attempted to victimize me in subtle ways.

As I wrote in an earlier letter to you, there are problems, abuses and aberrations in other parishes. At Our Lady of Light Church [6:00 pm, June 16], the celebrant asked the faithful so many questions ["How many wives did King David have", etc.] during his otherwise excellent homily, a member of the congregation might as well have preached it. Many priests, even during the Masses at the Cathedral, ask questions and elicit answers from the congregation. At the 12 noon English Mass in St. Teresa’s Church, Nungambakkam, a solo hymn in Malayalam is sung by a young woman as entertainment!

If the Eucharist really is the “Source and Summit of Life” [CCC 1324], shouldn’t you as our Bishop intervene and ensure that the greatest reverence and strict adherence to the rubrics are the hallmark of every single Mass in the archdiocese?

Yours obediently,

Michael Prabhu, 12 Dawn Apartments, II Floor, 22 Leith Castle South Street, Chennai 600 028. Tel: 2461 1606

Printed without the masthead and handed over personally at the Archbishop’s Office on June 26, 2013.

↧

St Michael’s church in communion row

June 27, 2013, 6:28 pm

≫ Next: More on Kneeling for Communion Cardinal Arinze

≪ Previous: Aberrations, errors and other problems in the Liturgies of the Sunday Holy Masses at the National Shrine of St. Thomas

St Michael’s church in communion row

Posted on June 26, 2013
by The Voice Of Bombay’s Catholic Laity

St Michael’s church in communion row

By Manoj Nair
manoj.nair@hindustantimes.com
June 26, 2013 Hindustan Times (Mumbai) Page 8

Do you take your communion – a Christian religious rite in which consecrated bread and wine are given to believers by a priest as memorials of Jesus’ death – while kneeling down or standing?

This is the question being asked by members of St Michael’s Church, Mahim, where a priest is reported to have refused communion on Saturday to a worshipper because he had knelt down to receive the wafer and wine offered to him.

Church members who are protesting, say both positions are allowed in their religious rules but priests said people who knelt down were wasting time and holding up the long queue of people waiting for communion.

Dominique Fernandes, a member of the church, was in the queue when the priest declined to give communion to the man who was ahead of him. “He was not from our church and had knelt down out of respect. I complained to the priest that it was wrong to deny him communion but I was asked to leave by the ushers.”

At St Michael’s Church (right), Mahim, on Saturday, a priest allegedly refused communion to a worshipper because he had knelt down to receive the wafer and wine.

Church members who are protesting, say both positions are allowed under rule,” said Fernandes.

Community groups have criticised the priest’s behaviour. Gordon Jacobs of the Association of Concerned Catholics which has complained to the Archbishop of Bombay about Saturday’s event, said, “The old way of receiving communion was to kneel down and receive it on the tongue. Now, the practice is to stand and take it in your hand. Both ways are acceptable.”

“You cannot refuse communion just because a person is kneeling down,” said Arcanjo Sodder, another member.

Father Simon Borges, parish priest of St Michael’s church, said, “People may kneel down out of a sense of reverence, but they hold up the line. There is always a long queue of people waiting for communion, so they are asked to remain standing,” said Borges.

Recent events have added to this confusion. A few years ago, an archbishop in Scotland said people taking communion should stand as it was a mark of respect. But a year before this announcement, Pope Benedict XVI was seen giving communion to people who were kneeling down.

↧

More on Kneeling for Communion Cardinal Arinze

June 28, 2013, 10:10 am

≫ Next: Parish Membership by Family Card

≪ Previous: St Michael’s church in communion row

↧

Parish Membership by Family Card

July 27, 2013, 7:41 am

≫ Next: Leading “Catholic” dissenters & heretics

≪ Previous: More on Kneeling for Communion Cardinal Arinze

25 JULY 2013

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it”- Pope Sr. Felix III

NOTE: In this report I may occasionally use bold print, italics, CAPS, or word underlining for emphasis. These will be my personal emphasis and not that of the source that I am quoting. Any footnote preceded by a number in (parenthesis) is my personal library numbering system.

“AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE”

Here, in India, Catholics are required to have a “Family Card”. It is a sort of proof that one is Catholic. If one does not possess a “Family Card”, one’s family members are refused the services of the Church, especially funerals, irrelevant of whether the person who expired was a daily mass-goer and faithful Catholic. One can possess a “Family Card”, be a nominal or lapsed Catholic, and yet be provided all the services of the Church. When a parishioner applies for this “Family Card”, it is mandatory for him/her to give a commitment of the amount he/she will contribute monthly to the Church. It is basically used as an instrument to extract money. The “Family Card” keeps a record of the payments made by the parishioner. The unwritten understanding is no money, no card. So, one may obtain the card, then discontinue payments, and still be refused a Church burial despite owning a Family Card.

What does the Church have to say about parish membership and about the conditions for Church services to a parishioner? Michael Prabhu, India

“§1. Domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless (nisi) called away, or has been protracted for five complete years. §2. Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese which either is joined with the intention of remaining there at least three months, unless (nisi) called away, or has in fact been protracted for three months. §3. A domicile or quasi-domicile within the territory of a parish is called parochial; in the territory of a diocese, even though not in a particular parish, it is called diocesan.”

“Domicile: the place of residence of an individual or a family.”

“The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor.”

“The fifth precept (You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church) means that THE FAITHFUL ARE OBLIGED TO ASSIST WITH THE MATERIAL NEEDS OF THE CHURCH, EACH ACCORDING TO HIS OWN ABILITY.”

“THE FAITHFUL ARE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE CHURCH BY COLLECTIONS AND ACCORDING TO THE NORMS LAID DOWN BY THE CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS.”

Helping support your parish is a PRECEPT OF THE CHURCH, in other words – a “law” that we must obey AS WE ARE ABLE TO OBEY IT! God (and His Church) does not expect us to do something that is impossible. For instance, if we have normally given $10.00 in the collection basket each week for over ten years and then lost our jobs and now have no income, common sense dictates that we do not have to give the Church any money until such time as we are again in a position of receiving income. If during these times of no income a family member dies, the Church must afford him or her a Catholic Mass and burial!

On the other hand if your income becomes so little that all that you can donate to the church is 5¢ each week, then that is the amount that the Precept of the Church expects you to give! “And Jesus sitting over against the treasury beheld how the people cast money into the treasury, and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And calling his disciples together, He said to them: Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury.”

“And He said: Verily I say to you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast into the offering of God: but she of her want hath cast in all the living that she had.”

“Mite: a small coin or sum of money.”

“Farthing: something of small value.”

If you refuse to give to the Church your agreed upon amount or refuse to give anything at all, you have committed a sin and need to reconcile with God in the Sacrament of Confession. Even at this point the Church cannot refuse you (generally speaking) the sacraments.

I have personally seen out-of-work-no-income people donate their time in place of money to their Church. They have used their labor to mow the grass, shovel snow, paint, etc. This is generally done by making arrangements with the pastor.

“The CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL HAVE THE RIGHT to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, ESPECIALLY THE WORD OF GOD AND THE SACRAMENTS.”

“THE SACRED MINISTERS CAN NOT REFUSE THE SACRAMENTS TO THOSE WHO ASK FOR THEM AT APPROPRIATE TIMES, ARE PROPERLY DISPOSED AND ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM RECEIVING THEM.”

“Simony: The selling or purchasing of spiritual things, which is forbidden both by natural law and ecclesiastical law.”

“One who celebrates or receives a sacrament through simony is to be punished with an interdict or a suspension.”
“Simony: A deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual or are annexed unto spirituals. While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simonical. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to the proposition condemned by Innocent XI it suffices that the determining motive of the action of one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other.”

“It pertains to the diocesan bishop in the church entrusted to him (in this case, the Church in India), within the limits of his competence, to issue liturgical norms by which all are bound.”

During my research for this report I requested information regarding “Family Cards” twice from the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India. The Conference did not respond to my inquiries.

I might add here that “Norms” issued by any Conference of Bishops must be reasonable and in conformity with other Church law such as Canon Law.

“The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authorities, ALWAYS BEING CAREFUL THAT THE NEEDY ARE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE HELP OF THE SACRAMENTS BECAUSE OF THEIR POVERTY.”

“Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.”

“The Christian faithful may take part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and receive Communion in any Catholic rite, with due regard for the prescription of can. 844.”

“Unless a grave reason prevents it, the church in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be open to the faithful for at least some hours each day so that they are able to spend time in prayer before the Most Blessed Sacrament.”

“If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of a penitent who asks for absolution, absolution is not to be refused or delayed.“

“§1. All to whom the care of souls is committed by reason of an office are obliged to provide that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to their care be heard when they reasonably ask to be heard and that the opportunity be given to them to come to individual confession on days and hours set for their convenience. §2. In urgent necessity any confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of the Christian faithful, and in danger of death any priest is so obliged.”

“§1. In order that one be capable of gaining indulgences one must be baptized and not excommunicated and in the state of grace at least at the completion of the prescribed works. §2. In order that one be a capable subject for gaining indulgences one must have at least the intention of receiving them and fulfill the enjoined works at the stated time in due fashion, according to the tenor of the grant.”

“Pastors of souls and persons who are close to the sick are to see to it that they are supported by this sacrament at an appropriate time.”

“All priests to whom the care of souls has been committed have the duty and the right to administer the anointing of the sick to all the faithful committed to their pastoral office; for a reasonable cause any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the aforementioned priest.”

“Whatever authority is exercised in the Church is exercised in virtue of the commission of Christ. He is the one prophet, who has given to the world the revelation of truth and by His spirit preserves in the Church the faith once delivered to the saints. He is the one King – the chief Shepherd – who rules and guides through His providence, His Church’s course. Yet He wills to exercise His power through earthly representatives. The authority established in the Church holds its commission from above, not from below. The pope and the bishops exercise their power as the successors of the men who were chosen by Christ in person. Their warrant is received from the Shepherd, not from the sheep.”

“Unless (nisi) they have given some signs of repentance before their death, the following are to be deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites: (1) notorious apostates, heretics and schematics; (2) persons who had chosen the cremation of their own bodies for reasons opposed to the Christian faith; (3) other manifest sinners for whom ecclesiastical funeral rites cannot be granted without public scandal to the faithful. §2. If some doubt should arise, the local ordinary is to be consulted; and his judgment is to be followed.”
This canon does not preclude a Catholic funeral (with or without a Mass) for someone who has failed to support their Church with a monetary donation!

The Order of Christian Funerals says a great deal in the introduction regarding services for the dead. It does not say a word about denying funeral services for those who do not have a Family Card or those who have failed to make payments to their Church. “At the death of a Christian, whose life of faith was begun in the waters of baptism and strengthened at the Eucharistic table, the Church intercedes on behalf of the deceased because of its confident belief that death is not the end nor does it break the bonds forged in life. The Church also ministers to the sorrowing and consoles them in the funeral rites with the comforting word of God and the sacrament of the Eucharist.”
“Though separated from the living, the dead are still one with the community of believers on earth and benefit from their prayers and intercession.”

“The celebration of the Christian funeral brings hope and consolation to the living.”
“The Church calls each member of Christ’s Body – priest, deacon, layperson – TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MINISTRY OF CONSOLATION: to care for the dying, to pray for the dead, to comfort those who mourn.”

“As a minister of reconciliation, the priest should be especially sensitive to the possible needs of reconciliation felt by the family and others.”

As I said earlier, the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India has not responded to my questions regarding “Family Cards”. If any readers in India can direct me to a source that reveals the norms for Church support and/or “Family” Cards in India it would be greatly appreciated.

This report prepared on June 24, 2012 by Ronald Smith, 11701 Maplewood Road, Chardon, Ohio 44024-8482, E-mail: <hfministry@roadrunner.com>. Readers may copy and distribute this report as desired to anyone as long as the content is not altered and it is copied in its entirety. In this little ministry I do free Catholic and occult related research and answer your questions. Questions are answered in this format with detailed footnotes on all quotes. If you have a question(s), please submit it to this land mail or e-mail address. Answers are usually forthcoming within one week. PLEASE NOTIFY ME OF ANY ERRORS THAT YOU MAY OBSERVE!

† Let us recover by penance what we have lost by sin †

The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses
and Why They’re Wrong

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq2.htm
EXTRACT

By Kevin Orlin Johnson

[…] As a postscript, I mention something that might be categorized as an abuse by the laity: parish-hopping*.

The Code of Canon Law provides that “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day” (1248, para. 1). Consequently, you can fulfill your Sunday obligation by going to a Mass anywhere. *More on page 20

While your legal membership still remains in your local parish, the only times you are required to check in there are when you want to receive a special sacrament (e.g., marriage, confirmation) for which the priest needs the jurisdiction to administer.

Nevertheless, if you flee your home parish when things get ugly, you are in a sense not living up to your responsibility as a lay person. It is your duty to point out that liturgy is not entertainment. The liturgy is reality, the primary reality of this world. Christ is God, the reality on whom the secondary reality of creation depends (“through him all things were made,” remember?). And the liturgy is the sacrament by which he comes personally and physically among us. The Mass is indisputably the single most important thing that human beings can do.

You have your part to fill in this great work. In fact, that’s what the liturgy is: the word is from the Greek meaning “the laity’s job.” We are the Church itself, we are not the Church’s customers. Still less are we the Church’s audience. And we have a right to authentic liturgy (Inaestimabile Donum), liturgy exactly in line with all applicable rules and celebrated with a suitable sense of reverence (CIC 528).

So if your priest offers sloppy, illicit, or even inappropriate liturgies, guess whose job it should be to pitch in and fix the problem?

Kevin Orlin Johnson, PhD, is the author of many books about the Catholic Church, including Why Do Catholics Do That? and Apparitions: Mystic Phenomena and What They Mean.

“The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses,” article by Kevin Orlin Johnson in the January 1999 issue of This Rock magazine, pages 14-19.

Also at: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp,

http://catholicgossip.blogspot.com/2010/10/10-common-liturgical-abuses-and-why.html

Frequently Asked Questions regarding PARISH MEMBERSHIP

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu253.htm

Can a Catholic be a member of 2 Parishes?
A very good question. Prior to Vatican II, such a question would never be asked, nor considered.
As a general rule, the location of your residence determines what Church and Parish you should be associated with. This practice facilitates the Bishop’s administration of the Diocese in determining the need of new Churches and schools within the diocesan boundaries. If a large number of Catholics from a certain district decided to go to whatever Church they want to or send their children to the school of their choice instead of supporting their local Church and school, such a decision may lead to the closing of Churches and schools that have little membership and support.
Since Vatican II, because of the many strange practices and liturgical abuses that are taking place in some Catholic Churches, many Catholics have abandoned the Church that they should be supporting based on their residence. They have chosen to join a Church that respects the Catholic liturgy in accordance with the directive received from the Vatican. They become members of a distant Church instead of supporting their local Church that they have rejected. In such cases, they only belong to one Parish, the Church of their choice, not the one that is determined by the Diocese based on their residence.
There are situations when individuals may become members of 2 or 3 Churches/Parishes. Let me explain. Many Canadians, while they are registered members of their local Church, they are also registered as members of another Church in Florida, USA. The reason for this is that they spend anywhere from 2 to 6 months of the cold winter in the South where they own another home. So they are members of one Church (in their country) in the summer and they are members of another Church (in another country) in the winter.
To complicate the matter, there are those who spend their weekends, from May to October, at their distant summer cottage. That means in the summer, they attend a different Church that is located in the district of their cottage.
So while family members may register at a local Church, they may rarely attend that Church. If they spend 6 months in Florida at their second home during the cold months and 6 months at their summer cottage during the warm weekends, then they are never available to attend their local Church on any Sunday or Holy Days.
These Catholics may decide to become members of 1 Parish, 2 Parishes or even 3 Parishes. With a Church membership comes the responsibility of supporting the Church financially. By becoming members of more than one Church, it means a greatly financial responsibility to support a number of Churches. Therefore, to answer the question, “Can a Catholic be a member of two Parishes?” Yes, it can happen in certain situations as explained above.

Parish registration

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=534685

Catholic Answers Forum, February 2, 2011

I recently relocated. I attend Eucharistic adoration at one church, daily mass at another, Sunday service and a men’s group at a third. I am within the parish boundary of a fourth Charismatic Catholic type of church. All of the churches promote registration and have a monthly meeting to welcome new members with coffee and doughnuts. I like both coffee and doughnuts. Other than receiving a pack of pre-dated donation envelopes, what are the advantages to registering? Why is it important to a parish? How does one choose?

One doesn’t choose a parish. Parishes are geographical locations. Every Catholic is automatically a member of whatever parish boundaries he has a residence, and likewise not a member of any other parish.
Personal parishes are different. These are parishes that are determined by some characteristic that people share in common–usually ethnic background; and they (almost) always overlap with geographic parishes.
The bottom line though is that you don’t choose a parish any more than you “choose” what state you live in–if you live within the boundaries, you’re a member of that parish, and the only way to choose a different one is to move (just like a state). –Father David

Registration usually is for donation tracking. They know you and therefore can send you tax receipts. Also, you being an active Catholic can be tracked by the priest. This will be important for receiving Sacraments. Some priests are strict that they will not allow those who do not attend Mass every Sunday to get Confirmed or Married in the Church.
Also access to Sacraments. While it’s not a full restriction, the parish you belong to would be the parish where you will seek the one-time Sacraments, such as marriage, confirmation, and even baptism for your children. Of course most other parishes will accommodate you if you wish to receive those Sacraments there but for many reasons, it’s preferred it’s done at a parish where you are a regular, and it follows that you are registered. But again, it’s not a restriction.

It is not currently required by canon law to be registered in your geographic parish. Generally speaking, people register in their Sunday parish, not their daily Mass parish or the one that happens to have Eucharistic adoration, because that is where they make their regular donations. Certainly you want to be registered at the church that you would want to be married in, since it is generally easier for everyone involved to arrange a wedding in that church. (Presumably, that’s the church where the most other parishioners know you, where your funeral Mass would be held, and so on, as well.)

Parish registration and parish membership are not the same thing; although there’s a common misunderstanding out there that they are.
You can only be a member of the parish in which territory you reside. So, the only parish (and the only pastor) which applies to you is your own parish.
Parish registration does nothing to make someone a member of the parish. Nothing at all.
Registration is nothing more than an administrative tool for the parish staff, but it has no bearing on your actual membership. You might be able to “register” in another parish (in theory, you could even register with some parish 1,000 miles away that you’ve never even visited), but that doesn’t make you a member.

You can attend Mass, confession, etc. at ANY Catholic church of your choice. You can donate to any of them. You can eat anyone’s donuts and drink anyone’s coffee. If you make regular donations, they will likely “register” you so they can keep track and give you an annual statement in January.
There are certain times when going to your own proper parish is either essential, or very important. In matters of marriage and baptism, it can be essential (it can even mean the difference between a valid marriage and an invalid attempt at one, because witnessing a marriage requires that the priest have jurisdiction.) It can also be important for other things as well. Funerals are an example. A pastor has an obligation to provide a funeral for his own parishioners (those who live in the parish) but it’s only a courtesy for one who did not live in the parish.
The point is what I said at the beginning: a Catholic is only a member of the parish in which he has a residence (personal parishes aside here). Registration does nothing to make someone a parishioner, and absence of registration does not mean that you-are-not a parishioner.
–Father David

If registration does not make one a member and there are essential or very important times to go to your geographical parish, but you like another parish or its priests better, you’re just stuck with a parish and priest you don’t like…

In my diocese, you can be officially registered at only one Parish. Registering at a second parish automatically removes your registration from all other parishes in the diocese (the diocese uses a synchronized computer network).
That said, at least in my diocese, the parish that you register in does not have to be the parish that is assigned to your particular geographical region.

Also in my diocese, they use the registration system for more than just tracking donations. The diocese keeps a census of all Catholics within its borders, and you need to be registered in one of the diocesan parishes to appear on this. You also receive discounted tuition at any diocesan schools if you are registered in a diocesan parish (even if you technically live outside the geographical boundaries of the diocese). Similarly, if you are within the geographical boundaries, but are not registered in a diocesan parish, then you pay a higher rate (and it’s a difference of several thousand dollars).
In my parish in particular, you need to be registered there in order for your kids to participate in the religious education program. If you ever get asked to be a Confirmation sponsor and you need a letter of recommendation from the parish that affirms that you are a practicing Catholic and you attend Mass, you better be registered there. If not, then go to the parish where you are registered, and depending on the circumstances, they may look at your donation records.
The parish and the diocese also use the registration records for mailings. My diocese has a free Catholic newspaper that it sends weekly to all registered Catholics within the diocese. The parish sends letters periodically to all its registered members about different things going on in the church, or new groups or events that may be of interest to particular members.
Registration also helps if you ever need to go back and get confirmation that you received a Sacrament, like a Baptismal certificate. If you are registered at a parish within my diocese, they can look you up on the diocesan database and print you out a certificate within a matter of minutes. If you’re not registered, the parish of your Baptism will still have your record.

Just be sure you don’t live in a diocese that will give you grief for not registering in your official geographic parish. This appears to vary by diocese.

Fr. David, I can understand why others and I misunderstand. We usually think of registration as a precursor to membership. Thanks for clarifying.
Since registration is an administrative tool mainly used to track donations, registration at multiple parishes is acceptable?

That depends on how you mean it. Please let me explain.
If one thinks of registration as meaning “I am a member here / I am a parishioner here” then it is a problem.
On the other hand, if one thinks of registration as being things like: being on the parish mailing list, having donations recorded, being involved in social activities, and things like those, then it’s fine.
The best way I can explain it is like this:
According to your profile, you live in Maryland.
What state considers you a citizen of that state? Seriously, which one? Can you live in Maryland but consider yourself a citizen of, let’s say, Virginia or Pennsylvania? What if you live closer to Harrisburg than you do to Annapolis? Does that mean that even though you live in Maryland, but the other capitol is closer you’re actually a citizen of that other state? Maybe you do, and there’s nothing wrong with that…until it comes time to get a driver’s license or pay your taxes. On a day-by-day basis, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself. Maybe you spend more time in Virginia than you do in Maryland–that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t make you a citizen there.
When it comes to state citizenship, all that matters is “where do you live?” Your state depends upon which side of the state line you actually reside, regardless of anything else. It’s the same with parish membership. Parishes have geographic boundaries and one’s “proper parish” (that is, one’s parish of membership) is the one in whose boundaries you live. Nothing else matters.
You can go to Mass in another parish, and you’re most welcome to do so; just as you can go shopping or spend your leisure time in a neighboring state as much as you like.

Here’s a good example of parish boundaries. And I mean this ONLY by way of example
http://archphila.org/parishes/index.htm.
That’s the Archdiocese of Philadelphia webpage. Click on a few parishes at random, and you’ll see very specific parish boundaries. In recent years, the Archdiocese has found it necessary to enforce parish boundaries very closely. This has to do with parish closings/consolidating and the diocese history where so many people were in previous ethnic parishes (personal parishes) and were scattered all over the territory.
For years people said “it doesn’t matter” or “I’ll do as I please” (often the advice given here on these forums, mind you). The Archdiocese realized that this had become a problem, and had to fix it. Those people who said “I’ll just do as I please” are now very surprised when they need to go to their proper parish, they go to the wrong parish and make “demands” of the pastor, only to be told that they have to go to their own parish. They say things like “I’ve been registered here for years” or “I’ve been going to Mass here for years” but that doesn’t change things because they’re not approaching their own proper parish.
Could something similar happen in another diocese? Very likely. It is happening right now in other places, especially those places that in the past enjoyed a large number of local parishes, where people used to have “options” to go to one of several.
The simple fact is that parish membership depends upon where you live. People on these forums will quickly advise you “it doesn’t matter, just do as you please” But consider this:

when the time comes that you have some problem or difficulty because you decided to heed their advice and just “do as you please” where will those people be?

Can these posters guarantee you that registering yourself or considering yourself a member of a parish other-than-your-own will not be a problem in the future? Will they be there to make things right when you do encounter a problem? Can you appeal a bishop’s decision to the posters on Catholic Answers Forum? Something to think about. –Father David

This varies from one diocese to another. When my husband and I moved to our present address, I call the chancery office and asked what parish our home was in. The person at the chancery office (who I think I could have knocked off her chair with a feather at that point) told me that I could belong to whatever parish I chose. (We chose our geographic parish.) At present, our archbishop does want everyone to specifically register at exactly one parish, though, and to notify their previous parish if they change, but for the purposes of marriage and so on considers the chosen parish as the parish in which the person has “domicile”….that is, if you’re active in a parish outside your geographic boundaries, you may marry there without the permission of the pastor of your geographic domicile, etc. It is undoubtedly very important to a bishop who has to consolidate parishes to know which parish has how many people who consider it “home”.
Maybe a call to the local chancery office would answer the Ops* question. I’m fairly sure, though, that his bishop will want him to register somewhere! *OP=original post

Seriously, though, choose the parish that you want to bury you (should that be necessary before you move), register there, be active there, and make certain you contribute to the support of that church. Be counted. A lot of people don’t, but it is the right thing to do.

It doesn’t vary by diocese. All parishes (non-personal ones) are territorial by canon law.
This is what I mean by my earlier post. A Catholic is only a member of the parish in which he has a residence. Telling people that they can consider themselves members of a different parish really does not help them, because that’s essentially telling someone to disregard canon law.
Can you guarantee the OP that if he registers as a member of a parish other than his own proper parish, that this will not cause problems in the future? Can you assure him of that? Can you say with certainty that some future bishop will never begin strict enforcement of parish boundaries, regardless of what it might be like now? There are people right now in places like Philadelphia and Cleveland (just to mention two noteworthy examples) who are experiencing a lot of heartache because people told them that it was just fine to consider themselves parishioners of parishes where they are not in-fact parishioners. Right now, those people are hurting because others gave them some bad advice and told them to just ignore canon law and register wherever they please (not in so many words, but to the same effect)–and yes, some of those advice givers were priests.
Again, can you guarantee the OP that disregarding canon law as to parish membership right now will not cause problems in the future? –Father David

Do I know what the policies are in our archdiocese right now? Yes. I literally called the chancery office, and was told to choose a parish. If I register in a parish and am active as a parishioner, by the direction of the archbishop I will be treated as if I have domicile there. The permission required exists, and is clearly stated in the marriage and funeral policies. A pastor who doesn’t like it will have to take it up with the archbishop, not the other way around.
Does this apply to someone who wants to register at a parish in the Diocese of Baker when he lives in the Archdiocese of Portland, or vice versa? I have no idea. Can I guarantee that things are not going to change when Archbishop Vlazny retires? No. Is that relatively soon? Yes. Do I expect his successor to change this? No. Does his policy in our archdiocese have a thing to do with anywhere else? No. Does this even have anything to do with me? No, because I chose to attend my true geographic parish.
Yes, by canon law the faithful have certain rights within their territorial parish that they do not have everywhere. I can say with certainty that there will be no need for permission from anyone to have me buried in my own parish. You are right: it is important for the faithful to realize that if they are granted permission to have access to the sacraments in other places that this is by the permission of their bishop, and that this may change. This does not mean that telling people that the bishop currently grants that permission freely is paramount to telling people to “disregard canon law.” It would be so if the permission were not being granted, it would be so if it were implied that what people have in parishes outside their geographic parish is theirs by right. In our archdiocese, though, it is not.
You ask, “When the time comes that you have some problem or difficulty because you decided to heed their advice and just “do as you please” where will those people be?” What is that problem going to be? That the OP is required to go to a parish he doesn’t want to go to? How is going to a parish he doesn’t want to go to right now going to change that? That he might go to some huge popular parish and find that it is closing because no one on the rolls live in its boundaries, so that the census is low? How is going to his geographic parish going to change that?
It’s a problem if people take a sense of entitlement when they register in a parish outside their geographic boundaries. You are wise to warn people that a diocese that currently grants the privileges of domicile to those who regularly attend a parish at which they do not legally have true domicile may change that policy at any time. Otherwise, I don’t see how the problems you envision are going to be addressed by asking the OP to register in his geographic parish… not if his bishop, like mine, is currently tolerant of the practice. This does not rise to the level of flaunting canon law. -EasterJoy

Ok so this is confusing.

Had you not registered at your geographical parish but at another within your diocese, would you then be considered a member or parishioner of the parish you registered?
And it was said earlier only the geographical parish is obligated in the case of a funeral for instance. In your diocese, there would be no problem having a funeral wherever the person was registered?
And this all varies by diocese?

Fr David said only the geographical parish is obligated in the case of a funeral for instance. But are you saying if you register at another, are active and donate, then there will be no problem being served by the parish one is registered at even if not the geographical? -CMatt

I have the same question. Also, parishes in my region vary hugely, and I mean hugely. The geographical parish which I believe is closest to me:
(1) has very few Mass times, and almost no confession times. (And I’m sorry but I need both, rather frequently) What is posted as confession times does not take place.
(2) of the Masses that are said there, most are not in English. Ditto for similar nearby parishes. (I live in a heavily ethnically diverse region.) I don’t happen to speak those languages, and there are no Latin Masses at “my” geographical parish.
(3) the church is almost always locked, except for liturgy. One can’t go and make a visit; also there is never adoration. The building is practically a fortress; it’s inaccessible most of the time. The opposite of welcoming and encouraging.
But only 8 minutes from my house is a beautifully traditional parish with N.O., E.F., and O.F. Masses, Confessions 7 days/week, and saintly priests. Adoration, all the devotions, etc. Congregation speaks English, and there are occasionally Europeans who go there, but I can understand the French and their accents. I go there several times a week.
Why, again, can’t I be a member? Because it is religiously and culturally appropriate for me? -Elizabeth

There is absolutely no guarantee that your geographical parish is the one closest to you. In fact, it may be fairly illogical from a distance perspective. Ours divides based on roads, rivers and all sorts of things. You can be living in one town and be supposed to go the parish in another town, even if you never naturally go to that other town for any reason (except forced by parish bounds). Probably it is also balanced by things like population, since our boundaries were redone recently. If the boundary between two dioceses falls inside a town, you also might not guess your parish correctly.
In other words, don’t assume. You must check. Do not assume your parish knows its own boundaries. Until recently, my local parish sometimes seemed rather clueless on the issue. You need to ask your diocese to be sure.

I just wanted to point out that this is important as well, in combating the “cult of personality” that can sometimes grow up around a particularly well-liked priest. People become more focused on this priest and will “follow” him to his next parish, and the next, etc.
I know a few people who have done this, and it always bothered me. We had a well-loved priest when I first joined the Parish, and when he retired and was replaced, there was griping about our new pastor: “He is not as nice as Fr. L! He isn’t good with the kids as Fr. L! He is boring, Fr. L was never boring!” and a few people even said they were going to change Parishes. I also know 2 families in a different diocese who have followed a particular priest to two new parish assignments. He is kind of radical and appeals to those who don’t like the rules, if you know what I mean.

Elizabeth, The reason why you can’t “be a member” is because a parish is a geographic location–not just a church building. It’s like I said earlier about state lines. Parish lines work the same way. If you don’t live there, you’re not a member–no matter what else. Registration doesn’t change this. In some parishes, people can be “registered non-parishioners” (that’s not an ecclesial term, but a simple description).
You can visit those other parish churches all you want–nothing, repeat nothing, wrong with that.
–Father David

We’re actually “registered members” at two parishes.
Our “home parish” is across the street from where we live… we go to Mass there, send our kids to school there, have sacraments there, and send the majority of our donations there.
Our “other parish” is one that DH goes to daily Mass to on his way to work (convenient location). He’s established a very good relationship with the priests there, and actually prefers them to our home parish priests. We do give a monthly donation to this parish as well. So we’re on their mailing list and we get donation envelopes to this parish as well. –Emily

CMatt, They’re not considered members of that other parish. The bishop’s current policy is to extend them courtesies as if they were members and that’s a key point–as if they were members. That’s his policy, and it’s his decision to make. He can do this because as long as they’re residents of his diocese, they are all his own parishioners, and he can extend faculties/delegation to any priest to witness marriages of his parishioners. The thing we have to keep in mind though is that the bishop is making an exception to canon law (a legitimate one that he has every right to make). He’s being generous in how the parish boundaries are applied with regard to marriages. He can withdraw that privilege at any moment. Some future bishop can likewise withdraw it.
It might not be the same way in the future. There is no guarantee that it will be, and considering the overall pattern we’re seeing in the US, and the acute shortage of priests, the most likely scenario is that in the future these boundaries will be enforced more strictly rather than less.

Similar policies existed in many dioceses in the US, especially those that had a large number of ethnic parishes. Even when these parishes ceased to be ethnic parishes canonically (even though the cultural aspects were still preserved) people were still allowed to register and be considered members. With so many churches closing, combining, etc. in the past couple of decades, many of those dioceses have had to enact policies strictly enforcing canon law with regard to boundaries. And that’s exactly where people have encountered problems. Most of those people just assumed that they would be able to have baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. at what they considered to be their parish; then when the time came, they learned the hard way that they had to go through their own proper parish. It’s happening right now in many places in the US.

–Father David

EasterJoy, what you apparently don’t know, and what you’re certainly not addressing here is what canon law has to say about parish membership.
When it comes down to it, you’re advising the OP to consider himself a member of a parish other than his own proper parish under canon law. Although you’re not using the words, and I think you’re not intending it this way, the end result is that you’re advising someone to disregard canon law. You’re citing your own anecdotal examples of a local policy of weddings, and using that to advise the OP to choose whatever parish he likes best and consider that to be his own parish. That’s not how parish territories work. –Father David

This is interesting to me, because the Catholic school our children attend is changing some tuition policies for next year. It had been that if you lived in surrounding parishes, were registered and had a letter from the Pastor, you were considered “In-parish” and got a modest discount.
Now, they are saying that unless you are a member of THAT parish (the next town over) and contribute at least $1000 a year to them, you get no discount at all. So I suspect many parents from surrounding towns will “transfer” to the school’s parish and give there instead of their home parish. No one ever mentioned that, after doing this, potentially for many years, you still are not entitled to services there. (Like your children’s weddings, etc). -StJude

Status for Catholic schools is a whole different ball of wax. With regard to tuition discounts, and eligibility to enroll, parishes can “consider” people as if they were proper parishioners (living within the boundaries). This all comes down to local parish and diocese policies. The point though is that they are treated as if they were parishioners, which is not the same thing as actual parish membership.
Keep in mind also, that it’s one thing to say “entitled” to have a wedding or funeral at a given parish (which canon law only stipulates is an outright right in one’s own parish) it’s another to say that these courtesies are extended to those who have been attending and donating for years. As you just said, these are questions you’ll have to address to your own pastor (or the pastor of the school). –Father David

Thank you, Fr. David for this warning, and for your earlier response to me. I appreciate the practical (personnel) problems you enumerate. However, it might be well to understand that it can work the other way around, too. Parishes already characterized by sparse administration/service are in danger of being completely abandoned by Catholics like me who actually want to live their faith sacramentally and are tired of encountering locked, empty buildings. Difficult to “force” Catholics to attend a parish which is not servicing them. As for ceremonies like weddings and funerals, people may just seek an alternate venue — for example, a memorial service in an alternate location.
(As an aside — in response to an earlier poster who criticized the ‘cult of personality’ — this is not about personality. The priests at the parish I attend will not win any personality contests, nor do they seek to. In fact, you’re not going to find a lot of priests like this, of any age, in modern America. One of them is quite the introvert, hardly a glad-hander. The other member of the duo is a total work-house, dawn to dusk, 7 days a week. I think these guys don’t take days off.)
The other aspect of this is the aspect of a vibrant community — whether that community is heterogeneous or homogeneous. The fidelity and donations of Catholics are also linked to a sense of relating to a community in which they are personally invested and to which they can relate. So perhaps dioceses around the country might want to take a look at a more sophisticated way of closing and combining parishes than “strictly” geographical indicators. For example, clusters of nearby ethnic parishes would make sense (in my area), in a number of instances. Of course, populations are not always static, particularly nowadays. But I’m just suggesting some elasticity on the part of diocesan administrations is important to parish survival. -Elizabeth

Then please understand that what you need to do is make that suggestion to the Holy See and propose that canon law be changed. But advising a stranger to set aside what’s in canon law based on one’s own experience of the fact that one bishop (at this moment) has relaxed the laws somewhat with regard to marriages doesn’t help the situation. When someone says “you can be a member of whatever parish you choose” even though that’s contrary to how canon law defines parish membership, it opens the door to a wealth of problems and misunderstandings. (not that you said it, but it has been said)
Seriously here, I’m not exaggerating when I say that it’s entirely possible that someone will say to a priest “Father, don’t tell me that I’m only a parishioner of the parish where I live because someone on the internet told me that I can be a parishioner anyplace I choose…”

Believe me, that sort of thing happens quite often. Not necessarily with regard to membership, but with regard to other aspects of parish life. It does make for problems for priests because we are very often confronted by people who read things on the internet and think that they can trust internet posts more than they can trust their own pastor’s expertise on these things. And quite frankly, people often start with the conclusion and then search the internet until they find just the answer they’re looking for; disregarding anything to the contrary of course.
That’s why the best thing we can do is to direct people who have questions about something that’s addressed in canon law to the canons themselves and what they actually say, rather than personal experiences that will almost certainly be different from someone else’s situation. –Father David

Father, I’m not suggesting that a ‘stranger’ write to the Holy See and urge canon law changes. (OTOH, I guess I don’t consider myself a “stranger” to the Church.)
I’m suggesting that Church administration converse with the Holy See about this, if Canon Law is the controller here. I’m suggesting that domestic dioceses might want to take a look at experiences such as Pug’s parish, and parishioners of many other parishes in this country, report. Not for the sake of personal preferences, but for the sake of the Church — its continuity, its financial health, etc.
Canon law is one thing. But worship and ongoing community is something else; it is personal, not legalistic or (primarily) geographical, particularly in the 21st century. -Elizabeth

The point remains though, that if you’re suggesting that parishes be operated in some way other than geographical boundaries, that’s something you’ll have to address to the Holy See because canon law does say that parishes are geographic. What people just don’t seem to understand (even though I keep repeating it) is that a parish IS a geographical location (a territory). Just like our states are geographical locations. It’s the same thing. Parishes are not church buildings–they are territories (more precisely, they are the people living within a given territory). Any attempts to change that would require a change in canon law, and only the pope can do that.

Please let me pose a few questions:
Let’s say that someone lives in Hoboken, New Jersey (a suburb of New York City).
When it comes time to vote for governor, which candidate does the resident of Hoboken NJ get to vote for, the governor of New Jersey or the governor of New York?
When a resident of Hoboken NJ gets a drivers license, which state issues the license, NY or NJ?
When a resident of Hoboken NJ wants to buy a life insurance policy, which state’s laws apply — those of NY or NJ?

–Father David

Father, I think you misunderstand me.
I’m telling the OP to contact his local chancery office, and ask them what his bishops’ policies are, realizing that if the policy is more permissive than canon law gives him the right to expect, the policy could change. Do you contend that the bishop does not have the prerogative to grant this kind of permission? I am not talking about permission to be a member of a parish outside one’s own geographic boundaries, but rather the permission to enjoy the privileges of parish membership in a parish outside of one’s geographic boundaries: that is, to expect to be able to have full access to the sacraments within that parish without getting special permission, and so on. (I’m not saying the bishop has the right to take bodies out of the census for a particular geographic parish, to the detriment of that parish.) If not, I fail to see how I am advising someone to disregard canon law. I tell you honestly, that is the farthest thing from my intention.
But yes: The OP should be very clear that he wants to know what his bishop’s actual policies are, and not an account of “what everyone does.” As you have pointed out, “what everyone does” can land people in a pot of soup they had not prepared themselves to be in. Only the local bishop has the prerogative to give permission to members of the faithful in his diocese that are above the rights of the faithful as they are described in canon law. If it is not the bishop’s permission, it is not real permission. In the end, too, only the rights spelled out in canon law can be depended upon to remain set in stone. On that point, I cannot disagree with you. Is that correct?

Did the OP say he wanted to attend a parish outside his own diocese, and I missed that? This analogy sounds far more fitting for that situation.-EasterJoy

Apparently we’re having a communication problem, because I never suggested that I didn’t understand that a parish is a territory. (For example, “parish” has sometimes been, sometimes still is applied to a civil territory.) I apologize if I wasn’t clear.
I know they’re not church buildings. That was the point of my earlier post. But given many demographic changes today, and the level of diverse needs within communities (reflected in how a particular parish church celebrates its liturgies — or doesn’t), I, a lay parishioner, believe based on my conversations with others, that most practicing Catholics commit to worshipping communities, not to territories. I know that this was not always true, as several of us have noted — such as for our own parents & grandparents. In my own childhood we walked to our parish church. Perhaps these canon laws were created with a different era in mine, or have not been updated to reflect migration (particularly extreme in certain areas).
If my (actual) parish wasn’t a locked empty fortress that doesn’t allow me to worship in English or Latin, and whose priest is almost never available, I would attend.

I understand it’s Rome’s choice to leave things the way they are. Personally, in my area, what I see is that this traditional way of defining “membership” seems, seems, to be jeopardizing the existence of many parish churches, because people are choosing to go elsewhere than where there is only one or two Masses per week. In many cases (such as my neighborhood parish), there aren’t even many Catholics left in that parish, period. The parish population consists largely of Baptists and of evangelical Protestants. (Many of these used to be Catholics.) That raises a whole different problem that clusters cannot address, because when there’s no critical number of parishioners to support basic costs, what you have is a parish church on the chopping block.

I agree with Easter Joy’s recent post. I don’t see the analogy to NJ and NY, when people are worshipping within the same diocese (and in my case, the church I’m attending is equidistant to my “parish” church.) -Elizabeth

EasterJoy, just as a diocese has its boundaries, a parish has its boundaries and a state has its boundaries.
They all work exactly the same way with regard to territory.
If a person lives in New York, that person is a resident of New York.
If a person lives in New Jersey, that person is a resident of New Jersey.
Why? Because there’s an imaginary line on the ground that says “this side is NY and this side is NJ.”
If a Catholic lives in St. Peter parish, that Catholic is a parishioner of St. Peter parish.
If a Catholic lives in St. Paul parish, that Catholic is a parishioner of St. Paul parish.
Why? Because there’s an imaginary line on the ground that says “This side is St. Peter parish and this side is St. Paul parish”

Elizabeth,
if you still don’t see it, it’s because you still don’t get what I keep trying to say. Canon law says that a parish is a territory. I’m not making this up.
Can. 515 §1 A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.
Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1U.HTM
Unless a parish is a “personal” one, it is territorial. –Father David

No, actually, I still do get it. BOTH a parish and a diocese are territorial descriptions, however. Easter Joy was pointing out that the analogy you were making was more like leaping a diocese than leaping a parish. (It seemed.)

So now we do have a personal category of parish. (My point earlier: i.e., what’s wrong with recognizing both? It seems that the second of the two Canons cited already recognizes this.
I’ll be even more controversial on the issue of territory.
When it came time for my children to be Confirmed, I had serious reservations about their completing that preparation in our own diocese. I hate all late-adolescent Confirmation programs, but I won’t derail the thread in that direction. I was very firm that my children were going to be Confirmed before beginning high school. A neighboring diocese had a very different policy than our own diocese: it was way better, not just because of the age considerations, but the content of the preparation was light years away from that of our own diocese. So I simply inquired at the particular parishes which were conducting the centralized Confirmation prep programs in that neighboring diocese. That was approved, and they were both Confirmed in that diocese. I will note that I did present to the diocese my reasons for this unusual request. My children were the only non-local children in both cases.
I will also note that prior to this, I inquired at every single parish in our own diocese as to the content, and age, of their prep programs. It was not my first wish to make us a “difficult” family by hopping boundaries or making special exceptions for ourselves, but what my inquiries uncovered was what I had expected: those “programs” were 90% social (i.e., parties, not “social action”), 10% religious. They were very sparsely attended, by the admission of the various program coordinators, and some of them took as long as late senior year in high school to complete the program and administer the sacrament. -Elizabeth

I think I understand. It’s up to the policy of the individual diocese. And someone like Elizabeth can fully participate at another parish for the reasons she gave. But under current Canon Law she is a member of the parish she no longer prefers. And no one should expect a guarantee of being served in the future for marriage, funerals, what have you, by other than by the geographical parish. -CMatt

CMatt, Almost there.
It isn’t “up to the policy of the individual diocese” What ONE person quoted was ONE exception made by ONE bishop with regard to which pastor can witness a wedding–an exception to canon law that the bishop can make (it isn’t technically a “dispensation” though, it’s a matter of delegating faculties for weddings).
This is a lot like someone saying “my bishop dispensed this diocese from the Lenten obligation of abstaining from meat on Friday March 20 in Lent, therefore all Catholics reading these posts should make up their own minds as to the Lenten fast, and just ignore what canon law says.”

It is also much more than just being worried about weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. It’s about the integrity of the parish institution as the Church defines it. –Father David

I know what a parish is. A parish, though, is more like a county than like a state.
If the state constitution guarantees that a person has the right to access certain services in their own county and to discharge their duties as a citizen in their own county, that does not mean that the same constitution could not give the governor the prerogative to direct counties to practice reciprocity with regards to those services and to the rendering of those duties.
If the governor exercised that prerogative, then citizens of the state could be told “as long as this directive exists, you can get these services in any county you want, provided you are a citizen of the state.” If the governor withdrew that permission, then the citizens who were accustomed to accessing services in the convenient county or the one they liked would have no grounds to sue the state. As long as their county provided the services, those citizens could be denied access to the services in other counties. If you get used to having a library card in one county and are told that you can’t check out books in that county, but only in your own county, that could be a rude awakening.
In that case, though, to tell someone that they were allowed to access services outside their own county when there was legitimately an official policy of reciprocity in place would not be telling them to break the law. It might be getting them used to something that they had no right to and might lose at some time in the future, but it would not be breaking the law if they did have that permission.
So unless you are saying that a bishop has no right to direct pastors in his diocese to exercise reciprocity with regards to funerals, the sacraments, and where the faithful discharge their duties with regards to the Church, I don’t see where I’m telling anyone to break canon law by saying that bishops can allow the faithful to register and be active in parishes where they are not residents.
What am I missing in this analogy? -EasterJoy

What you’re missing in this analogy is that you’re operating on the assumption that parish boundaries just don’t exist. That’s what you’ve been saying all along, suggesting that others should simply ignore parish boundaries and consider themselves parishioners wherever they feel like. That’s exactly what you said in your own post that I’ve quoted at the end here.
It’s one thing to say that a bishop may do this–the problem is that you’re making a broad suggestion that every bishop does do it.
You are assuming that such exceptions exist universally, based on one single example, that has to do with weddings NOT parish membership, and you’re advising the OP based on that false assumption.
The question of this thread is “which is my parish?” NOT “where can I get married”
You’re taking the fact that your own bishop extends permission to local pastors within their own parish boundaries to witness the marriages of Catholics who live outside those boundaries, and trying to use that policy to suggest that Catholics should disregard parish boundaries with regard to membership. Again, you said this in your first post.
The policy you quoted says specifically “for the purpose of celebrating weddings” but you’re trying to apply that to mean “for the purpose of parish membership.” That’s problematic to say the least.

And technically, the permission given by the bishop isn’t always needed. The bishop is doing this as a courtesy, for the sake of making things easier on parishioners and pastors alike. I have never said that the bishop doesn’t have the right to do this–on the contrary, I’ve consistently said that he can.
What you cannot do though is extend your own anecdotal example of the bishop’s generosity in marriage jurisdiction to apply to Catholics universally with regard to parish membership. And that’s exactly what you’ve been doing from the very start. –Father David

When I called the chancery office of our archdiocese, I was told to register wherever I regularly attended. I didn’t draw conclusions from the marriage policies. I called up and asked. That was what I was told to do by a member of the archbishop’s staff.
So while it is special permission that cannot be counted on to be durable and which might be limited (which I have agreed that you are wise to point out), in some dioceses, the permission to register where you like is currently being given. So how is it a violation of canon law to register in a parish that isn’t your territorial parish, when the archbishop is giving blanket permission to do it?
PS I cannot believe I’m even in this discussion. I called our chancery office all those years back not to ask for permission to register where we liked, but to find out what territorial parish our new house was in. Having been told to register where we liked, we decided it was best to register in our territorial parish simply because it was our territorial parish, even though we didn’t particularly like it that much at first. We couldn’t be happier. -EasterJoy

Because you advised the OP to do likewise. That’s the problem. You as much as told the OP to just pick a parish and consider himself a member there–without any regard for what is actually written in canon law (in fact, you implied that canon law says it doesn’t matter), and without any knowledge of the OP’s own situation. You based your answer on your own anecdotal experience of registration, rather than on what the universal canon law of the Church says with regard to parish membership.

It’s not a violation of canon law to register at a parish other than the parish where you actually live because there is no such thing as parish registration in canon law–there is parish membership, not parish registration.

Can. 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by that residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese*, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called away or has been protracted for five complete years.

The phrase “at least a diocese” refers to people who live within a diocese, but not within the boundaries of a parish, or to matters where it’s an issue of the jurisdiction of the bishop, or to those who change their residence from one parish to another (people who move frequently).

Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.

Catholics do not acquire a parish/pastor through registration; they acquire a parish and a pastor by virtue of residence (domicile).
So, it’s no surprise that the staff told you that you can register wherever you want–because registration means nothing in the end anyway–registering does not make one a parishioner of a parish, nor does registration in a different parish mean that a Catholic is no longer a member of the parish of residence. –Father David

Now you have me totally bewildered. The OP never asked what parish he’s a member of. He asked what the advantages were to registering anywhere at all. Now you say registration means nothing in the end, anyway, which in some dioceses isn’t true when it comes to marriage or burial outside your territorial parish, sending your kids to school at a parish outside your territorial parish, and, let’s face it, pretty much anything else you ever actually do at a parish, other than your territorial parish.
You know this, I don’t: With regards to canon law and the day-to-day issues of running a parish and a diocese, what difference does it make what parish the OP registers in and does it matter to anybody if he never gets around to registering anywhere at all? Since he has expressed no interest in darkening the door of his territorial parish unless a canon lawyer forces him to do it with the business end of a lit candle lighter, which seems to be what he wants to know. Is there a single reason a Catholic ought to ever register anywhere, particularly in his territorial parish where canon law grants him rights regardless of whether one gets around to registering? -EasterJoy

If parish boundaries are strictly enforced, then some services may be limited if you go to another parish. One thing I can think of is a parish helping financially with catholic school education – they may limit it to those who live in the parish boundaries. Otherwise, I don’t see any advantage to registering. Fr. David may not understand this, but some archdioceses don’t enforce the territorial thing. As Easter Joy tried to state, the Archdiocese of Portland really doesn’t seem to care about this. It doesn’t matter what is officially in canon law. I have 2 parishes within 2 miles of me going opposite directions and when I tried to find out which one’s territory I am officially in, they didn’t even know. I am registered in neither, since I choose to attend and am registered in an ethnic parish. -SunBreak

OP here.

I attended my territorial parish for Sunday service. It seemed nice.
Here is what I have gotten from this thread:
I am a member of the parish in which I am located – registered or not
I am free and welcome to attend mass and confession at any church – registered or not
If I desire other services, such as a wedding or a funeral, the parish of which I am a member will provide – registered or not.
Another parish may provide the services – if registered and/or allowed by the diocese.
School is not an issue for me, but in my case there is only one school between the four parishes in town. All of them use the same school.
Canon law does not address registration. -OP

OP, Right.

SunBreak, that second paragraph is the problem. All dioceses DO enforce parish territories–this isn’t something where bishops just have the option to follow canon law or not follow it (which is what has been implied).
When it comes down to some very particular policies, we have ONE example of ONE bishop who is enforcing parish boundaries (if one reads the policy carefully, you’ll see that), but he is saying that as long as a pastor is doing the ceremony within his own territory, he can witness the marriages of those who live outside his territory.
It’s not at all accurate to say “the archdiocese doesn’t care about this.” That’s concluding entirely too much from this little bit of information, and this rather minor relaxing of the law. I’m sure if one were to ask the bishop himself a direct question “do you not care what canon law says about parish territory” the bishop’s response would be “I do care.”
The other important point is that the response was based on ONE diocese’s policy, and that very likely is not the diocese where the OP lives. On the other hand, all Catholics (of the Latin Church) are governed by universal canon law–and that’s why I bring up the universal law. –Father David

Yet when OP included in a recent post, “Another parish may provide the services if registered and/or allowed by the diocese”, you responded “right” to OP’s post.

I contacted the diocese where I live. In it there is no written policy. I was told some pastors adhere to canon regarding territorial parishes when it comes to whether or not they allow registration as a parishioner. And other priests in the diocese do not. But as has been discussed here of course one can attend anywhere. And I was told canon specifies Sacraments are the responsibility of the proper territorial parish, but it does not mean one would be refused from being served by another parish. So in this diocese it appears it is left to the priests. -CMatt

Since registration is not required by canon law why is it required for me to receive these sacraments from my parish? I do believe in supporting my parish, I just believe that my donations should be anonymous. I get all the information I need about parish events from the weekly announcements and bulletin at mass. The fact that I can get my baptismal record and have proof of my residence should be enough to prove that I’m Catholic and live within the parish. -Ungern

I know you were referring to anonymous donations to one’s territorial parish. But I recently learned of a case in the territorial parish for Catholics in my neighborhood where the priest refused to baptize the child of parents who attend there because they do not use envelopes. It is not their territorial but they are registered there.
Fortunately another priest 7 mi south in the same diocese agreed to perform the Baptism. It is not their territorial either but neither are they registered at this 2nd parish. And this 2nd parish is too far from their home for them to begin attending there. But at least the priest there baptized their child. -CMatt

Firstly, everyone I ask says I don’t HAVE to register with the parish closest to me geographically.
Also, how do I “unregister” with a parish? What is the correct way to do this? -Atara

I’m not sure how you would go about unregistering. I suppose just inform the parish that you no longer want to be on their registration rolls. Or perhaps following a period of no donations or participation, they will simply remove you on their own. In my original home parish, I eventually no longer appeared on their member roster.
But my understanding from this thread is everyone is telling you correctly. You do not have to register at your territorial parish. You are automatically considered a member there and your territorial parish is responsible for administering the Sacraments to you whether you are registered or not. I suppose though in the case of for instance parents who are not practicing or attending, even the territorial parish priest in that case might still place some stipulations on them prior to baptizing their child. Or a non practicing couple planning a wedding in their territorial parish might have some additional requirements placed on them. In larger parishes even if you attend Mass in your territorial parish regularly, the priests might not know this. So in that case I’m guessing registration and use of envelopes will aid in them knowing you are a regular participant. Anointing of the Sick and funerals for non practicing Catholics in their territorial parishes I think are more or less simply a given though.
One other thing to note is I believe it was said here when I was following the thread earlier, that the closest parish might not necessarily be your territorial parish though. Chances are it probably is. But to know for certain, your diocese can tell you by your address. -CMatt

I live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul diocese and a deacon there told me Catholics were welcome to choose any parish within the diocese; that they didn’t have to belong to the closest one to their homes. Is he right? –Lisa

My guess would be you can register anywhere then as one would hope the deacon was aware of the policy. But if you question whether he is, you could make a call or shoot an email to the diocese. Where I live (not in MN) I emailed the diocese and received a response that there was no official diocesan policy here. That it’s up to individual priests if they allow folks who live outside of their parish to register in them. I then called a couple of parishes and both do.
That being said, I suppose if there is a change in bishops, diocesan policy could someday change. And if you read further back in the thread I think there was discussion about how registering at a parish not in your territory makes you registered there for means of keeping track of your donations. But that there seems to be a difference between being registered and technically being a member of a parish outside your territory. I just went back early in the thread and Fr David96 posted, “You can only be a member of the parish in which territory you reside.” But you might be able to register elsewhere. Where I live parishes seem to use the term, “registered parishioners”.
It does seem if you register elsewhere and you want more of a guarantee of being served all the Sacraments, you might be best to use your envelopes. So the parish knows you attend there if it’s not your territorial parish. That’s what happened to the person I referred to. They were registered at and attended a parish outside their territory but did not use envelopes. And when it came time to baptize their infant child, the priest refused. YMMV though. As I said the same couple had their child baptized at another Catholic Church 7 mi down the road in the same diocese. And are neither registered there nor do they attend there.
-CMatt

So if I understand the aspect of the canon law being discussed,
1) my territorial parish is responsible for all sacraments for me–even if I am not registered there.
2) Certain sacraments like marriage, baptism, confirmation should not be refused by one’s territorial parish simply because a person doesn’t register. This is not withstanding other requirements and stipulations to receive the sacrament. –Ungern

I just learned further that the proper parish for Catholics in my neighborhood will not even baptize a child of members unless the parents are registered and use envelopes for 6 mos.
This leads me to wonder whether when John the Baptist performed Baptisms, or Paul and Silas for instance when they baptized the jailer and all his family, placed the same restrictions onto them before they would baptize?
So are territorial parishes obligated to provide a funeral for those who lived in the parish boundaries without added restrictions but not Baptisms? –CMatt

Parish (Catholic Church)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_%28Catholic_Church%29
EXTRACT

In the Roman Catholic Church, a parish (Latin: parochus) is a stable community of the faithful within a Particular Church, whose pastoral care has been entrusted to a parish priest (Latin: pastor), under the authority of the diocesan bishop. It is the lowest ecclesiastical subdivision in the Catholic episcopal polity, and the primary constituent unit of a diocese. In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, parishes are constituted under cc. 515–552, entitled “Parishes, Pastors, and Parochial Vicars.”

Most parishes are territorial parishes, which comprise all Catholics living within a defined geographic area. A parish may be joined with others in a deanery or vicariate forane and overseen by a vicar forane, also known as a dean or archpriest.

Per canon 518, a bishop may also erect non-territorial parishes, or personal parishes, within his see. Personal parishes are created to better serve Catholics of a particular rite, language, nationality, or other commonality which make them a distinct community. Such parishes include the following:

National parishes, established to serve the faithful of a certain ethnic group or national origin, offering services and activities in their native language.^[2]

Parishes established to serve university students.

Parishes established by the 7 July 2007 motu proprio Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum for those attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (i.e. the traditional Latin Mass).

Anglican Use parishes established by the Pastoral Provision or other dispensations for former members of the Episcopal Church in the United States. By nature, communities belonging to the personal Ordinariates for Anglicans as established by Anglicanorum Coetibus of 4 November 2009 are also personal parishes.

All Catholics who reside in a territorial parish are considered members of that territorial parish, and all members of a community for which a personal parish has been erected are similarly members of that personal parish. Membership should not be confused with registration or worship, however. Catholics are not obliged to worship only in the parish church to which they belong, but may for convenience or taste attend services in any Catholic church.

Does registering in a parish mean anything?

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/quaeritur-does-registering-in-a-parish-mean-anything/

Posted on
5 June 2013
by
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

What does canon law say about becoming a member of a parish outside of the geographical jurisdiction of the parish closest to you? For example: Joining another parish farther away from you, but in your diocese, because the Mass is more reverent/you receive spiritual direction from that pastor/you fit in culturally with the people at that parish, etc.?

Canon law says nothing about ”joining” a parish. “Joining a parish” is a concept foreign to the canonical system.

You become a member of a parish by virtue of where you live.

If you belong to an ethnic or national group, there may also be a personal parish to which you belong.

Recently, bishops have erected “personal parishes” based on factors other than ethnicity. For example, they may establish parishes for the deaf, for those devoted to the Extraordinary Form, for members of the charismatic movement, etc. It is therefore possible for one person to ”belong” to several parishes as in the case of a hearing-impaired traditionalist-charismatic Wendish-Laotian.

In North America parishes about 80 years ago began developing this concept of “registering”. As a “registered” member, you get envelopes and other mailings from the parish office, you are listed on the books for easy reference (handy in parishes of 1000 families or more where it’s unlikely that the pastor personally gets to know everyone … especially when the pastor is transferred every six years… but that’s another vat of borscht).

Registering does not in itself allow one to acquire any canonical rights at the parish where one registers. Registering at one parish does not cause one to lose any rights they have at their proper parish.

Remember: there are rights and duties, too.

Catholics are no longer obliged to attend Mass regularly at their proper parish’s church. They may freely choose to attend a parish across town, in another village, even a parish of another ritual Church (e.g., you are a Latin Church Catholic but you like to attend the Divine Liturgy at the Ukrainian Catholic Church). You may attend a different church every Sunday if you wish.

That said, in North America there are good reasons for registering at a parish. For example, you might have a pastor at your proper parish who doesn’t understand canon law and who refuses to offer sacramental or liturgical service to those folks who are not registered. He, of course, would be entirely in the wrong, but trying to argue over the matter as grandma is dying in the hospital is inconvenient at best.

Canon law doesn’t have anything to say about registering in a parish that is not one’s proper parish. Therefore there is nothing wrong with doing so and it may be of advantage.

51 responses

Father Z: Now onto the reverse of your answer – while you technically can’t be denied certain rights at your territorial parish under canon law, can (should?) you be denied rights at your registered parish (baptism, marriage, etc.) if the registered parish is not your territorial parish (or a personal one)? –Young Catholic

A few years ago, I contacted the chancery to find out which parish bounds I lived in. Everyone there (not including the bishop, whom I didn’t talk to) said I’m in whatever parish I’m registered at. I could not find a single person who even knew parishes had geographical boundaries. -Miss Anita Moore, O.P.

What about ‘discounts’ for the sacraments to registered parishioners? For example, the closest TLM community is 100 miles away. For the Marriage Rite, it is $1500 for non-registered Catholics, but only $700 for those who are registered for two years. The price is the same with or without a mass, low, sung, or Solemn. Considering that my local parish is free, it seems a little steep at $1500, and I’m sure that does not include choir costs (though they do have more than one fantastic choir). What are the regulations regarding such amounts as ‘required donations’? It’s making it difficult to plan frugally with a TLM wedding! –Ozark Catholic

“That said, in North America there are good reasons for registering at a parish. For example, you might have a pastor at your proper parish who doesn’t understand canon law and who refuses to offer sacramental or liturgical service to those folks who are not registered.”

True Father. My old Novus Ordo parish that I left in my area for reasons of spiritual deficiency and a Lonergan Theology youth minister, is of the 6 surrounding Catholic parishes the one that looks the most “Traditional” in architecture. All the others are modern architecture outside and in. Many people were dying to have their wedding there for the sole purpose of aesthetics, so the pastor had to clamp down and issue that at least one side of the wedding party has to be registered there and attend a weekly Mass (at least for a time prior to the wedding) and that’s before the whole year long “process” (another kettle of beans I don’t want to rant about though it’s more than just that parish). –Julian Barkin

If any parish is going to be strict about registration, they’d better have a good handle on their database. About a year and a half ago, a misspelling of my name in parish records got me a letter along the lines of: “Thank you for filling out [xyz form], but we have no record of your membership at this parish.”

I’ve been an active and committed member of the parish for years, so I had to wait to cool down a bit before addressing the misunderstanding! They “found” me in their system, corrected their mistake, and my parish believes in my existence again. –No Tambourine

No Tambourine, there is the additional problem that there may be separate databases for registration, for the parish directory, and for the business office. I have encountered here the problem (after moving) with letters and envelopes arriving, but the diocesan bulletin not arriving. –W Meyer

There was a brouhaha a couple of years ago because Abp. Broglio of the Archdiocese for the (US) Military issued this letter which specified that military retirees had to join a civilian parish and get permission from that pastor for the military chaplain to celebrate the sacraments of baptism, matrimony or confirmation. I’m not sure how that works as of now, but it caused a lot of heartburn at the nearby military bases for a while. –Will D

I have a pet theory that geographic parishes started losing significance (if not canonical status) when the automobile became affordable for average families (Around 80 years ago?). Cars made the world smaller, allowing people to travel much farther in the same amount of time, with respect to walking or travelling by horse and carriage. Once people weren’t “stuck” with their local parishes, they could roam. This is both good and bad. The good is that we can escape bad liturgy or heterodox catechesis. The bad is that we can more easily seek out preachers who “tickle our ears”. –Eric Williams

What happens when one complicates this situation by registering in a parish in a different rite? I have been registered in on or the other of two Ruthenian parishes served by the same priest for something like six years now. My territorial parish (in the diocese of Rochester NY) still sends me the diocesan newspaper. I think they finally stopped sending me envelopes. I haven’t been there for several years. If I do attend a Latin rite parish it is usually the one which has the EF, or one close to my work which has a fairly traditionally celebrated Novus Ordo. (Although it still has the bad music on Sunday.)

At nearly 63 I am not likely to need to be married, or to have a child baptized. But what about when I die? When my mother in law died recently and there was no funeral-nothing at all, I told one of my children that when I die I want a funeral at my Byzantine parish, but if that is not possible, then I want a funeral in the old Latin mass, with black vestments and the Dies Irae. Either way, I told her, it will be a whole lot of Church!

So when I ask for a Byzantine funeral, will they say no, you are canonically Latin? If so, I had better make my attendance at the EF more regular so the Fathers will be willing to have my funeral there. (Should I join that parish also? I do put money in the collection when I am there, usually a $20, but that doesn’t identify me as having been there.) I know, I am lucky to have such an embarrassment of riches in a nearby city that I can choose between the EF and the Liturgy of St. John C.

I told my daughter that if I wind up having a funeral with Eagles Wings, I will come back from Purgatory and haunt them all! -Susan Peterson

“What about ‘discounts’ for the sacraments to registered parishioners? For example, the closest TLM community is 100 miles away. For the Marriage Rite, it is $1500 for non-registered Catholics, but only $700 for those who are registered for two years. The price is the same with or without a mass, low, sung, or Solemn. Considering that my local parish is free, it seems a little steep at $1500, and I’m sure that does not include choir costs (though they do have more than one fantastic choir). What are the regulations regarding such amounts as ‘required donations’? It’s making it difficult to plan frugally with a TLM wedding!”

Sounds ridiculous to me. I had to practically force the priest at my TLM wedding to take the stipend (which was much less that $700) on the condition that if he didn’t want it to just give it to the church. Required donations, to me, smack of simony and we should fly even the appearance after all the Reformation hoopla and all.

I understand the need to pay the bills and free up schedules, but it’s an hour or so. I also understand the pain in the neck of having people want to get married in a pretty church that they have no connection to or real respect for and I also get it that its an even bigger pain to get a Solemn High Mass together (which is one reason I opted for something farther down the solemnity scale, sacred ministers and a gaggle of servers do not grow on trees…). I think its totally acceptable to expect a couple wanting to get married at a particular parish to be registered or geographically part of the parish so as to weed out the ones who just want a pretty photo back drop. However, “charging” for a sacrament doesn’t seem like a smart way to do it… –Dominic

We are currently “registered” at two parishes.

The first is our geographic parish, the second the parish where our children’s parochial school is located. We joined the first parish because it’s our geographic parish (and is awesome). We joined the second because if we register and donate a minimum amount, our parochial school offers a discount on multiple child tuition.

We feel duty bound to continue to support our geographic parish, so we remain active there and continue to donate at the same amount as before. (Plus, as I said, it’s awesome!) –Ralph

I would just like to add that some dioceses do have the parish boundaries available on-line. The one that I work for, for example, is right on the front page! Just put your address in, click, and you get a map with the local schools and parishes. We have mapped the entire diocese that way!

Don’t know if the link will work, but go to http://www.oakdiocese.org and click on “view map of diocese” in the center column.

I would add that the person(s) in the know about boundaries would be the Canon Law or Tribunal office personnel, as they deal with these issues for marriages on a very regular basis. –Fr Robert

Parish membership is an issue I’ve been praying about for over 2 years now. I had hoped to remain a member of our geographic parish which is dying from aging parishioners and changing neighborhood demographics. Our priest was to be retiring soon and the rumor was that the bishop would likely close the parish and have the 80 some members attend our “sister” parish across the street. My family tried to hang on and even increase membership in the parish, but the parish secretary was causing scandal and discord, so we had to quit the parish completely. The problem arose because we attend the TLM community which is in the sister parish, so is technically served by the same parish office. We have been unwilling/ unable to join the TLM community because of this. [You still live within a territorial parish and you are always free to attend the TLM in a parish wherever it is.]

A new priest will be coming in to parish ‘A’ this summer, but I’m not sure how to handle approaching him or even if I should. I’d love to be a member of the TLM community, but don’t see how we can as long as that secretary is still creating scandal. –Jenni

“Registering does not in itself allow one to acquire any canonical rights at the parish where one registers.”

Precisely because canon law says nothing about registering either way, I’d phrase this a bit more tentatively. It is a regular question among canonists, and we need to think it through carefully, else, some dangerous conclusions might be reached. I’m thinking, e.g. about weddings of couples whose connection to a parish is not territorial at all. Anyway, I’d go more slowly here. By the way, and for what its worth, I, too, have experienced living in a parish that, for the sake of soul and sanity, I had absolutely nothing to do with after a first or second Mass there, and I never thought again about them. Certainly, territory is a default membership criterion, but less and less is it one in reality, and the law is, I think, behind the times here. I readily grant that we don’t want parishes based on income levels, or jobs, or sports teams, but, really, that is not what’s happening; instead parishes are falling out along liturgical and orthodoxy-of-preaching lines, and attendance shows it. –Dr. Edward Peters, Canonist

Dr. Peters: The whole thing needs rethinking and revision, doesn’t it. –Fr John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z. Yes, I think it does, too. –Dr. Edward Peters

The parish church I was attending up until very recently had in each Sunday bulletin a notice encouraging registration & stating quite explicitly that Marriage and Baptism would be available ONLY after being registered for 6 months. So I am a little confused: is that an exercise of pastor’s discretion, actually illicit, or something else entirely? –skl

Dr. Edward Peters says:

. . . Parishes are falling out along liturgical and orthodoxy-of-preaching lines, and attendance shows it.

And that can vary with the pastor. –Rob Brown

Perhaps Dr. Peters could answer this question: I thought one had to get permission from one’s territorial parish in order to get married in another parish. Something about the proper form for the Sacrament of Matrimony… Is this true? –Nobis

This concept of jurisdiction probably is most important from the perspective of who can claim authority over an individual, and who gets responsibility for dealing with a problem. The idea that a person’s parish is where he happens to live is convenient and simple. As we know, however, it is most important when one needs infrequently needed sacraments or services. Other than that, it keeps multiple pastors from claiming the right to solicit the same people for money. It keeps a nutty pastor from unilaterally extending his parish to cover an entire diocese. It ensures that someone can be held responsible for the spiritual care of every soul in a diocese and that none are disclaimed completely. It prevents one pastor form excommunicating someone and another pastor in a neighboring parish from declaring the excommunication void. Generally, it works in favor of the good order of the church.

This is a good place to remind everyone that a Catholic should be registered in some parish, somewhere, and put every envelope in the collection, somehow, even if they go in bursts, even if only a dollar goes in the envelope. This is for practical reasons. For example, if one is asked to be a godparent, the only way anyone may have to verify a candidate’s good standing is to check envelope records. I don’t know if my pastor would know me from a hole in the ground, but if anyone wants to check, the paper trail is there, courtesy of my parents, who have put my envelopes in the local collection basket for me for the past 14 1/2 years. Now, people may gripe about this, saying “the Church is all about money,” but what other way is there? Surveillance cameras? An EZ-Pass worn over the head? Tattooed bar codes scanned by the ushers at the doors? –Andrew S

I have great sympathy for those who ‘travel around’ in search of better preaching or more reverent liturgy or more beautiful surroundings. I did it myself as a layman. Truth be told I went to a parish other than my ‘proper’ parish because I needed to find a church that was more handicapped accessible for my father. But it caused me no sadness that it was a more beautiful church with some fine preaching and an excellent choir.

But what is a parish? According to Canon 515, a parish is ‘a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis within a particular church [i.e. a diocese].’ The phrase that strikes me is a ‘definite community of the Christian faithful.’ The beauty of the territorial parish is that it designates a ‘definite community’ – all the People of God west of Broad Street and south of Grand Avenue, for example. THAT community, which is a community already at many different levels – they shop in the same stores, go to the same schools, walk the same streets, deal with the same neighborhood problems, maybe work at the same jobs – they also exist as a community of faith and worship within their territorial parish.

But the Church hopping mentality does not seem to create a ‘definite community.’ Rather, in the long run, it creates intentional communities, more along the lines of congregational (small ‘c’) churches, prone to fracture when the community no longer supplies the ‘need’ that brought it together in the first place. And trust me, Church-hopping knows neither north nor south, nor left nor right. I suspect the principal cause of Church-hopping is the time and/or length of the Mass, with aesthetic or doctrinal grounds falling a very distant second.

Whatever the continuing status of the ‘proper’ parish, I think I can say pretty squarely that in reality, it is observed mainly in the breach. Intentionality and mobility (and masstimes.org) have made it so. Registration is simply a way for pastors to get SOME handle on their not very definite communities. But I think something important is being lost here.

An item from the Ministry of Silly Walks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfzGk3xcbq8
–kmc

Father, The Holy Spirit just answered something I’ve asked myself for many months now. And he did it through you.

I will now be joining a second parish -the Tridentine Mass parish here in Milwaukee. I belong to the magnificent Basilica of St. Josaphat in Milwaukee where the friars do say a reverent Novus Ordo.

St. Stanislaus, where the TLM is said, is 5 blocks north. I attend both, learning all I can about the TLM. And, boy, do I feel the pull in my heart toward that.

St. Stan’s could use my support, I think. I’ve asked the Holy Spirit where He wants me to be.

I feel the pull to both places. You just confirmed and answered my heart. –lsclerkin

Dr. Edward Peters, I don’t think any solution will satisfy everyone, but the last thing we need is for people to be denied funerals, last rights, extreme unction, or baptisms because they don’t have the appropriate paper work or because the parish was sloppy about record keeping. Like it or not, territorial parishes are a good default. The only modifications that might be okay is if people can adjust their defaults, but if there is any confusion due to paper work, the default territorial parish must still be valid. If parishes are falling out along liturgical and orthodoxy-of-preaching lines, then this is the problem that needs fixing, not papering it over with. –Anil Wang

There are lots of hearing impaired traditionalist Catholics in Omaha. I say that with no intent of malice or humor. –Jacob

Registering means a lot. If, like me, you drive far (50 miles in my case in the City of Los Angeles now, a short time ago it took 75 miles) to get to the TLM once a month or more, you should definitely register in the TLM parish as well, get envelopes and contribute as much as you can afford. It is the best inducement for the diocesan priests to continue allowing the TLM. The pastor has complete control, as we learned the hard way when a Fr. Tom Elewaut expelled our EF from Mission San Juan Buenaventura in California after 15 years of every-Sunday masses. Give generously to your TLM parish, and you will naturally need receipts to deduce the contributions from income taxes. I do contribute to our OF parish as well. If you are sick you cannot drive 50 miles for extreme unction. Problem is I would really like a traditional funeral mass for myself, as a final contribution to the Church, but this is not allowed in OF parishes. –Gratias

I have a fairly different reason for registering in & attending a parish other than where I should be geographically: Neighborhood. My own neighborhood is decent, but that parish is over 4 miles away and is not in a safe neighborhood, given some gang activity and such in the vicinity. And I take the bus, which runs only once an house on Sundays, so, especially as a young woman, I’d be a sitting duck at the stop after Mass. I did try the parish out when I first moved to my place, but after being hit up for money by a pair of pushy drunks while I sat at the stop, I decided safety was a sufficient reason to go elsewhere. Aside from Sunday Mass, if I ever attended parish events at night, that would be worse, considering that the bus home would drop me off 2/3 of a mile from my home — and I don’t want to walk at night alone. –Cafea

Some dioceses have particular law on the effects of parochial registration. For instance, the diocese of Austin’s particular law apparently allows for persons living outside of the territory of the parish to nevertheless become parishioners by registration. http://www.austindiocese.org/sites/default/files/Norms%20English%20%26%20Spanish.pdf

The particular law there also, thankfully, affirms that “formal registration may never be required as a prerequisite for the faithful to share in the sacramental life of the Church in their local [territorial] parish.” –Paul

I have never registered in a parish. –Rob Brown

“Catholics are no longer obliged to attend Mass regularly at their proper parish’s church.”

Was that once the case that we had to attend in our own local proper parish? I can imagine it being the norm when travel was difficult – currently we are non-explicitly required to attend Mass on this planet and not on a space ship, and as Fr Z’s recent post points out, Mass on sea ships and moving vehicles was limited at one time to cardinals and bishops. Was the limitation to the local parish for such practical reasons, or was there another reason for that limitation (probably also practical in some way)? –Rural V

Dominic, I know plenty of guys who will put a high fee schedule on for use of the parish church for weddings to discourage non-parishioners. As far as having a fee for the use of the church, sadly many are clueless about the fact it’s takes money to pay the electric bill, etc., and wouldn’t give the parish anything for a wedding. I don’t at this time believe in asking for any fees and my two parishes usually get $0 for weddings and funerals. One time I drove 6 hours to do a wedding for a parishioner, they gave that parish nothing and me nothing for my gasoline. As I said, clueless. Several of those, and you see why the pastor gets disgusted and fees for use of the building start appearing in print. –Fr AJ

When I was a seminarian (12+ years ago) the seminary hosted a large public conference each year with the keynote speaker usually being a prominent theologian, prelate, etc. One year we were honored to host Cardinal Arinze and this very question was posed to him. His response… “If you don’t like your (territorial) parish, then find another one you do like!” Insightful coming from the soon thereafter Prefect of Divine Worship…
–Pax

It probably also depends on the policies of your bishop or archbishop. In the Archdiocese of Portland, for instance, the published policy document on marriage say that “Couples may be required to register in their parish as part of their preparation for marriage; but they may not be refused the sacrament because of a prior failure to register in their parish” and “People who live within the physical boundaries of a parish have a right to marry in that church—even if they do not regularly attend that church or are not registered in that parish…For the purpose of celebrating marriage, couples who regularly attend Mass at a parish should be treated has having “domicile” in that parish even if they live outside the physical boundaries of that parish.”

With regards to funerals, the policy includes this: “Parish clergy should make a reasonable effort to respond to the request of any family requesting a funeral even if they are not members of the parish. He may inform the proper pastor when appropriate. When it is not possible to respond to a family’s request, the priest/deacon should assist them in contacting their proper parish or a priest able to assist the family.”

I don’t believe there are similar published policies in our archdiocese with regards to the sacraments of initiation, but it is very helpful when the local bishop has very clear guidelines about what is expected of both the parishes and the faithful.

Re–”I have never registered in a parish.“– It is thoughtful to give the parish staff our addresses and contact information. We all have duties to perform within our parishes, and it is easier for them if they can find us when duty calls. I don’t think “registration” means any more than that–that is, once you’ve done whatever is necessary to get onto the parish address list, that’s about all “registration” means.

Speaking of thoughtful, it is a good thing when you change parishes to contact the parish you are leaving, to let them know to take you off of their rolls. It helps with planning and it saves them not only the postage but the time it takes to get communications to you. The volunteers who would have been stuffing envelopes with letters you are never going to answer will thank you! –BLB

Perhaps people concurrently registered in two parishes–or even three, as I once was–are much needed to balance out those Catholics who are registered nowhere.

Of course, it might be even better if all registered Catholics were real Catholics (in belief and practice). Hmm, might one say that of parishes and pastors as well as of individual parishioners? –Henry Edwards

Fr. AJ, I get that, but then it seems that you guys need to do a better job of educating the people that the laborer is worthy of his hire and that one shall not muzzle the ox that treads the grain, the Levite eats from the Altar. I grew up with the concept of stipends for all church things as a given, and it should be pretty generous. If this custom has died, it needs to be preached again.

I can see where priests might want to start “charging” for the “venue”, especially amongst people who seem oblivious to the proper Catholic custom of stipends because a) the ignorant see charging for venues as something normal and b) the ignorant won’t make the connection for charging for the venue with simony like I am. Still, people do make that connection frequently and it would be a most unfortunate one. –Dominic

“Was that once the case that we had to attend in our own local proper parish?”

I recall my parents telling me that when they married and bought their first house in Stamford, CT in the mid-60s, they expected to attend a particular church that was closest to the house and a priest friend of theirs was pastor. They were surprised to find out that they were actually in the territory of a different parish – and the message they received was they were supposed to register/attend the territorial parish. –Charivari

I am going to be in the minority here, but I can understand registration as a necessity, but not to be totally exclusive. As someone involved in sacramental prep, I can say that sacramental prep is absolutely necessary for parents for baptism, reconciliation, Holy Communion, confirmation and marriage and all this should take longer than six months. The ignorance of most adults requires this teaching, and unless there is registration, one cannot teach properly, nor would people come.

Gone are the days when parents bring a baby in for baptism knowing their faith in most parishes.

Also, the Church in England is dirt poor because people do not tithe nor are they asked to tithe. Churches need to keep track of tithing for the benefit of the entire Catholic community. Registration helps with tithing as well.

PS as to fees for weddings, is that for the choir and the flowers? I am intrigued by those fees, as most parishes only charge for the organist, and choirs.

Sorry to stuff the combox, but some dioceses in America are considering a two-year program for RCIA, which I am all for, in order not to rush and to separate those who really want to be Catholics from those who are not serious. How does one teach the Creed in three weeks? Registration helps with all of these processes. –Supertradmum

A two year RCIA program could be good. Depends on whether they teach what the Church teaches, or that feel-good spirit of Vatican II nonsense. I spent two years in RCIA, a one year program, while waiting for the Tribunal to… Anyway, it was highly repetitive, and made no reference to the CCC. Instead, we got Catholic Update, and handouts written by Sr. Joan and by Fr. Richard Rohr. [Both of them dissidents –Michael]

As you may imagine, I am not impressed with that program. Not being new to Church teaching, and having had my own copy of the CCC, I was not damaged by it, just annoyed.

I know there are good materials available, and if a parish can’t afford more, even the Baltimore Catechism, downloaded for free, and printed as cheaply as possible would have been far superior to articles by Sr. Joan. –W Meyer

“PS as to fees for weddings, is that for the choir and the flowers? I am intrigued by those fees, as most parishes only charge for the organist, and choirs. I am intrigued by those fees, as most parishes only charge for the organist, and choirs.”

I would imagine those fees are not for the choir and the flowers… At our parish the choir and organist are paid separate from the church/father. When my husband and I were married we gave a stipend to the church, one to Father, one to the organist/choir director, and a small one to each of the servers. –Mary Jane

Eulogos, Catholic is Catholic. You don’t have to be Ruthenian to be a member of a Ruthenian parish. So long as your family and the priest know your intention you should be fine. I’m not an expert but Canon law is silent on parish according to a canon lawyer at our chancery.

Re: Weddings, my parish is the mother ship so a lot of people want to be married there because it’s beautiful or they want to say they were married in the Cathedral; however, they have no intention to raise their children at the parish. One of the two must be a registered Catholic at some parish (crazy thing, often non-Catholics want to get married there and are shocked that it isn’t an option). The fee is $2500 and the date must be chosen a year in advance. Unless you’re a parishioner, in which case the fee is reduced and the dates are more flexible. The church is huge and there’s a parish wedding planner involved to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Occasionally I hear stories of people who don’t follow Church teaching and are shocked to learn that living together isn’t an option if they’re getting married at the parish. One couple was astonished to learn that they couldn’t get a priest for their outdoor wedding on a local island. –Nan

Catholics are no longer obliged to attend Mass regularly at their proper parish’s church.

Any reference, especially in regard to Canon 518? –Ubiquitous

Can. 518 has nothing to do with Mass attendance. –Imrahil

Good point. Didn’t notice that. Is there a part of Canon law that does have to do with Mass attendance? –Ubiquitous

In 1970 while at KU, a friend and I were thinking about converting. I told him I would call to ask about what was then known as inquiry classes. I did, and the priest assured me that no one was obligated to convert–then he asked my name. I gave him my friend’s name.

Later, I told my friend that he was scheduled to attend the class the following Tuesday. When he asked me whether I was going, I told him that unfortunately, it conflicted with an intramural basketball game. He became Catholic some weeks later. Last month he celebrated the 30th anniversary of his priestly ordination. –Rob Brown

Several comments from the perspective of a priest pastor, and considering the reality of the priest shortage and an increasing “consumer goods” mentality among Catholics:

Schools: Unfortunately, many Catholics will ‘use’ a parish. Join a parish just long enough so they can send their children to the school (heavily subsidized by parish Sunday collection, mostly from parishioners who don’t have school-age children), then return to their previous parish which has the convenience of a shorter Mass, etc. the minute their child finishes 8th grade.

Weddings: Never ceases to amaze me how many people complain so frequently about ‘high fees’ (actually suggested donations) parishes charge for weddings. The average couples spends literally tens of thousands on wedding dresses, reception, photographs, party favors, etc. and then grouses about donating a few hundred to the Church, while saying nothing about the lavish spending on the peripheral stuff. One post-er mentioned that the wedding is “just an hour or so.” Wow! In most dioceses, the priest spends a great deal of time with couples, meeting several times personally with them to help prepare them spiritually for the wedding, spread out over multiple appointments, filling out detailed paperwork for the diocese (necessary in case there is a request for a declaration of nullity later), reviewing pre-marital inventories to help them spot potential trouble spots, and more. Additionally, there are often teams of people who set up the Church for the wedding, help the bridesmaids get settled, conduct practices, etc. Many wedding parties leave the place a complete mess afterward, leaving hours of work for the maintenance men. They often tie up the Church for hours on end on the wedding day itself with music practices, decorating etc. (often disregarding the desire for people to pray and ignoring the presence of the Blessed Sacrament). I have had many occasions where I told wedding parties several times they need to be completed with the post-wedding photographs by a certain time, to accommodate confessions and Vigil Masses, which was completely disregarded, because they wanted to use the Church primarily as a photo backdrop and get the perfect photo album. You get the idea. Hardly “an hour or so.” The very small amount parishes charge for weddings is an absolute token compared to the great deal of time spent by the priest and many other parties, all things considered.

Funerals: Many parishes, especially those that are aging, have multiple funerals per week. In my own parish, with not infrequent requests for funerals on the same day. We frequently get requests for funerals for people who have been living out of state for decades, perhaps having gone to school in the parish 50 years ago or more. We try to accommodate of course, but sometimes have to make difficult decisions about whether to give preference for that day to currently registered parishioners over someone with a much more tenuous connection to the parish.

Bottom line: In an age of parish-hopping & shopping / consumer mentality among parishioners, parish registration can be an ‘economic’ necessity. (Using ‘economic’ in the broadest sense – not dollars and cents, but best allocation of scarce resources, including the priest’s time in parishes where there used to be 3 priests but where one priest is now trying to do it all).

While the parish of course makes every effort to meet the sacramental needs of all its people, it is not at all unreasonable to give certain concessions and preferences to people who take the trouble to register and have a current and ongoing relationship with the parish, over those who just happen to show up out of the blue. –Cincinnati priest

Continued from page 4, more on “Parish Hopping”, chronologically arranged:

Parish Hopping
~or~ Am I A Catholic Two-Timer?

http://catholictribe.tribe.net/thread/19854fce-ff72-418e-9894-c1dadde44277

December 12, 2005

I’m wondering if it’s OK to parish-hop. I really enjoy going to Mass at my neighborhood parish and I feel very at home there, however, it’s a quiet little parish…some others in SF seem to have very vibrant, more diversified activities, so I’m wondering, is it OK to be an official member of one parish but be involved with another? –Solange

The wonderful thing about being Catholic–well, goodness, there are so many things—according to this discussion, however, one thing stands out. We are ALL family, no matter what parish or country we belong to. Nothing wrong with church hopping, getting involved in groups offered by other parishes, etc. It makes our world more alive and vibrant.
I used to attend daily mass at several parishes throughout the week as well as prayer groups, etc. The experience brought me closer to Christ and His family stretched across miles and borders I wouldn’t have crossed had I not attended these other functions. If parish hopping brings you closer to Christ, go for it. Always support your home parish as much as possible, and take back ‘home’ what you can to enrich your fellow parishioners. -U

Reasons for
parish-hopping

http://www.catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1072&Itemid=79

By Thomas Ng, The Catholic News, April 30, 2006

Parishioners who go to other churches might have reasons (other than the quality of the homily) for doing so. For example, the loud electronic band and drum-beating during Mass may attract some young parishioners but music lovers and older parishioners may prefer the solemnity of the organ, or a good choir singing in melodious harmony.

Parish shopping

http://www.bettnet.com/parish_shopping/

By Dominico Bettinelli, October 31, 2006

Miss Kelly, a Catholic revert, has just started Mass-hopping, that is going from parish to parish to find one she likes. This is a relatively new phenomenon and something that would have been downright forbidden a few decades ago.

In the old days, you went to your geographic parish. Period. If the pastor of another parish caught you parish-hopping, he would send you packing back to your own parish. There was a valid point. Catholicism is not an individualistic faith. We come to worship God as a family, in a Body, and the basic unit of that family is the parish. The parish forms bonds of communion that go beyond Mass to caring for each other. It used to be common—and God willing, it still is in places—that everyone looked out for one another in a parish. If one man lost his job, there would be casseroles in the freezer the next day and outstanding bills would mysteriously find themselves taken care of. There was no going to welfare, no institutionalized Catholic charitable agency. The family took care of it.

But times changed. For one thing, we became a lot more mobile. Where before we walked to the parish that was close by, in the Boston archdiocese, we can now drive a half hour and find a half dozen or more parishes, even in the most rural outposts. And as younger folks who never knew those old parish loyalties begin to seek out more orthodox and traditional worship against the bizarre post-Vatican II practices that have taken hold, they have begun to Mass-hop.

I can hardly blame Miss Kelly as she describes the banality and lack of transcendence she finds at her local parishes. It’s not that her demands are all that onerous. In fact, they’re quite modest.

I’m not looking the Latin Mass, but I am looking for a Mass which transcends the normal, secular, day-to-day experience. I’m looking for a worship service that is conducive to prayer and reflection. I’m looking for “bells and smells”, the traditions and sensory experiences that transport one to a contemplative, spiritual place. I’m looking to be part of church community which respects the Mass.

Incidentally, I’m not so sure that Catholics have been dispensed from their obligation to support their local parish, but I’ll leave that to the canon lawyers to sort out.

Parish Hopping

http://holywhapping.blogspot.in/2007/04/parish-hopping.html

Posted by Andrew, April 23, 2007

MM asks,
Among Rome’s parishes there is charismatic RC, political RC, family life RC, monastic RC, high church RC, low church RC, evangelical RC, Anglican Use RC, Eastern Rite RC, Jesuit RC, Dominican RC, Franciscan RC, etc. etc. etc. There are even those select parishes that cater to the needs of young, single, transient yuppies. How to choose?
And ought one to “choose?”

There is a certain stigma attached to going to a parish other than your territorial parish. But the question, I think, is very legitimate: if the parish that will best enhance my prayer life is but a slightly-longer drive away… why not?
The obvious answer is that parish hopping might contribute to the balkanization of Catholicism, which claims to be a universal communion. But things are how they are.

The parish-hopper in its natural habitat

http://www.scross.co.za/2008/09/the-parish-hopper-in-its-natural-habitat/

By Fr. Mathibela Sebothoma, The Southern Cross, South Africa, September 28, 2008

Since the beginning of the year I had been wondering about her absence in parish life. My anxiety was relieved when I saw her coming up for Holy Communion at a neighbouring parish.

For some time I have casually agreed with some younger priests to exchange pulpits on Sundays. As a result I try to get visiting priests to celebrate Mass in our parish. I know for a fact that parishioners appreciate such encounters. These occasions have helped me to learn from other parishes.

I was disappointed that she was not coming for Sunday worship in our church. But I was elated that she was at least still attending Mass, albeit at a different parish. Officially she belongs to our parish. Paradoxically her husband is a regular at Mass in our church. It would seem husband and wife have different preferences in their choice of parishes.

One young woman was brutally honest in her response. She wanted to get married in her “home parish” because it was convenient. Her chosen parish was about 30km away. She said her home parish lacked Moya. Her use of the Sesotho word Moya implied either our parish lacked the presence of the Holy Spirit and/or that the priest and the parishioners were not “charismatic”.

This made me think about 600 people who attend Mass consistently, every week throughout the year. Two out of 600 is a drop in the ocean, but still worth thinking about.

Many people choose a parish because it is nearer to their home—convenience. A person with a remote control has power and freedom to choose which TV programme to watch or to ignore. In the same way, there must be personal reasons why people choose a particular parish community or go church-hopping.

According to canon law (para 518) a parish is territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. In this sense parishioners share common things like language, culture, and so on. It would be ideal to belong to a community closest to one’s home. But if one has some difficulties with a particular parish due to whatever problems or preferences, however, one is free to attend Mass and participate at another parish.

But in my own parish, some parishioners travel long distances to come to church — and not only on Sundays. The parish has become a home for them. Physically they live in other places, but their parish of choice is their spiritual home. In this mobile culture people are sometimes forced by other circumstances to do parish hopping. For many young people, work opportunities determine which parish to belong to. For others the age and education of their kids is a priority. It is also true that a few individual Catholics follow “their priest” wherever he goes — the personality cult.

The length of the Mass or the homily is an important factor for some. I am told some people prefer a 30-minute Mass with no music and preferably a five-minute sermon or no homily at all. I know that other Catholics prefer a longer service with a longer sermon.

Culture and race seem to be a determining factor in some parishes around Pretoria. With the de-racialisation of formerly white suburbs, some parishes are becoming multi-racial. This should be encouraged for the process of national reconciliation and healing. But this scenario can also be unsettling. Some people have a fear of sharing the same space with people of different races or languages. That is why some people are moving to parishes where race identity is primary.

We cannot force people to be part of our community. But more often people who are parish-hopping or their whereabouts are unknown create problems for communities. For example it is a hassle to organise a funeral for such a person. Or they come for a letter of recommendation or a testimonial for a job. What do you write if you don’t know the person?

We will have to come up with a revised definition of what it means to be a parish community. When choosing a parish should one go on geography or preference? Does one go by the priest and or parishioners? Does it really matter?

COMMENTS

I am 67 years old.
I saw the church building go up. I served Mass as a boy at Pius X in Pretoria. All 7 of my children were baptized there. I teach Catechism to the grandchildren of parishioners that I knew as a boy. I cannot understand “parish hoppers”. The Mass is not entertainment. –James Henning

I am a church hopper.

First of all, I think there are different types of church hopping. It can be a sort of cafeteria Christianity. It can also be a way of attending Mass but not rooting yourself in a community. I’m not certain that the example given in the article above are good examples of church hopping. Church hopping is not just about being officially part of one parish and attending another regularly. It’s about attending multiple parishes regularly, possibly even on the same day.

Why do we do it?
For me it is not about entertainment. I understand how it could be.

I am not sure who it was who said this (originally in reference to types of prayer), regardless of whether it is white bread, brown bread, whole-wheat bread, a slice, a loaf, or roll, in whatever shape or size, leavened or unleavened, it is bread. That analogy can be used to explain church hopping. The hopper can get something that feeds them in one parish that they can’t get at another that feeds them in a different way.

I neither live nor work in the “territory” of my “home parish”. I attend Sunday Mass and most holy days at the home parish, but I often attend Masses at some other parishes. My wife and I are both involved in our home parish, we’ve both served on the PPC several times.

My parish doesn’t run Alpha, and I’ve attended several Alpha courses at 2 other parishes – one neighbours my home parish and the other is closer to home. The latter is not only well resourced, having lots of programs (including Alpha) it is also charismatic. While I’m much more of a contemplative (I’m a Type 3 on Corinne Ware’s Spirituality Wheel , I’ve got an appreciation for Charismatic spirituality, and my wife, well, she’s definitely charismatic, but one who is willing to live with the home parish’s non charismatic “personality” or “culture”. Also, working in the city centre, I sometimes attend weekday Mass at the local cathedral. And, I’m involved in the ecumenical movement, so I do attend services in other denominations as well.

James in his comment above, must look at me like I’m an alien…but the 30 years of age and probably the life experiences that separate us is a huge cultural and generational gulf. I am a product of post modernism. I am a convert to Catholicism, I am an immigrant. I was neither born, raised, nor educated in the home parish. I won’t ever “teach Catechism to the grandchildren of parishioners that I knew as a boy”. I don’t have that rootedness – and yet there is a longing for such rootedness. In essence, I am in exile (so maybe it is apt my home parish is District 6) and yet in through my faith, that exile is home. –Chris

Putting an end to ‘parish-hopping’

http://thecatholicspirit.com/special-sections/you-belong-here/putting-an-end-to-parish-hopping/

By Maria Wiering, October 31, 2009

Mass at St. Mark in St. Paul ended at noon, but Jeremy and Autumn Irlbeck didn’t get home until 1 p.m. — and they only live six blocks away.

The reason? They were chatting with fellow parishioners in the church, and they ran into a few more on the way home.

After several years of parish-hopping, they’re rooting themselves in their parish home. The experience has deepened their sense of Catholic community and the Eucharist as “communion”, they said.

Jeremy, 25, and Autumn, 23, are newlyweds. Before they dated, both attended several parishes throughout the course of a month, often for the sake of convenience.

Autumn bounced between several St. Paul parishes, she said. Sometimes she went to St. Peter Claver. Other times she went to the Cathedral of St. Paul. And the 9:30 p.m. Mass at St. John Vianney College Seminary at the University of St. Thomas was always a fall-back, she added.

Jeremy worked as a youth minister at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in Hastings, and he spent many Sundays there. Otherwise, he would attend St. Joseph in West St. Paul or Nativity of Our Lord in St. Paul.

When the couple started dating, they based their Mass attendance on what fit their schedules, they said. As their relationship grew, they got more serious about settling down in one parish.

St. Mark wasn’t a regular on their previous Mass circuit, but it was near St. Thomas, where Jeremy went to college. They liked the neighborhood, and they knew the pastor at the time.

They also thought St. Mark seemed “ripe for renewal,” Jeremy said. Many of the parishioners are elderly, but young people and families dot the Sunday morning pews. The Irlbecks joined the parish, and several months later it hosted their April 2009 wedding.

“We just really felt at home,” Jeremy said. “We knew whatever church we got married in, we wanted to be active in. We didn’t want it just to be our ‘wedding church,’ but to be our home.”

Now expecting a baby in February, the Irlbecks are glad they rooted their married life in a parish. They’ve volunteered with the parish’s ministry to homeless people. Jeremy hopes to become a lector, and Autumn wants to join the choir. They might send their child to the school someday, too, they added.

They also love living in the same neighborhood as their parish, they said. They see fellow parishioners in the grocery store and as they walk to Mass. They are slowly recognizing more families and getting to know other young people.

They stay for coffee and doughnuts after Mass, and stand in the aisle visiting with new friends long after the organ’s postlude. They’ve even invited St. Mark’s new pastor to their apartment for a future dinner.

It’s natural for young people to “be all over the place” when they’re figuring out their role in the world, Autumn said. However, being rooted in a parish could be a grounding force while one is in college or starting an adult life.

On the other hand, the ability to attend Mass at different parishes points to the universality of the church, Jeremy said. “As Catholics, we recognize that Jesus is present in every church.”

The parish “shop and hop”

http://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/07/28/the-parish-shop-and-hop/

By Eric Sammons, July 28, 2010

One hundred years ago in this country, there were two factors which determined what parish a Catholic would attend: his geographic location and his ethnicity. If you were a recent immigrant, you went to the closest parish that served your people; if not, you just went to the closest non-ethnic parish. But this is not the case today: many Catholics shop around for a parish that suits their needs and then hop to the one that they like the best. Is this allowed? What are we to make of all this?

It should first be noted that lay Catholics are free to go to whatever parish they desire; they are not bound under canon law to attend their territorial parish. However, canon law does stipulate that a pastor of a parish is responsible for all the souls in that parish’s geographic territory, regardless of whether they attend his parish or not (or even if they are Catholic or not). So, in a certain sense, the pastor of your territorial parish is your pastor no matter if you attend his parish or not.

But even if it is allowed, is it a good idea to do the parish “shop and hop”? Should Catholics just attend their territorial parish or should they search around for a “good” parish? Opinions abound. My in-laws, who grew up before Vatican II, would never have dreamed of attending any parish but their “proper” one; they felt that a Catholic was supposed to support their local parish, no matter their personal opinion of it. However, many Catholics feel that it is necessary for their spiritual well-being to attend the “best” parish they can find.

When I first became Catholic, I was in the group that felt that you should attend your territorial parish unless the pastor there was preaching outright heresy. Even if the liturgy was poorly celebrated, the music stunk, and the pastor preached a “be nice” Gospel, a Catholic should support his local parish.

Then I had kids.

As any parent will tell you, having kids changes your entire perspective; you now see everything through their eyes. And I saw a child being raised in a watered-down Catholic Faith and it scared me. After that point, I decided I would attend the best parish within a reasonable distance because I wanted my kids to experience Catholicism and the Mass in a reverent, enthusiastic environment if at all possible.

Of course, one can take the parish “shop and hop” too far and demand perfection from a parish. But a perfect parish does not exist, and frankly, that attitude is one step away from Protestantism. We cannot expect a parish to be EXACTLY what we want, and we must be understanding of the difficulties of being a pastor. Leaving a parish simply because the music isn’t Gregorian chant or the pastor’s homilies are dry isn’t a valid reason, in my opinion. And furthermore, we should actively work to improve our parishes; too often I hear people complain about their parishes, but they do nothing to help improve them. A parish doesn’t become faithful by magic, it is done by the hard work and prayers of its members. In the end, though, I see no problem with attending the most faithful parish one can in their general geographic area. It is not an ideal solution, but it is an acknowledgment of reality.

Before anyone says it in the comments, I do understand that many Catholics in this country live in a situation in which there are no parishes around them that are strongly faithful to the teachings and practices of the Church. I sympathize with them and know that this situation can be quite a cross. I pray that they unite their sufferings with our Lord for the renewal of the entire Church, including their own parish.

An interesting side note: when my family moved to Gaithersburg, we started attending the closest parish to us – St. John Neumann, which was only about 1.5 miles down the road. It is a great parish and we have happily attended it for years. But about two years ago, I discovered that we actually live in the boundaries of another parish! That parish, which is about 4-5 miles away, is also a great parish, but we decided to stay at St. John Neumann, as we had become active members and had found a spiritual home there. But technically, we unknowingly hopped parishes.

COMMENTS

Good points, Eric – but if the catechesis of a parish is lacking, that is a good reason to consider speaking to the Director of Religious Education about your specific concerns (in a charitable manner, of course), joining the parish faith formation board (if there is one) or volunteering to be a catechist – to work to help improve the system. If that does not work, choosing another parish is an option, but I would let the pastor know why my family was going elsewhere. Personally, I would never leave before attempting to improve the situation by working with the parish in a positive way. People who leave without doing that enable parishes to continue to provide poor catechesis. –Joyce Donahue

Staying in a “troubled” parish and fighting the good fight is commendable, as Joyce states. But if you have children, is it wise to subject them to poor liturgies, music, catechesis, etc while you try to turn the tide? We have hopped to remove our kids from that battlefield. Yes, the formation of children is the primary duty of the parents, but if your parish life doesn’t support (or worse is in opposition to) what you are doing at home trouble will find you. Our saying is “We must follow orthodoxy”; for our sake and the sake of our kids. It is regrettable, but necessary in our mind.
–Peter

I understand where you are coming from and being in a parish that doesn’t serve your needs despite working as hard as you can is disheartening. And years ago, I was tempted to search for somewhere else after enduring 14 years of a pastor who was just “serving out” his time until retirement and determined to maintain the status quo till then. But I remembered praying in front of the same tabernacle for almost 20 years and Jesus reminding me: “I’m still here, Barbara. And this is your place here, with Me.” And so I stayed… and PRAYED!!! I offered up whatever I could for my parish. Today, I have an amazing pastor who with his assistants is working double-time to create a wonderful, vibrant atmosphere. I need to keep praying for them and for the people here who are tend to be very, very uninvolved. If you can remain, pray for your parish. If you must go somewhere else for the sake of your children’s formation, keep praying for your old parish! –Barbara

Here is our story. My husband and I were adamantly opposed to parish shopping and took our children to our local parish through thick and thin. As the kids reached middle school we had an increasing desire to have them experience more reverent and meaningful services, especially for Good Friday and Easter. Our local services were just dreadful. We found what we were seeking at the local Cathedral and never left.

Here is my favorite part, my eighth-grade son who was a bit of a rebel, asked me to contact the parish and sign him up to serve mass at the local Cathedral. As a consequence, he served all the way through high school which he would not have done at our old parish.

Recently our son accepted the Lord’s call to become a priest after a rocky period where he left the church and went out on his own for a couple of years. We look back on the decision to leave our old parish and know now that God had a plan for us that we could never have imagined and our son’s experience at our new parish was part of that. His formation at the Cathedral was a huge blessing for him. God bless all of you who are faithful to your local parish, especially if that is God’s call for you. Don’t judge some of us who “bail” too harshly though, you never know what God might be doing, I certainly didn’t. –Colleen

My wife and I drive 30 miles to Church, one way, and back home another 30 miles. This was because we had a terrible time finding a Church which actually embraced Catholicism and tradition. We do not have any regrets, even during the harsh winter when we have to leave the house an hour and a half early.

It is worth the cross for us. What is better is that the local parish found out, and because they’re losing parishioners hand over fist, they are beginning to make changes. So, sticking around may have caused them to maintain the status quo for they still get their money. But by leaving, they were financially bled dry, and made changes as a result.

God loves the free market. –Bruce

I appreciate your comments, Eric. We’ve had to change parishes twice. The first time the whole focus of our parish was social justice. With the pastor a practicing homosexual, we felt we had no choice. The second time in another state, the parish was so gigantic, over 20,000 parishioners; there was no place for us and no need for us at all. I even volunteered in the office in person and am bilingual, but no one ever took us up on the offer. Our new parish is a little smaller and we can volunteer as well as participate. It’s not perfect, but I do believe we can pray for the new parish.
-Anne G

I agree on many points in your article, except you forgot that 100 years ago we did not have Vatican 2. In some of my past experiences in witnessing many liturgical abuses and absolute indifference of the parishioners,(and I could relate some horror stories to you here), there is one way to solve what should never be a problem in the first place: As soon as ALL parishes begin to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, a great deal of the problems will end. I believe in my heart of hearts this day is arriving. It just takes time. It had to happen.-Jerald Frankin Archer

I understand completely. When I decided to convert, I called the closest parish to where I lived which was about 5 miles away. A friend of mine who is a member of my parish attends Mass with her mom at a different parish. However, her mother is always complaining how boring the parish priest is that he just reads his homily, his sermons are dry, etc., etc. Me being new to Catholicism suggest she come to Mass with us just thought I had suggest the biggest sacrilegious sin of all time. She is pre Vatican II. But she keeps on saying how lucky I am because I live near a great parish community. Since I have never attended Mass out side of my parish I have nothing to base my perceptions on. I do know people from my parish that have attended different parishes around the area, so I was always under the impression that even though, I was confirmed in one parish I could be a member of any parish I chose. Not that I am unhappy with my community. However, I do like having the opportunity to attend wherever and whenever I so choose, rather than be “assigned” a parish just on geography.
-Samantha Luty

Unfortunately, in many of the parishes in my area, the reasons why things are the way they are because the same camp of volunteers/parishioners have “served” in the parish for decades. From my experience, stepping up to change the way things are often gets you alienated or some other undesired result. I’ve seen people blocked out of ministries or ignored because of “parish politics”. What is the best thing to do in this situation? –EC

I believe God invented cars, horses, mules, two feet – for a reason. Go to a Church where the priest speaks of God to you and where the priest speaks of you to God. Seek it and you will find it. I have no problem with going to a church with such a priest – no matter the distance and no matter how many churches you pass by.
-Stephen Lowe

15 years ago my wife and I hopped parishes, but only after many years of attending our territorial one and TRYING to participate in apostolate to help improve the teaching, etc. Finally after being told flat out that our services were not needed we hopped. The pastor of the new parish welcomed us with open arms and immediately asked us to run the catechetical program and be on the parish council. He was so happy to welcome an orthodox younger couple into parish life. Our biggest concern has been NEITHER parish-hopping nor parish-staying. The phenomenon in our urban archdiocese (with a parish every few miles) has been getting orthodox families to belong to ANY parish. By far the custom for many years has been “parish take-out” or “parish drive-thru”, i.e., taking from a parish whatever is needed for sacramental or spiritual life but never belonging or giving by participating. This has been most especially the case with the many homeschooling families in our region who find imperfection in even the better Catholic parishes and use that as a reason to not register.
-Dante

Parish Shop and Hop?

http://www.catholicdadsonline.org/posts/3915/parish-shop-and-hop/

By Jason Gennaro, July 31, 2010

A few days ago, Eric Sammons at The Divine Life wrote a post about the parish “shop and hop”. (Read it all here: http://ericsammons.com/blog/2010/07/28/the-parish-shop-and-hop/)

I was struck by this:

Then I had kids.

I should note that few parishes in proximity to us have what I would deem “reverent liturgy”, including all the smells and bells. That said, we are blessed with a parish and a pastor who take the liturgy very seriously, in spite of a church design from the 1970s.

Notwithstanding my current situation, and even with kids, I lean towards “unless the pastor there was preaching outright heresy”, one should remain in their territorial parish.

What should be done, though? Stay and pray and fight for change… or leave for a more complete faith?

COMMENTS

We are currently facing a situation such as that.
We are in an area that there AREN’T other Churches around. So moving would mean relocation to another State.
Because of my job situation, we are making a bigger overall decision based on what job offers I receive. If I don’t receive any within the time frame of my job, well then we have to make a hard decision, weighing all the pluses and minuses.
This comes into play big time. But do we weigh our poor Church situation as a NEGATIVE? I am a fighter, and I know that we have HELPED the situation and the people around us. Not in a prideful, “look how awesome I am” sort of way, we were just able to share our gifts and experiences with them, which have helped “reform” minds and hearts to a more authentic way of believing. That being said, we haven’t gotten very much “back.” Or have we? WE know God gives us what we need and those things that we want, which conform to his will.
So what if staying in a place or BEING in a place that is difficult is our cross? What if WE are helping others, while suffering? What if the way we pray, believe, dress, think, talk, act etc. rubs off on others in a parish that would otherwise not see such a thing? Should we leave bad parishes to themselves? And let them fade away? –Joe

In our archdiocese there are certain parishes with a reputation for liturgical and theological laxity and others that are more orthodox. Even when priests are moved, some are favored over others. It’s a shame. We were part of a small change at our territorial parish but the pressures on the other side were too strong. We have plenty of parishes here in suburbia so we are OK, but we drive about 15 miles to a parish now. About seven churches are closer.
–Ken

Until recently, I had only lived in places that offered one Catholic parish (or only one with an English liturgy). The town where I live now and the town before that offered more churches. In the last town I went to my local parish and was relatively satisfied. When my family and I moved here, my daughter and I were going to the closest parish. One day, I decided to attend the Divine Liturgy at the local Melkite parish. I loved the liturgy, the pastor and the people in the parish. We go there now. I’m not sure if it parish hopping in the traditional sense. I wasn’t looking for a more reverent experience or better catechesis, but I am guilty of parish shopping. I actually have to drive past my old parish on my way to the Divine Liturgy. The fact is though, not all of us are fed by our local parish and a decision one way or the other should only be made after prayer and reflection. One size does not fit all, our Creator made each of us unique in our needs, desires, temperaments, and talents.
-Athanasius

The Sin of
Parish Hopping

http://prlovett.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/the-sin-of-parish-hopping/

By Pastor Lovett, September 8, 2010 [This is Lutheran]

What if we taught our people, the people of God, that parish hopping is a sin. I know we preach against it, at least to other pastors and to the board of elders. But what if we said it was sinful from the pulpit? Of course, not every type of parish hopping is sinful. A military family that hops from one city to another, and so from one parish to another, is not sinning. But this isn’t really parish hopping. This is moving. Parish hopping is when a family or individual hops from parish to parish in the same general geographic location trying to find the one that best suits him or her or their family. What if we preached that this is sinful? After all, isn’t it?

Why do people parish hop? To go where their itching ears lead them. Their “ears” may be a desire for a better single’s group or a better youth group or a better choir or a more energetic preacher/service. How many Christians parish hop because they don’t think Christ is present among His people in their initial parish? How many leave for doctrinal reasons? Not many. People leave to suit their fancy. This is paramount to divorce. Let not man put asunder what God hath joined together. But our people have been led to believe that while parish hopping is not good, it certainly isn’t sinful. It’s in bad taste, but not sinful. But I argue that it is.

When a person leaves a parish for reasons other than moving or some other reason of necessity, then whatever the reason they leave is that which defines their relationship to the parish. If this reason is not Christ, then it is sinful. So if a person leaves because the baptismal font is moved, then his relationship to the parish, to the people of God gathered there, is either the position of the baptismal font or that nothing should change. If a family leaves the parish because the parish down the street has a better youth group, then it is the youth group that defines their relationship to the parish. This is sinful because it is not Christ. They are in essence confessing that it is not Christ that keeps them there, but other things.

Now the defense is that they’re not leaving Christ because they go elsewhere. They still believe, they still want the Sacrament, etc. But in fact, they are sinning against Christ. To say otherwise is like saying that the man who divorces his wife for another is not really sinning because he only divorced his wife because she was ugly or boring. But he still wants to be married, he still enjoys the benefits of marriage, he just wants to enjoy them with someone else. Is that so wrong? To want to be happy?

Is not the Body of Christ gathered to Christ at the parish where there is a small, inactive youth group or Sunday school? Or do these things make the Body of Christ more the Body of Christ? Are these the things of which our Lord says, “One thing is needful.” When a person leaves (again, not because they’ve moved or something akin to that, but because of personal preference) they have abandoned the place where God has placed them for selfish reasons. This is sinful.

But it is not only the parish hoppers who sin. It is also the pastor who lets them go and the one who receives them. Both should rebuke them. The one who lost them shouldn’t have transferred them out. He should have said “no”. He should ask them why they’re there and what their relationship is to the parish. He should point out their sin that they may be saved. If they do not listen and leave anyway, they will die for their sin (so to speak), but he will not be condemned. After all, we don’t need professional choirs or singles groups or whatever to be the Body of Christ. So the preaching has fallen far short in this regard. Moreover, the receiving pastor shouldn’t receive them. He should ask them, “Was Christ not proclaimed there? Was the preacher a heretic? Was the Sacrament neglected?” If not, then go back to where you came from; you have not the things of God in mind but the things of men.

Consider the family who left despite the pastor’s admonition not to, and then wouldn’t be received by the pastor they sought. Notwithstanding their traveling to yet a third parish, where would they go? From whom would they receive Christ? All things being equal, they would return to their original pastor and seek reconciliation. And he in turn would receive them back, reconciling them to Christ. What a picture of the Law and Gospel! What a picture of what it means to belong to Christ; to abide in Him! This is incarnational living.

And, no, just because they would go to a third, maybe a Methodist parish, does not free us from preaching the whole council of God. We’re not instructed to preach because they will hear, but because the word must be preached.

I know, this is drastic, even borderline psychotic, but I actually think it’s the truth. Parish hopping is sinful, and we pastors need to actively condemn it, not incidentally or occasionally call it a bad idea. I know, when you get a family of 5 from the parish down the road because you’re Bible Class is so good, it’s easy to receive them. But should you? Should you be one that causes division in the Body of Christ? After all, what is Paul, Apollos, or Cephas? Is not Christ everything?

COMMENT

Sorry, but I think this is overstated, especially the analogy to marriage. –Rev. Dr. Chris N. Hinkle

Catholic conundrum

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7295/Msgr-Owen-F-Campion-Catholic-conundrum.aspx

By Msgr. Owen F. Campion, Our Sunday Visitor, December 26, 2010

A serious problem is developing in American Catholicism — namely, the decline in regular weekend attendance at worship services in a church.

With this decline inevitably comes a diminished sense of personal Catholic identity, and then, obviously, a slackened sense of commitment to Catholic beliefs and moral principles.

Contributing to this decline is the “shopping around” for parishes, greatly enabled by the easy mobility in our society, but also by the subjective view of the Mass that many Catholics have assumed. Added to the mix is the effect of fewer parochial schools, anchors that kept families close to their parish.

People choose their parishes no longer according to the neighborhood in which they live, but because they like, or dislike, the pastor, or the music, or the décor of the church, or the friendliness of the people, or the schedule of the liturgy. There may be an argument with the pastor, or the parish secretary, or the religious education director, or whomever.

This “shopping around” often is the first step toward dropping the habit of regular weekend attendance at Mass. Priests are transferred. Music directors come and go. The church may be redecorated.

With no alternative parish that meets all the personal requisites, many people simply stop going or go rarely. Then their ties to the Church weaken.

None of this likely will change for the better any time soon. The Catholic situation increasingly will be affected as churches are closed, and as Masses are celebrated less frequently because of the lack of priests. With fewer options to find preferred homilies or music or décor, Catholics accustomed to picking and choosing their place of worship will have fewer choices. Travelling longer distances to attend Mass will aggravate the problem. Under these conditions, will people be less likely to go far or to make concessions?

Not only is attendance regularly and weekly at Mass a concern, but very many Catholics — traditionalists as much as liberals — choose a “cafeteria model” for the Church and for their own views about religion and religious principles. They accept this, but they reject that.

This “cafeteria model” understandably corresponds with an attitude literally overtaking popular religious opinion in this country, absolutely within the mainline Protestant congregations, but also in the Catholic Church.

It is the attitude that religion is personal, subjective and individual. It has not hit the Catholic Church as strongly as Protestants — yet. However, this mindset definitely is affecting the Catholic Church in this country. The signs are not good.

On top of all this the general popular inclination that ignores, and indeed belittles, religion, and the popular media that, at best, never gives religion nor certainly Catholicism the slightest benefit, will have much negative impact.

I am reminded of an elderly Irish-American woman who attended Mass every day in her old parish church. As she aged and was widowed, she had to move far across town to be near her daughter. No longer able to drive, she insisted that her daughter had to pick her up every morning, rain or shine, and, of course, every Sunday, to take her to Mass in a new parish. The new church was different in almost every respect from the church in which she worshipped for a lifetime. She could not understand a word that the foreign-born pastor said. The music was — lively.

Why did she go? Her firm, short answer was, “The Mass is the Mass.”

Amen. The Mass is the Mass. Catholics must resolve that they will go to Mass and be with the Church.

Msgr. Owen F. Campion is the associate publisher of Our Sunday Visitor.

COMMENTS

Yes, Msgr. Campion, the Mass is the Mass. But why should that truth require that good, faithful Catholics suffer through liturgies that do not live up to the Church’s high ideals? It’s one thing to have a priest or parish that strive for the ideal in continuity with our fine tradition, but it’s maddening (and near occasion of sin for some) to be witness to a priest or parish who ignore the Church’s ideals in lieu of following their own notions. By all means, criticize those who seek out the tambourine and acoustic guitar Mass, but if a parish 15 minutes away offers Gregorian chant and sung propers, can you excuse a Catholic for wanting to pursue those things? I mean, the Second Vatican Council and every Church document in the past 40 years dealing with liturgy has called us to put chant in pride of place! –Skeeton

So let me get this right: people who switch parishes may be more likely to stop going to Mass. So the way to make sure they keep going to Mass is to force them to stay in a parish they dislike?
–Eric

I belonged to a parish for almost ten years-I was involved and enjoyed the parish community very much. The trouble began when I realized the priest would not discuss or even pray for prolife concerns because he didn’t want to “offend” those who had experienced abortion. Then he allowed the youth of the parish to support a diabetes walk, even though he was told that this organization finances and is solely about embryonic stem cell research. I prayed and prayed and I realized I needed to attend a nearby parish where Catholic doctrine was not put by the wayside.
–Guest

This is kind of a crazy article. If you don’t like a priest or the congregation to the extent that you don’t want to go to the church, surely its better that you find a priest who you “click” with more. It’s got nothing to do with belief or dogma but with personalities. Even with the best will in the world you can’t make everyone get along, and if a priest’s personality is going to turn you away from the church then surely a better option would be to find another priest?
–Anna

That’s correct; the Mass is not about us. We ‘church-hopped’ till we found a parish where our young children weren’t subjected to homilies that supported women priests, dissed “The Passion” movie, and was angry when Papa Ratzi was elected pope, etc. I do not feel guilty and we are very active in our ‘new’ parish. We want magisterial Truth taught, upheld, and lovingly encouraged from the pulpit, not personal opinion. My teenagers especially need this, as do I and my husband.
-Guest2

I agree that we should be resolved to belong to a community, but I also agree with Skeeton that sometimes church communities don’t live up to everything they could be… and if you have greater options to be part of a lively, vibrant, inclusive community, why would you choose otherwise? There are parishes out there that need to be inspired and moved by the Spirit to become more than they are… but sometimes the people hold them back. A Mass is a Mass, and a priest is a priest, but we are compatible with each other for good reason… we risk the chance of becoming complacent and stagnant if we don’t continue to seek the places and people that will help us grow.
–Mary

I’m a convert and I dislike parish-hopping, since it feels too much like the church-shopping I did as a Protestant. That being said, I–to some extent–do it myself. I was lucky enough to come into the Church in a parish with a beautiful liturgy, energetic, holy, orthodox priests, a thriving NFP group, and a large pro-life presence. That is the experience I want to give my son and our future children–I do not want to undermine the authority of the priest by having them see abuses and disobedience week after week that contradicts what they learn at home. When a “home” parish routinely commits liturgical abuses and changes prayers, this puts parents in a difficult position. We do not want to set ourselves up as a rival authority that judges/”corrects” the priest, but we do not want our children hearing fuzzy or outright incorrect teaching and liturgical abuse. I do not want their home education in the faith undermined by the CCD teachers either. I want my children to grow up and learn the faith in a parish that supports Catholic doctrine and devotions–I want them to have Adoration, Benediction, and community Rosaries, not be somewhere where the priest and/or people deride these practices. So we drive 20 minutes to the Cathedral rather than 5 minutes to the parish nearer our house…
–Gradchica

“Contributing to this decline is the “shopping around” for parishes, greatly enabled by the easy mobility in our society, but also by the subjective view of the Mass that many Catholics have assumed.”

And what about the “subjective view of the Mass” that many celebrants have assumed? How about pastors who have abdicated ultimate responsibility for the proper celebration of the liturgy and handed over the decisions to unorthodox music directors and “liturgy directors” or celebrants who, God forbid, make ad hoc changes to the liturgy by their own “authority”? How about homilies from the pulpit that have nothing to do with the Word of God proclaimed in that day’s Liturgy but rather focus on a personal experience of the celebrant or of an amusing anecdote that could be taken from one of the “Chicken Soup…” books. How about priests who deny the necessity of Confession and distribute the Body of Christ to every single person who presents themselves, regardless of age, faith, or known to be in manifestly grave sin.

Until the Liturgy and the Sacraments are taken seriously by every priest, and there is consistency from parish to parish, people are going to parish hop. –Greg

There are many in my parish, in positions of power, that actively do their best to bring in Un-Catholic ideals and philosophies that directly contradict Catholic principals. When confronted with these errors, they attack, gossip, and ostracize all those who do not share their ideals and vision (yes, I have witnessed these things happening). They pick and choose who will serve on any ministry, leaving those others, truly willing to serve, out in the cold. I suggested that my parish have a Latin Mass once a year. I do not think that was an unreasonable request, but from the looks I received, you’d think I came from another planet. I am now considered “one of them”, and a nutcase. Yet in my parish, it seems more about “their” house, and less about GOD’S house.

It’s not difficult to spot these errors, and you don’t have to have super-intellect, either. All one needs is a copy of the Catechism and a bit of time to read it. Besides all of that, it is really important that prayer be added, so you can see, sometimes during the Mass things that are not true.

Case in point, my Deacon during the Homily said quite clearly that “the Miracle of the loaves and fishes was NOT a Miracle, but a sign”. And when I would read the bulletin after Mass, I would find material from a “Priest in good standing”, saying that “Mary taught Jesus how to believe”! If people are not being spiritually fed – they will go elsewhere.

I am tired of my faith being hijacked by those in charge of guiding His flock. And since I am already one of those “ostracized”, they really can’t do much more to me, I figure — So I have begun to “fight” back. I pray every day for my enemies, as well as my friends. I have written to my Bishop more times than I can count (with no response), and have stood up in these parish “faith” meetings, which are more like get-togethers and not about our Faith, and actively correct any errors I find that they are promoting.

This is my Church, too, and I am also a member of the Body of Christ, same as them. I cannot stay silent, while His Church is being torn and the Truth of our Faith is being ignored. The choices these people make indeed have Eternal consequences, and if I don’t speak out, then I am just as responsible.
–Nettie

As a traditional -type of Catholic, we, meaning our family of 5, have found that the typical parish surely is not what it used to be, meaning priests who don’t hold up to Catholic teachings and morals. We church hopped every Sunday until we found our home, a Byzantine Catholic church, and we couldn’t be happier! -Peters family

When one can not find a parish that adheres and accepts all of Catholic truth, then to nourish his soul he should and must attend Mass where it is offered. Why do we have to put up with some priest and some bishops who refuse to teach the full Gospel? It seems to me that where ever the body and blood of Christ is offered so should the boldness of His word be spoken. Speak the truth in love. To do less is to force people to look for the truth in other parishes.
-Jerry Christopher

People leave parishes because duly appointed authorities violate stated norms and do so flagrantly.
–Guest

Msgr. Campion needs to get around. The issue does not reside exclusively with the laity. Frankly, leadership skills among ordained are … well … poor to put it politely.

Some people “hop” because they are invited to after challenging liturgical abuse – e.g. communion bread of all shapes sizes and flavors, standing through the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest with musical accompaniment to the Eucharistic Prayer, non-Catholics taking communion, non-ordained people giving homilies. It goes on. Sometimes when you challenge these abuses you are politely asked “why don’t you just go someplace else.”

Sometimes it isn’t liturgical abuse. As a CCD teacher I actually sat and listened while a Ph.D. in psychology told a group of 7th and 8th graders he believed saints “orgasmed” when in deep prayer. I was so stunned I couldn’t object. Once, when shopping after moving into a new area I asked the priest if the parish was community centered or Christ centered. He turned around and walked away never to be seen again.

Sometimes my dear Msgr., it isn’t the hopper, it’s the landing zone. –Steve

Msgr Campion is right at he is aiming for the more desirable behaviour, but it would be helpful if he would write an article with practical advice on approaching priests who redesign the liturgy and preach from the Gospel according to Mavericks. People also need to feel they will be supported by their Bishops when bringing these concerns forward. -Sr. M.A.

I am so glad I read the comments because this article made me extremely upset. I have been grappling with issue for some time now. We moved to a very large suburb out of Chicago, and the Church in our community very much seems like a potpourri of modern, liberal theology. There are drums on the altar, hand clapping, PowerPoint presentations on the altar during the homily that had nothing to do with the Gospel, Protestant hymns, etc. There is absolutely no reverence in this Church by the Father s or the congregation. There are people peddling goods and services in the Narthex like it is a convention hall. Father mumbles and speeds through the Consecration like he has somewhere better to be. There is never talk of anything that might make people feel the slightest bit uncomfortable. Hell, sin, and Purgatory have never once been tackled during Mass. This Parish seems to have the social aspect down, but the Mass seems like an afterthought. I am a married mother of two very young children with one on the way, and since my husband is C of E, I am the sole teacher of our Faith in our home. Msgr., is it not better for me to travel 20 minutes to get to Mass on Sunday with the kids at a Church that teaches the true Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Should I stay at what equates to a Protestant mega Church because that is the Church closer to my home? I want to attend Mass and be present with the Lord, not feel like I am at a show. Things are different, Msgr. Many people no longer have the luxury to live down the street from a Parish. Even this Parish is still a 10 minute drive. Trust me, I would love to have a Church in walking distance, but financially, we can not afford to live in area like that. I feel I am doing my best to teach my children the true teaching of the Church. I just wish we would receive more support for trying to seek out the Truth, and not be chastised because our local Parishes are not living up to their obligation to teach the True, Catholic Faith.
–Theresa

We are a family created through transracial adoption. We attended our “local parish” for several months. I really wanted to like the parish, to be part of it, to find a parish family in this new part of town to which we had moved. NO ONE spoke to us. Finally one person did. They spoke long enough to tell us that we should meet “The XXXX family” because they have a family like ours. We went church hopping the next week. I do not need to expose my children to that kind of blatant racism. We found a parish 20 minutes further away, yet we attend routinely and have are now active members of that parish. Which was better – to stay at the local parish where I would have found every reason to NOT go to Mass because I wanted to protect my children, or go to a parish that welcomed our family and extended the hand of Christ to us.
-Guest3

I don’t believe for a minute that church-hopping is the reason why 99.9% of Catholics that don’t go to Mass regularly are not going to Mass. People nowadays and unfortunately it is usually young people do not feel the need to go to Church and most of that is the culture.

These people usually are apart from their families (which used to be a good source of support for church-going), have friends who are busy doing so-called fun stuff on Sundays or even kid stuff (there are so many sports leagues and not enough fields that a lot of leagues have games on Sundays) or just believe that religion is not for them.

I believe people are just coming up with excuses not to attend Mass because they don’t think it is important because of the culture in America and the world right now. I have read that this even occurs with immigrant families in the 3rd generation or so, first 2 generations go to Mass every Sunday but the 3rd or after, decide it isn’t for them and don’t go. So even the devout Mexican and Vietnamese Catholics are being affected by the culture. Not sure how we combat this except by prayer and evangelization.
-Eric B

The Catholic Church is the church of Christ.
I moved because the pastor was mentally ill and the diocese refused to respond to the letters of the loving, caring parishioners of many years. The parish existed before the pastor came but it is barely existing now. The bishops must show care and understanding for the good people rather than defend the priest who is causing problems (due to illness).
Our churches are the centers of our rich devotions and often friendships. I didn’t want to move but the bishop was not responding to the damage done by a priest who was grossly hurtful. Perhaps the church owns some of the problem with declining attendance?
-P Kudrav

Church Hopping

http://bustedhalo.com/blogs/church-hopping

By
Vanessa Gonzalez Kraft April 4, 2011

The more years that separate me from my time at Notre Dame, the more I realize how easy college made certain things in life. Making friends was easy as I was surrounded by a great community of people with whom I had a lot in common; I never had to spend a lot of energy finding people with similar interests. We also had Mass in our dorm, which meant we all went to Mass with our closest friends — it didn’t take a lot of extra work to be part of a spiritual community. In fact, being a theology major and, in general, just being a Domer, it was never difficult to find tons of groups, retreats, events, or volunteer opportunities that guaranteed an awesome spiritual community.

Then I graduated and lived in a Catholic Worker house. As a community we said daily prayers together, usually attended daily Mass, and were always having discussions about faith and Church teachings and how to live out the Gospel. It too was a wonderful spiritual community.

Then came Austin — when I finally found out how hard it is to make friends in the “real world”. There was no longer a guaranteed community. I was in the world where most people were very different from me and I had to work to find people that I could relate to and be friends with. As for a spiritual community, this was even harder. I couldn’t just walk down the hallway with my roommate to go to Mass. I couldn’t just get dressed and head downstairs for Morning Prayer. I had to put effort into finding a place to call home.

Ever since getting married and moving to a new part of town, Brandon and I have been bouncing from parish to parish looking for a home. Parish-hopping if you will. Between me, the theology major, and Brandon, a complete and total liturgical nerd, we are extremely picky when it comes to finding the right parish. A good homily is a big deal to me, which immediately narrows down the pool. Sometimes we get tired of mediocre liturgical music, so we want a place with a good choir that sings traditional songs. I also want a church with an active Hispanic ministry where we can attend Spanish Mass at least once a month. On top of this we want a vibrant community that is active in social justice, interested in discussing and sharing their faith and deepening their understanding of the Church and God.

With all that criteria we set out to find the right fit — and it turned out to be much harder than we expected. One church had a bad sound system and we couldn’t understand anything. One church had horrible music. The priest at one wasn’t charismatic enough. One had no cry room. One had no social justice ministry. And so on, and so on: bad homilies, not diverse enough, no Spanish Mass, no English Mass, not welcoming enough, too big, too small.

Within a fifteen-minute drive we can get to at least 12 churches so we sampled a lot. Feeling pretty unfulfilled with our search, Brandon and I sat down to discuss our priorities.

After all this church shopping, we realized how jerky we were being. The Church is made up of people and people aren’t perfect. How could we expect to find the “perfect” parish and hold churches to such a high standard when we ourselves are far from being perfect parishioners? We typically show up during the Gloria due to figuring out how to get around with our two little ones in tow. We distract people around us when we’re attempting to squeeze our way into a pew after Mass has already started, not to mention that Olivia is certainly no angel during Mass once we’re settled. We have yet to start giving at church again on a regular basis, and for now we don’t even have much time to give to the parish.

Thinking about these points definitely knocked me off my high horse. How could I criticize the priest for not doing cartwheels to keep my attention during his homily? Or criticize the choir for being slightly flat when singing the entrance song? We don’t go to Mass to be entertained, we go to grow in grace and in faith and to worship God in communion with others. Whether the liturgy is done well or not, it is still worthy of our time. If God can be patient with all of my imperfections, then I should be able to do the same with others. If the parish and the Mass are good enough for Jesus to become physically present then it is certainly good enough for us to spend an hour in prayer.

We narrowed our priorities: good liturgy, welcoming environment, good Spanish and English ministries, space to accommodate young children, and a place that we could benefit from their ministries without putting much time in at the moment, but still having plenty of opportunity to get involved in later when life settles down a bit.

We finally picked one and were happy to have some consistency to our Sundays. While the Catholic Church has always been a home, we’ve finally found our home within the Church.

As most parishes do, this church holds a Fish Fry on Fridays during Lent, so we decided to celebrate our decision by enjoying the feast. We walked in, got our food and sat at a table by ourselves. We saw the pastor walk in and start greeting people. Expecting him to just say hello and move on to the next table, we were surprised when he sat down and said, “Hey, you guys are back. I’m so happy.” Then proceeded to make fish faces at Olivia while he sat and ate with us.

Yep, we’re home.

After graduating from the University of Notre Dame, Vanessa has spent time as a Catholic Worker, a case manager, and a theology teacher. She now works for a Catholic school and is a freelance writer who lives in Austin with her husband and three sweet little girls. See more articles by Vanessa Gonzalez Kraft

Parish-hopping, or life-saving?

http://crazystable.squarespace.com/journal/2012/4/13/parish-hopping-or-life-saving.html

By Brenda, April 13, 2012

This past weekend, our beloved faith community, the Oratory Church of St. Boniface, was featured in a surprisingly admiring profile in the New York Times. I guess we’re “progressive” enough to have bypassed the Times’ Catholicism gag reflex, but we are also orthodox, liturgically traditional (and magnificent), and growing. Notably, we are a “parish of intention,” drawing most of us from other, geographically defined parishes in the city and beyond. (The immediate environs are mostly office space, although new condos and hotels are springing up and sending us new members, too.)

All this raises, amid the good feelings, some questions about the idea of parish “hopping” or “shopping.” The notion of a local parish is deeply entrenched, especially in New York City, where many Catholics still identify themselves by parish rather than neighborhood. [Example: I was born in Richmond Hill, Queens. A fellow Queens Catholic will inevitably ask me if I was born into St. Benedict or Holy Child Jesus. The answer is: the former.] So: Should one not “bloom where one is planted”?

And all I can answer is: We tried. God, how we tried, starting back in childhood. My dad, an adult convert, tried gamely to embrace post-Vatican II reforms, but he fell in love with the Church of Latin and incense. I can’t imagine what it cost him to sit supportively while my “folk group” at St. Anastasia strummed their way through “Teach Your Children.” Occasionally, to keep his sanity (and sanctity), we would venture afield for liturgical respite at a more traditional mass, or a parish rumored to have a beautiful pipe organ that was still put to good use. We once tried a semi-outlawed Tridentine mass out on Long Island somewhere; my dad was so orthodox that he insisted upon hearing a licit mass first because the Latin mass wouldn’t “count.”

Flash forward over the years. I have lived in many parishes. All had the most important thing: the true presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Many also had dedicated and able clergy and reasonably welcoming communities. All had uniformly ghastly music, but we got used to it. (My dad’s trick was to bury his head in his hands prayerfully after Communion, unobtrusively giving him the chance to place a finger over each ear and drown out the caterwauling.) We tried to “offer up” the mechanical homilies, the occasional lunatic outbursts of liturgical dance, the nun-led schemes to festoon the churches with hideous felt-and-burlap banners. In most parishes, I served as a catechist in some well-intentioned but futile Sunday-school program. But when we moved from one neighborhood to another, with every parish leave-taking, we felt as if we were taking our hands from a bucket of water.

Finally, my husband and I bought a house in Brooklyn. For a decade, we tried to bloom where we landed, to be the “fresh blood” that our fading, once-grand local parish needed, at least in its English-speaking community. (There were vibrant Spanish and Haitian masses, but we are neither Latino nor Creole-speaking.) Meanwhile, family illness and financial stress battered us. Every Sunday, we dutifully endured sermons (mostly scolding) from embittered and exhausted priests, or struggled to glean the garbled message from good-hearted missionary priests who barely spoke English. We had a baby while still care-giving for a host of frail elders. We were spiritually dying of thirst. If you had said the words “pastoral care” to us, we would have had not the faintest inkling what you meant.

And so we “hopped” one morning to St. Boniface, where a friend (a refugee from this same parish) said the music was beautiful. It was more than accomplished; it was infused with caring and awe. The welcome was immediate; there was even a coffee hour (“rather Protestant,” my mother observed dryly). And the homily was warm, articulate, and compassionate, drawn from the lived experience of the priest and delivered as I would speak to an old friend. That’s it, in a word: Caring. Everyone seemed to care.

We came more often, for a spiritual booster shot, before returning to our sad, mostly empty home church. (No, I will not name it.) Our daughter was in a stroller, just old enough to start observing her surroundings when we’d say, “You’re in church now!” I looked around at the handful of elderly parishioners, listened to the umpteenth rant that we were failing to give enough money, cringed at the wildly off-key leader of song performing her solo. I had prepared class after class of Mexican and Caribbean kids from struggling families to receive their First Holy Communion in this church. Our daughter had been baptised there, by a gifted pastor who burned himself out trying to save the place after years of neglect had brought it to the brink of insolvency. We were tapped out. Like the woman at the well, I felt like saying, “Give me this water to drink so that I don’t have to come here anymore!”

Our decision to shop and then hop was a painful one, but one I cannot regret. Often, you can do things for your children that you couldn’t do for yourself. And I couldn’t bear to have my daughter think “Church” was those bare, ruined choirs.

In the years that followed, the community at St. Boniface–not just the clergy, but countless friends–have buoyed us up, inspired us, and modeled Christ for us. I have laughed there (which would make our founder, St. Philip Neri, very pleased) and also wept there, and never have I struggled alone.

And this past Christmas, two of my daughter’s friends in Catholic high school asked to join us for midnight mass. They loved it. If you know teenagers, you know that this is a miracle.

I am not certain how our geographic parish is doing these days; well, I hope. It is, at least, still open, although its school closed a few years ago. (Our daughter went to another Catholic parochial school nearby, since St. Boniface doesn’t have a school.) We transplanted ourselves where we were able to bloom, in a parish that was itself dying until a visionary community rolled up its sleeves and got to work. And now I feel like Peter asking Jesus, “Lord, where else would we go?”

Meeting them where they are: a profile of an “intentional parish” in Brooklyn

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/04/meeting-them-where-they-are-a-profile-of-an-intentional-parish-in-brooklyn/

By Deacon Greg Kandra, April 10, 2012

I missed this on Good Friday — I was otherwise engaged — but it’s worth a read. It looks at a growing phenomenon in the Church: people seeking out parishes outside of their geographic boundaries.

From the New York Times:

St. Boniface attracts an average of 700 people a weekend, remarkable when only about a third of Roman Catholics registered with the Diocese of Brooklyn and the Archdiocese of New York attend services on an ordinary Sunday, according to a spokesman for the organizations. Social justice programs, like a secular nonprofit group that helps support a community in Kenya, and homilies flecked with literary allusions draw a diverse and impressive crowd, with many writers, civic leaders and professionals in the mix.

The church’s high ritual and its open and inclusive approach appeal to people born to the faith, converts, Christians of other denominations and, particularly, young families. The priests have also made a special point of welcoming Catholics who have been distressed by some of the church’s politics or its sometimes rigid hierarchy.

St. Boniface is an example of an intentional parish, a phrase some members of the clergy use to describe a destination church that attracts people from beyond its geographic boundaries. Many gay and lesbian Catholics travel to the Church of St. Francis Xavier in Chelsea. Some traditionalists attend the Latin Mass at the Church of St. Agnes in Midtown, and foreign language speakers often go distances to hear Mass in their mother tongues. But St. Boniface stands out because the vast majority of those who worship there do not live within the parish’s boundaries but come from across Brooklyn and Manhattan, some even from the suburbs.

There are many denominations of Protestants, allowing worshipers to choose churches that reflect their values and priorities. But until recently, parish shopping was unheard of among Catholics, who, for generations, went lockstep to their local churches.

Indeed, Catholics in New York’s immigrant enclaves often identified themselves according to parish, not neighborhood.

“It was just the vernacular, ‘Which parish do you live in?’ ” recalled Justice Robert J. Miller of the New York State Supreme Court, who grew up in Brooklyn. He now drives to St. Boniface from Ditmas Park, Brooklyn, but in the 1950s, he said, the parish “was your world.”

Catholics no longer live in a Catholic world, explained David Gibson, author of “The Coming Catholic Church: How the Faithful Are Shaping a New American Catholicism,” and a St. Boniface parishioner.

“Catholicism now is more about making choices,” he said, and for some, that means traveling to parishes where they feel affirmed.

“Meeting them where they are” is a mantra among St. Boniface’s five priests and a lay brother, who make it a point to invite new faces to monthly home-cooked lunches in the rectory.

But the inclusive philosophy has a stickier side. While the priests hold true to and convey all the church’s teachings, whether from the Vatican, the United States Conference of Bishops or the Diocese of Brooklyn, they accept that not everyone in the pews does.

When a lesbian couple approached one of the priests, the Rev. Mark Lane, about baptizing their child, they were afraid he would turn them away, he said. But they were welcomed. For Father Lane, 55, the parish’s openness simply reflected Christ’s teachings to love everyone. Even if that could be taken as an implicit critique of the church’s position on homosexuality, the parish did not make the family occasion into a cause.

“The danger is, you turn that into a platform and forget about the persons involved, and I think that’s wrong,” Father Lane said. The two mothers stood at the font with their child along with everyone else. “The symbol is visually powerful, but that’s enough.”

The priests prefer to address controversial issues like same-sex marriage and the death penalty outside of Mass, and while anti-abortion marches are listed in the church bulletin, they are not announced after services. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, head of the Diocese of Brooklyn, recently wrote a letter condemning the Obama administration’s mandate that health insurance cover birth control; the letter was distributed in the church, but the priests have preferred to address the debate one on one with parishioners.

“It is not to be evasive about any important issues,” the Rev. Joel Warden said of the approach, “but rather to create hospitality so people on both extremes could feel comfortable here.”

St. Boniface’s culture is rooted in its unique structure, Father Warden added. While most Catholic churches have priests on 12-year assignments, St. Boniface’s five priests and its brother are committed to the parish for their entire lives as part of the Community of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, an international Catholic society.

Unlike priests assigned by a diocese, Father Warden said, “I’m not here to execute an individual vision of what the parish should be.” He added, “I’m working in collaboration.”

The Brooklyn Oratory arrived at St. Boniface in 1990, when the number of parishioners had dwindled to 50. Its ministry in Downtown Brooklyn largely meant repairing the boiler, painting the gloomy nave white and gently asking prostitutes to move off the church steps. The construction of luxury condos nearby has brought new families in recent years. But the parish had to grow by word of mouth.

At the monthly social hour of the Brooklyn Oratory Young Professionals recently, three dozen parishioners in their 20s and 30s mingled around a table of pigs in blankets, carafes of wine and bottles of Brooklyn Brewery beer.

With a cup of sparkling water in hand, Amanda Straub, 38, of Park Slope, Brooklyn, said she had resumed attending Mass regularly only a year ago. The sex-abuse scandals had not kept her away, she said, nor had any particular church policy. “I just didn’t know what place it should have in my life,” she said. Having read about St. Boniface in a profile of Linda Gibbs, a deputy mayor in the Bloomberg administration, Ms. Straub went to a Saturday evening Mass. The homily enthralled her, and she kept coming back.

Pedro De Oliveira, 31, lives in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, but attends St. Boniface, where he counts the priests among his closest friends. “I think our generation asks much more, ‘Why am I doing this?’ ” he said. “They’re much less likely to go to church because it’s a rule.”

Church leaders are concerned about young people leaving the faith in the time between when they leave home and when they marry, and some consider the decline in Catholic weddings in the city — the number in the New York Archdiocese fell to 4,679 in 2010, from 10,803 in 1990 — to be a troubling indicator. Citing the problem of keeping unmarried adults in the fold, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York, recently gave parish shopping a soft endorsement. At a conference at Fordham University in January, Cardinal Dolan responded to a young Catholic disappointed with his local parish by saying: “I don’t mind telling you to be rather mercantile. If the particular parish that you’re in does not seem to be listening, there are an abundance of those that are.”

Msgr. Kieran E. Harrington, a spokesman for the Diocese of Brooklyn, is not a fan of the practice. Though the number of people who travel to parishes outside their neighborhoods is too small to make a real impact on the diocese, he said, he feels that it’s a Catholic’s duty to worship locally.

“The church is about growing where you’re planted,” said Monsignor Harrington, the pastor at the Church of St. Joseph in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, which draws longtime Haitian and Hispanic residents and recently arrived white professionals.

“It’s like a family,” he said. “You don’t choose your family.”

Serena Derryberry, 44, a physician, confessed that she felt guilty for not keeping her body — and her resources — in the struggling parish near her home. It is a soaring but broken-down cathedral where pews sit largely empty and an echo makes it impossible to hear the homily. Sitting in it, she said, “is depressing, lonely.”

“I’m too selfish,” she said, filing out of Mass at St. Boniface, her toddler son in her arms. “I want to go where I’m having a good experience, and not have to work at getting it.”

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/nyregion/oratory-church-of-st-boniface-draws-congregants-from-outside-the-parish.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=todayspaper]

Comments

While in the context of modern American thought, with endless emphasis on our multitude of “choices” of where to shop, dine, vacation, etc., the notion of “parish shopping” may seem perfectly logical, the fact remains that the practice is still illicit with certain extraordinary exceptions.

Under Canon Law parish membership is still determined by location of domicile.

One can register “extra-parochially”, but I have always understood (since I was in such a situation many years ago) that there are two conditions that must be met in order to to do so. First, the desire to register in a parish other than one’s canonical/geographic one must be motivated by “genuine pastoral need”, for which the burden of proof is entirely on you (and make no mistake about it, personal tastes regarding preaching style, liturgy, music, aesthetics, architecture, socio-political slant, identity group, etc., do not qualify as “genuine pastoral need”). Second, the pastor of the parish you wish to register in must give his consent, as he is not juridically required to minister to those outside of his geographic territory (or to put it another way, you can’t just walk in to any parish and say “I want to get married here” or “Baptize my child” or “Bury my dead sister”, as the pastor wouldn’t have any idea who you were or if you were even a practicing Catholic!).

I have long believed that the “Balkanization” of the local church began when we started getting lax about parish membership, thereby letting people start thinking of themselves as “Adjective-Catholics” (choose your adjective: liberal, conservative, traditionalist, charismatic, social-justice, Euro-, Afro-, Indio-, etc.) instead of just “Catholics” who are all subsumed in to the Body of Christ.

Since Deacon Kandra is a member of the clergy of the Diocese of Brooklyn, it pains me to let him know how many of my friends who are fellow Catholics, who live in the Diocese of Brooklyn, act and behave and talk about themselves as if they are members of the Archdiocese of New York (as I am). When I point out to them that Bishop DiMarzio is actually their Bishop and that they are indisputably under his obedience, they shrug and say things like “oh well, I like it better here (fill in parish)” or “I’m a member of the Universal Church, so it doesn’t matter” (Yes, we’re all members of the Universal Church, but within that Universal Church, we also belong to a LOCAL church under the pastoral leadership and spiritual fathership of our bishop-ordinary, and yes, our local parish priest!). I have even tried to explain to them that it could even be a sin against both charity and justice not to support their own parish, but to no avail. It falls on deaf ears.

I pray that all Catholics slay that beast of spiritual pride which says “It’s all about ME and what I want, like, prefer, etc.,”.

Christ is the vine, and we are the branches.

Gaudete in Domino Semper! –Richard M. Sawicki

This article is full of baloney. –Joan

When I move to a new place it is my practice to search out the best parish available. I wouldn’t trust the health of my body to a doctor simply because he lived on the same street, and I am far less likely to trust the health of my immortal soul to the life of a parish simply because my apartment happens to fall in a certain region. –Peregrinus

Oh, for Christ’s sake! (And I mean that literally.) Tell me church shopping doesn’t occur across the board and that just as many people aren’t fleeing the warm and the fuzzy for the rigid and the righteous. Tell me it’s just an accident of geography that whole neighborhoods full of Catholics are trads—especially when, as is common, traditional parishes are found smack in the middle of the unpopulated urbs where there aren’t any neighborhoods to speak of anymore. It’s reprehensible, apparently, when some of the Body of Christ seek welcome and nourishment for their souls outside their own front yard, but when others do, it’s the martyrs taking to the mattresses to preserve the True Faith. Kettle, meet pot. And when you’re finished with the tweezers, there’s a log in your eye that needs addressing. -Joanne K McPortland

While Richard seems to want to hide in the intricacies of Canon Law, the rest of us — including some bishops — realize that Jesus taught us that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mk 2:27)

Non-Territorial parishes are perfectly licit in Canon Law. They exist everywhere — you just don’t know about them.

–Many are known historically as “nationality parishes” which were created for one specific language group regardless of where those folks resided.

–Some bishops have given “non-territorial” privileges to inner-city parishes that cannot support themselves through membership within blighted areas of urban America.

–AND do not forget about the Military Archdiocese of the United States where ALL the parishes are “non-territorial.”

-Fiergenholt

I know a sizable number of people who are registered in my parish live outside its geographical boundaries. It is a fact of Catholic life. I know someone who lives on Staten Island and drives to Brooklyn because he likes the priests at a particular parish. He’s even changed his membership to that parish — which is in a different diocese from the one in which he lives.

What’s worse? To go out of obligation to a parish down the block with listless liturgies, bad music and half-baked homilies, or to go 30 minutes out of your way to a place that leaves you feeling like you have been spiritually challenged, uplifted and fed? -Deacon Greg Kandra

Now that the New York Times has called his attention to it, I wonder how the Bishop of Brooklyn will feel about the way Fr. Lane runs his intentional parish. The two-mother couple had a child baptized there. Do they also regularly receive Holy Communion? Would Fr. Lane welcome Barbara Johnson (the Buddhist-lesbian from Maryland) and her partner? –Chris

Actually, parochial registration is a merely a discretionary administrative act, and not part of canonical requirements (unlike the registration of conferral of sacraments). One is a member of one’s parish of domicile (personal or geographic) automatically, but one is free since the 1983 code of canon law was adopted to attend Mass and support a parish wherever one pleases within one’s diocese. Domicile is associated with certain canonical requirements (for matrimony, for example), and one has certain canonical rights in one’s parish of domicile that one does not necessarily have canonically in another parish. The non-domicile parish can choose to “register” you or not (in your case, either the parish or the diocese in question seems to have adopted a standard in that regard, but it’s not a standard of canon law as such; other places may have none whatsoever, and I believe that is more common), and can place burdens on your ability to send your children to its school that it might not place on its own canonical members. –Liam

The fact that Catholics parish shop should not constitute a news flash to anyone. This has been going on in large numbers for quite a long time. What galls about this article is the timing of this piece of “news” and the parish it highlights. Why would the NY Times choose to run an article about some Catholics choosing a liberal-ish parish in 2012? It just seems to fit the Times template- that no right-minded person would stay in a parish teaching Catholic moral truths openly and without equivocation- too easily. -Mary Russell

With the responsibility for not just me but also my wife and children, I definitely “parish shopped”. In my diocese in the late 90′s to early 2000′s that meant looking for a parish where I would not have to regularly explain to my children why what Father said in the homily was heresy – usually of the modernist, bible as non-historical myth meant to explain moral lessons, explain away all miracles variety. I spent 3 months sitting in the pews in 11 different local parishes to survey what was available. Finally my wife and I gave up trying to find a parish that would keep our children in the faith. At the parish we ended up at we have good fellowship with people our age, but there is *nothing* for high school to young adult ages. Also, the pastor gives really good homilies when he sticks to explaining the scriptures (I think he used to teach at the diocesan seminary), but he really goes off the rails when he talks politics (he appears to be a true liberal democrat) or against the military in his homilies (even though he has had an associate pastor who was a marine chaplain in Afghanistan), and his demeanor comes across as smug to many, including our children. Those “off the rails” moments are such that our children (now young adults) absolutely refuse to attend that parish. Also as a result, we now have difficulty convincing our children of the importance of attending Sunday Mass at any parish. -Art ND

The issue of attending an intentional parish is not new, especially if one looks to attend a parish which may cater to an ethnic group. For example, in the Archdiocese of Washington, we have parishes which cater to particular ethnic groups — Italian, Polish, Vietnamese, etc. — as well as parishes which have Masses and cultural events for those of a particular ethnic community. Also, since Latin Mass is not celebrated at every parish in the Archdiocese, we have people attending from many miles away. I think that the issue which bothers me is the one of the two lesbians. -A Washington DC Catholic

I’m very happy with the pastoring at my parish but I can tell you that if I had to bear uninspiring preaching week after week I’d look for another parish. People put down Fr. Corapi but that sort of inspiration is what I feel I need. How can you blame people for being bored or made to feel insignificant or taken for granted? There are people who leave the Catholic Church over poor pastoring. Is it better that they change parishes or become Protestants? –Manny

If I had stayed at the parish in my geographic boundary I wouldn’t be Catholic now. Thank God, Father allowed us to register at the parish we do go to. -Dymphna

Parish Hopping

http://www.catholicjournal.us/2013/01/30/parish-hopping/

By Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, January 30, 2013

Parish hopping is defined as moving from parish to parish in the hope of finding the “right” one. It is the Catholic version of the “church hopping” found in Evangelical, Pentecostal, and some mainline Protestant churches. (Some interesting discussions of “church hopping” can be found online.)

The reason such hopping occurs more frequently among Protestants may be explained by the fact that the primary, in some cases the sole, emphasis in their religious services is on Scripture, whereas the primary emphasis in the Catholic Mass is on the Eucharist. For obvious reasons, it is easier to find cause for complaint in the presentation of Scripture than in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Of course, enterprising complainers can discover offenses in the celebration of the Eucharist, as well. They may say, “Father Aloysius doesn’t fully kneel after the consecration” or “He mumbles ‘the body of Christ’ when he distributes communion.” In their minds, that is enough to warrant the “I’m outta here” response.

There are many other reasons (aka excuses) for parish hopping. Some people don’t like the kind of music favored by the choir director. Others are upset with the flower arrangements on the altar. Still others are outraged when sixth graders from the parish school tap dance to the tune of Ave Maria at the foot of the altar. (OK, I made that last one up.) Some just don’t like the cut of the pastor’s vestments.

Historically, a major complaint of many Catholics about their pastors has been that they talk too much about money. No doubt some of today’s parish hoppers would cite that as their reason for leaving. They expect to find, somewhere, a pastor who will have the financial skills to manage the parish and school with the few dollars they put into the basket each week . . . or at least one who will have the good grace not to whine about his inability to do so.

Some Catholics engage in parish hopping because the pastor is “too liberal.” To be fair, this reason sometimes has a solid basis in reality, notably when the pastor expresses from the pulpit views that, in times past, would have gotten him burned at the stake or at least declared a heretic. But then again, in other cases “too liberal” can be a fancy way of saying “he disagrees with me.”

An interesting variation on “He’s too liberal” is “His sermons are more about politics than spirituality.” This is not a new complaint by any means. Nor is it entirely lacking in merit. In the 1960s a friend of mine had such a reaction to his pastor. As he put it, “I can read the New York Times myself without having it read to me from the pulpit.” However, he didn’t go parish hopping in response—he dealt with his frustration in a more mature way, by grinding his teeth during the sermon.

Today’s Catholics, being more mobile than their parents, can be more adventurous in their search for the perfect parish. I know a woman who drives three hours, round trip, to attend Sunday Mass. (Apparently, there is an extraordinary dearth of acceptable churches in her area.)

Not only do conservative Catholics flee priests they deem “too liberal”; liberal Catholics also flee priests they deem “too conservative.” The offenses of the latter can include behaviors such as giving favorable mention to the Church’s teaching on birth control, abortion, or gay marriage. Such protests remind me of the Pentecostal woman given to shouting her approval of the preacher’s words. One day, the pastor was reciting the Ten Commandments. After each Commandment, the woman shouted “Amen!” or “Hallelujah!” When he reached “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” however, she turned to her neighbor and said, “Now he’s beginning to meddle.”

A number of people leave parishes not because of the substance of the homilies but because of the poor quality of their presentation. Truth to tell, the homiletics course is not among the most effectively taught in many Catholic seminaries. That could be because in Catholicism the Liturgy of the Word is subordinate to the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Or, equally plausible, because seminary professors have the same “whatever” attitude toward elocution as their peers in colleges and universities. In any case, leaving a parish expecting the next pastor to be the second coming of Fulton Sheen is likely to result in disappointment.

I am not saying there are no good reasons for leaving one parish for another but only that when people do so serially, the problem is more likely to be in them than in the parishes. More specifically, they are likely to harbor one or more of these mistaken ideas:

1. They see their role at Mass as spectators or judges. Thus their minds are programmed to cheer or boo the performance (silently, thank goodness). If they had scorecards like the ones used in diving competitions, they would hold them up at various points in the Mass—5.5 for the sermon, 8.0 for the creed, and so on. Their parish hopping is akin to channel surfing.

Such people have never considered attending Mass as participants rather than spectators—that is, giving thanks and praise, reenacting the Last Supper, reverently receiving Christ’s body and blood, and pledging obedience to God’s word, instead of just watching the priest do these things. If they accepted such active, personal involvement in the Mass, they would be less inclined to judge the choir, the lectors, their fellow congregants, and the celebrant.

2. They expect the Mass to be a peak experience that produces wonder, awe, ecstasy, and (to borrow a phrase from an excited political commentator) “a shiver up their legs.” In other words, the spiritual equivalent of a Super Bowl halftime show. Accordingly, whenever they do not have that experience at Mass, they conclude there is something wrong with the celebrant, the choir, the ushers, and even the Mass itself. And so they set out in search of a parish that offers constant peak experiences.

The truth, alas, is that there is no such parish, nor is there any other place that meets that expectation. Just as mountain peaks rise up from valleys, so peak experiences rise up from unremarkable, even humdrum events. (This truth is also missed by those who strive to make church services, Catholic or Protestant, more and more exciting and relevant on the assumption that doing so will necessarily make them more meaningful.)

3. They assume that if a subject, event, ritual, or person bores them, there must be something wrong with it or him. It never occurs to them that they themselves may be the problem. To be sure, sameness and repetitiveness (as one might find in, say, a bad homily) can tempt us to disinterest. But whether we submit to that temptation or not is a matter of our mental disposition and free will.

G. K. Chesterton made an interesting observation about different reactions to monotony: “[Children] always say, ‘Do it again’; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, ‘Do it again’ to the sun; and every evening, ‘Do it again’ to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.”

This observation deepens our understanding of Jesus’ admonition: “Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Parish hopping is the contemporary form of Phariseeism, proclaiming how wonderful we are and wishing the rest of the world would shape up. (If the Pharisees of old had owned cars, it’s a good bet they would have been synagogue hoppers.)

The cure for parish hopping is awareness that God won’t be judging us on how many flaws we found in Father Aloysius, but in how many we conquered in ourselves. Focusing on that fact will both make us better Christians and save us a lot of gas.

Catholic Church Hopping

http://caribbeancatholic.blogspot.in/2013/03/catholic-church-hopping.html

Posted by Sean, March 17, 2013

One Sunday I saw a priest from the Parish I serve at, at the parish church that I live near to. He looked at me as if to ask “Why are you here?” Before that moment I never thought that church hopping to be a problem…. after all, I only go to Catholic Churches.
In fact, besides the parish that I serve at, I go to three other Parishes for Mass, depending on the time of their Mass.
Now, I do not know if the church has an official opinion on church hopping among Catholic Churches, but here are some points against it:
In almost every church in the early times there were:

groups that had honest seekers (Acts 17:11),

false teachers (Galatians 1:6-9),

strong and sometimes clashing personalities (Philippians 4:2),

and advocates for the needy (1 Corinthians 16:1-3).

They sang songs (Colossians 3:16),

listened to sermons (Acts 20:7-12)

and gave food to the hungry (Acts 6:1).

But to belong to a church COMMUNITY is very important. It helps us to grow in faith and piety:

helps us with involvement in a local body of believers for mutual exhortation (Hebrews 10:24-25),

spiritual growth (James 5:16),

manifestation of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11)

and there are those who will help us when we fall.

Parish Hopping – is it OK?

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=638110

Catholic Answers Forums, January 24, 2012

I’m currently registered at a parish near my home (biking distance=10 minutes tops). I try to go to my parish for Mass as often as possible, and take weekly classes there regarding the Faith, and submitted a form to join a ministry (still waiting… they may have forgotten during the Christmas rush!).
A lot of the time though, I find myself in a position where Mass at another parish is just more convenient.
I want to hear of any disadvantages of going to Mass at a parish that is not “your own”.
N.B. I just got a job and my first paycheck came in a few days ago so whichever parish I was going to was only getting pocket change at best. On the other hand, now that I’m going to be having money, should I favor my parish with donations? Or just where ever I am at the time?

That is not parish hopping, that is just choosing the best parish for you to attend and that is always possible. Parish hopping is moving every time the priest says something you don’t like, they redecorate in colors you hate, you get in an argument with the CCD director, you don’t like the food at the parish social or the brand of coffee they serve after Mass.

I belong to one parish that I support all the time. They get a donation for every Sunday, whether I’m there or not. If I have to be at Mass in another parish on a Sunday I will put a few dollars in the collection plate, but nowhere near as much as I give my own parish. That said, I know a pharmacist who used to relieve other pharmacists when they went on holidays or maternity leave or whatever… Judging by what he did in our parish, he must have got envelopes from every parish where he knew he’d be for a while and he gave to each parish as though it were his own.

This report to be updated with my own sad personal experiences in the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore -M

↧

Leading “Catholic” dissenters & heretics

July 29, 2013, 10:09 am

≫ Next: Charism gifts building up the Church – BRO IGNATIUS MARY

≪ Previous: Parish Membership by Family Card

JULY 26, 2013

Leading “Catholic” dissenters & heretics

I. FROM A DISSENTING ORGANIZATION:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Preparation for the Papacy

HOW “THE VATICAN’S ENFORCER” RAN THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (1979 – 2005)

Individuals notified, silenced, excommunicated, or otherwise investigated and disciplined/censured by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, directly or indirectly

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2006movingforwardbylookingback.pdf

EXTRACT

Catholics for a Free Choice, Washington, DC

cffc@catholicsforchoice.org

;

www.catholicsforchoice.org

;

1967

Archbishop Clarence G. Isenmann

Details of investigation unavailable/unclear

1968

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, OP

Dared to question Mary’s virginity; Karl Rahner and the Dutch church successfully defended him.

1974

Dr. John McNeill, SJ

Investigations on McNeill for his views on homosexuality began.

1975

Fr. Hans Küng

While Ratzinger was archbishop of Munich, investigations began regarding his views on papal infallibility.

Fr. Bernard Häring, C.Ss.R.

Originally in the Vatican’s good graces, especially under John XXIII, he was publicly critical of Humanae Vitae upon its release (1968) and not long afterward became the subject of investigation by the CDF. He was equally critical of John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor. The charges against him were never entirely resolved before his death in 1998.

1977

Dr. John McNeill, SJ

He was silenced and forbidden to discuss homosexuality or minister to homosexuals.

Other noteworthy investigations and censures leading into Ratzinger’s tenure:

1979

Fr. Hans Küng

His license to teach Catholic theology was revoked, but he remained on the Tübingen faculty, teaching ecumenical theology instead.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, OP

The CDF began investigating him for his Christology, but bowed to international pressure the following year to end the drive for a trial. Schillebeeckx has since continued to write pieces that purportedly conflict with church teaching, and he receives notifications regularly.

Fr. Anthony Kosnik

Came under fire for his theology in Human Sexuality, a study he co-authored on behalf of the Catholic Theological Society.

The Vatican disliked the study’s theology and Kosnik was pressured to resign in 1982 from Ss. Cyril and Methodius Seminary. Seminarians and faculty threatened to boycott the school’s spring commencement if Kosnik was not reinstated. He got his job back, but was forced to resign the next year.

Fr. Jacques Pohier, OP

For his teachings on the resurrection, he has the distinction of being the first theologian John Paul II disciplined as pope. Then the dean of theology faculty at a French Dominican theological school, he could no longer teach theology, say Mass or participate in liturgies. He left the Dominicans six years later.

Fr. Charles Curran

Investigations begin.

Dates unspecified

Fr. Karl Rahner

One of the 20th century’s theological giants, Rahner was often in the Vatican’s eye—silenced under John XXIII, rehabilitated under Paul VI, peritus for the German bishops at Vatican II, and then back under scrutiny during John Paul II’s reign. The issues of greatest concern for the CDF from his corpus include priestly ordination, contraception and his classic notion of “the anonymous Christian.” After his death (1984) and by the time of his centenary (2004), the CDF had come around to declare him orthodox at last.

Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldáliga (Sao Félix, Brazil)

This liberation theologian was criticized on many occasions for his political engagement beyond the borders of his own diocese.

Fr. August Bernhard Hasler

This priest, historian and former staffer of the Vatican’s Secretariat for Christian Unity published his 1979 book How the

Pope Became Infallible, a study of Pius XII’s push for this power. Under fire like Küng

Six Claretian priests from Madrid

They were noted in an NCR article by Dawn Gibeau (“Today’s sinners in eyes of the Vatican may very well be tomorrow’s saints,” February 3, 1995), but no further details on dates or the reason for their being investigated were mentioned.

Msgr. Luigi Sartori

The former president of the Italian Theological Association and consultant to the Secretariat for Non-Christians was denounced to the CDF by the Padua branch of Communion and Liberation, and as a result his teaching privileges at the Lateran University were severely restricted.

1980s

The Society of Jesus

In a New Yorker article (May 2, 2005), Jane Kramer argues that Jesuits were systematically targeted because their commitments and activities (e.g. liberation theology) were out of step with the ascendant priorities and values of the Vatican in John Paul II’s papacy. She wrote: “During [Ratzinger's] first ten years as Prefect [of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], the Jesuits were censured for challenging papal teachings on contraception, parts of their constitution were suspended, and their Vicar General, Vincent O’Keefe, a passionate advocate for social justice, was removed.” (39) She does not make O’Keefe’s particular role clear.

1982

Bishop Alan C. Clark

This bishop of East Anglia was co-chair of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), a group working toward theological rapprochement between the two churches. He was investigated concerning ambiguities and points of theological conflict—real presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, interpretation of scripture and women’s ordination—in a report he wrote on the commission’s behalf.

Fr. Anthony Kosnik

Following the investigation for the Human Sexuality study, Kosnik was pressured to leave his faculty post at SS. Cyril & Methodius Seminary. The school rallied successfully to get him reinstated, but he was eventually forced to resign altogether the following year.

1983

Sr. Mary Agnes Mansour, RSM

She was the director of Michigan’s Department of Social Services, where her job included administering Medicaid funds for abortions. She had taken the job with her bishop’s permission, yet this was deemed to conflict with her role as a nun. According to the Sisters of Mercy, “she said that while she personally abhorred abortion, as long as it was legal it would be unfair to permit it only for women who had the means to afford it.” A papal emissary delivered an ultimatum:

leave her DSS post or leave her order. She reluctantly chose the latter. A lifelong educator and social reformer, she was inducted into the Michigan Women’s Hall of Fame in 1988.

Sr. Elizabeth Morancy, RSM & Sr. Arlene Violet, RSM

Both women were active in political life in Rhode Island, having been elected to office as state representative and attorney general respectively. Like Mansour above, each was presented with an ultimatum and chose to follow her ministerial vocations.

Fr. Ernesto Cardenal

John Paul II scolded this liberation theologian, priest and poet (and four other priests) for serving in the Sandinista government. Rhode Island, having been elected to office as state representative and attorney general respectively.

Like Mansour above, each was presented with an ultimatum and chose to follow her ministerial vocations.

John Paul II scolded this liberation theologian, priest and poet (and four other priests) for serving in the Sandinista government.

Cardinal Joseph Höffner

Archbishop of Cologne, investigated regarding the “Work of the Angels.” No further details available.

Abbé Georges de Nantes

This archconservative French priest’s notoriously anti-Vatican II activities (since the opening of the council) earned him a

suspension from his superior. Comparable to Marcel Lefebvre, he founded the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation (CRC) and wrote “Books of Accusation” against Paul VI, John Paul II and the author of the 1993 Catechism.

Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc

Excommunicated for consecrating (from 1976 onward) many bishops without papal approval, thus fostering splinter groups, courting schism and risking apostolic succession.

Fr. Matthew Fox, OP

This Dominican theologian taught what he called “creation spirituality,” which, critics argued, “contaminated” Catholic teachings and practices with New Age sensibilities. For “advocating panentheism,” and additionally for his views on sexuality and original sin, he was censured and forbidden to teach. He was dismissed from the Dominicans in 1993 for refusing to return home to the Midwest and was received as an Episcopal priest in 1994.

1984

Sr. Barbara Ferraro, SND de Namour & Sr Patricia Hussey, SND de Namour

They were among a group of 91 priests and nuns who had signed a full-page ad in the New York Times that noted the diversity of opinions about abortion among Catholics. The Vatican ordered all signatories to recant and withdraw support for the ad. Ferraro and Hussey refused and finally left their order in 1988.

Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez

The CDF issues an instruction against certain aspects of liberation theology.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, OP

Investigated for his 1980 book The Ministry in the Church, in which he espoused the “Protestant” notion that a Christian community should have some say in choosing its ministers.

Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND & Fr Robert Nugent, SDS

Investigations begin into their ministry (New Ways Ministry) to homosexuals.

1985

Fr. Leonardo Boff, OFM

The renowned Brazilian human rights advocate, liberation theologian and suspected Marxist was silenced (forbidden to teach, speak or write and suspended from religious duties) for his liberation theology book Church: Charism and Power. The CDF’s concerns lay in the areas of church structure, dogmas and revelation, the exercise of sacred power and the role of the laity. International pressure led to the silencing being lifted one year later.

Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen

As a result of Abp Hickey’s report (see 1983), the Vatican appoints an auxiliary bishop to Seattle and transfers much of Hunthausen’s power to his subordinate.

1986

Fr. Charles Curran

Formerly a professor of moral theology at Catholic University of America, he had his license to teach Catholic theology revoked because of his challenges to Humanae Vitae and related stances on contraception and medical ethics. The underlying reason, though, was his insistence on his right to challenge (and dissent from) non-infallible teachings. CUA formally dismissed Curran the following year. He presently teaches in the Religious Studies Department at Southern Methodist University.

Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez

The CDF issues yet another instruction against certain aspects of liberation theology.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, OP

Investigated for his 1985 book The Church with a Human Face

Fr. György Bulányi, SP

This Hungarian priest and founder of the base Christian community movement was accused of heresy for encouraging the growing conscientious objector movement against compulsory military service. In 1981, the Hungarian bishops condemned his writings, forbade him to practice as a priest and forwarded his case to the CDF, which excommunicated him. He was officially rehabilitated in 1998.

1987

Fr. John McNeill, SJ

In 1986 he disobeyed his 1977 orders demanding silence about homosexuality, thus compelling the Jesuits to expel him formally. The expulsion became effective in 1987, and he has since worked as a psychotherapist in private practice and remains active in DignityUSA.

Fr. William Donn

Was similarly forced to resign from the Newman Center at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota for disagreeing with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. (It is unclear what role the CDF may have played in this matter, or whether it is more appropriately local.)

Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen

After much protest from the archdiocese and fellow bishops, the Vatican reinstates Hunthausen’s authority and exchanges the auxiliary bishop for a coadjutor instead.

1988

Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez

The CDF attempts yet another investigation of Gutiérrez.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

This staunch opponent of Vatican II reforms (such as ecumenism and the Mass in vernacular rather than Latin), who founded the Society of St. Pius X, was excommunicated for consecrating four bishops despite warnings from John Paul II, thus risking schism and jeopardizing apostolic succession.

Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND & Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS

Investigations renewed.

1990s

The Society of Jesus

Gerald Renner of the National Catholic Reporter (August 11, 2000) notes:

“Several American Jesuits have been targeted by Vatican crackdowns in recent years. Specifically, the Vatican has refused to approve at least five US Jesuits to serve as administrators or members of pontifical faculties at Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass., or Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley, Calif. The Jesuits include: Frs. William J. Rewak, Edward Glynn, Michael Buckley, David Hollenbach and John Baldovin.”

1991

Fr. Leonardo Boff, OFM

Boff was nearly silenced again, so that he would not attend and speak out at the Earth Summit (Rio de Janeiro, 1992). The following year, he “promoted himself to the state of laity” and left the Franciscans and eventually the priesthood.

1992

Fr. Eugen Drewermann

This priest and Jungian psychotherapist was criticized for exegeting biblical texts with psychoanalytic criteria in mind (see his 1988 book Tiefenpsychologie und Exegese), as well as for his views on resurrection and the virgin birth. In 1991 his archbishop denied him the right to preach or teach and began proceedings against him.

Fr. André Guindon, OMI

Investigations began into his 1986 book, The Sexual Creators, specifically for his views on homosexuality, premarital sex and birth control.

1993

Sr. Ivone Gebara, SND

The Brazilian nun was investigated by her nation’s bishops for having publicly defended legal abortion. They resolved the matter by having her affirm her opposition to abortion.

1995

Bishop Jacques Gaillot

He was removed from his post as bishop of Evreux, France, for unorthodox stances and conduct regarding poverty, homelessness and contraception. He was instead sent to lead the diocese of Partenia, a long-lost African diocese, and is doing so as a virtual diocese online (partenia.org).

Mrs. Vassula Ryden

This Greek Orthodox woman claimed to see visions and bring messages directly from Jesus. The CDF warned the faithful of errors in her writings and speeches and claimed that these were products of her meditation rather than any divine or supernatural source.

Sr. Ivone Gebara, SND

The CDF picked up where the Brazilian hierarchy left off (see below, 1993), reviewed her other writings, and pressured her order to discipline her. Se was silenced for two years.

Sr. Lavinia Byrne, IBVM

Bishop John Kinney (St. Cloud, Minnesota) reported to the CDF the US publication of Byrne’s 1994 book Woman at the

Altar, which argued for women in the priesthood; by a stroke of timing, it was already in process at the UK publisher when John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. She asked that the document be included as an addendum to her text. Pending further investigation, her superiors asked her to refrain from teaching or speaking publicly about women’s ordination.

Sr. Carmel McEnroy, RSM

In 1994, McEnroy was one of hundreds who signed an open letter to John Paul II in response to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, requesting further discussion on the issue of women’s ordination. The letter ran in the National Catholic Reporter and did not include her school affiliation. Nonetheless, she was fired for doing so, and without due process. (As with William Donn’s

1987 case below, it is unclear what role the CDF may have played in this matter, or whether it is more appropriately local. Also, as with the silencing of Charles Curran and many others, this points up the raw tensions between academic/ intellectual freedom and the CDF’s expectations that theologians should present—and assent to—church teaching without ever engaging it critically.)

1997

Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, OMI

This notification was a response to the escalation of complaints from the bishops’ conference of Sri Lanka against Balasuriya for his 1994 book Mary and Human Liberation. The bishops exhorted the faithful to avoid this text, which, they said, “contained statements incompatible with the faith of the Church regarding the doctrine of revelation and its transmission, Christology, soteriology and Mariology.” The final push was Balasuriya’s refusal to sign a prepared profession of faith; he argued that he was still within the bounds of orthodoxy. After prolonged censure and continued public outcry, he was reinstated in 1998.

Fr. Marciano Vidal, CSsR

The CDF began its investigation of Vidal based on his body of work, with specific attention to a three-volume
manual he wrote on morality. They took specific issue with his portrayal of the relationship between scripture, tradition, the magisterium and the theologian, as well as particular points on person, sexuality, bioethics, social morality, eschatology and utopia.

1998

Perry Schmidt-Leukel

This lay theologian came under fire for his 1997 book Theology of Religions; he has since not been permitted to teach in German Catholic theology departments.

Fr. Anthony de Mello, SJ

The renowned retreat master, spiritual director and psychotherapist was censured posthumously (d. 1987) for not being

Christocentric enough and, more generally, not hewing sufficiently closely to Catholic orthodoxy, i.e. being too open to readers and seekers who were not specifically Catholic or even religious.

Fr. Jacques Dupuis, SJ

Investigated for suspected heresy in his 1998 book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism

Sr. Lavinia Byrne, IBVM

Ratzinger directs Liturgical Press (owned and run by the Benedictine monks at St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota) to destroy all 1,300 remaining copies of Byrne’s book Woman at the Altar in stock.

Fr. Paul Collins, MSC

This Australian priest, church historian, and broadcaster was investigated for his book Papal Power, and the CDF accused him of holding “an erroneous concept of papal infallibility,” as well as misunderstanding sensus fidelium to include only the laity and not the hierarchy as well.

1999

Michael Stoeber

The board of trustees at the Catholic University of America denied tenure to this professor of Eastern religions in the Religion and Religious Education department despite unanimous approval by the Academic Senate. There was concern about some of his writings that compared Hindu reincarnation and Christian resurrection. The CDF became involved in the review, since all eight US cardinals and 16 other bishops are on the board; it was at one cardinal’s request that Stoeber’s work was scrutinized.

Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND & Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS

The CDF finally sanctioned them for not adequately representing authentic church teaching about homosexuality. Their religious congregations did likewise, essentially prohibiting them from participating in public ministry to homosexuals. Nugent accepted the sanctions; Gramick, in conscience, order to join the Loreto Sisters in 2004.

2000

Sr. Lavinia Byrne, IBVM

Under fire for her beliefs about contraception and, more significantly, the ordination of women to the priesthood, she refused to recant and was compelled to leave religious life.

Prof. Dr. Reinhard Meßner

(Innsbruck, Austria) This historian of liturgy came under scrutiny for his writings (done while a graduate student) on the sacramental life of the church. The CDF issued a 16-point censure, with the main points being that:

1) Thanks to the Magisterium’s role in interpreting revelation, later (and present) church practice should not be evaluated based on early church experiences;

2) Christ definitively instituted all seven sacraments, as well as apostolic succession; and

3) “There can be no contradiction between the declarations of church authorities and the practice of the church in liturgies.

In other words, historical liturgical texts or data may not be regarded as authoritative when they conflict with church teaching.”

Fr. Roger Haight, SJ

The CDF notified him of questions regarding his Christology and theological method as written in his 1999 book Jesus: The Symbol of God. He was suspended from his teaching post at Weston Jesuit School of Theology.

2001

Fr. Paul Collins, MSC

Resigns from active priesthood following his investigation (details 1998). He has continued speaking out on issues of sexual abuse and aspects of the papal office.

Fr. Antonio Rosmini Serbati

The case involving this 19th-century priest, whose works were once on the list of prohibited books, was reconsidered and partially rehabilitated.

Fr. Marciano Vidal, CSSR

Vidal’s writings as investigated (see below, 1997) would be revised and include evidence of the notification, but would not be permitted for use in theological formation.

Fr. Jacques Dupuis, SJ

Censured, but never officially disciplined, for his teachings on religious pluralism that (among other things and by Ratzinger’s reading) did not insist sufficiently on Jesus Christ’s unique capacity to save.

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo

Long an unconventional healer and unofficial exorcist as well as a critic of what he perceived as the hierarchy’s “toleration” of homosexuality and lack of celibacy within the priesthood, he was threatened with excommunication for attempting marriage to Maria Sung through the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church and refusing the discipline of celibacy. He renounced the marriage.

Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, OP

Seeking a haven from his conservative archbishop, Gutiérrez joined the Dominicans.

Fr. Roger Haight, SJ

The CDF was not satisfied with the clarifications he offered as responses to their questions, so it began a full investigation of his work.

2002

The Danube Seven

In late June, seven women were “illicitly and invalidly” ordained as priests, and were promptly excommunicated on the Feast of Mary Magdalene (July 22) when they did not repent as the CDF ordered.

Fr. Willigis Jäger, OSB/Ko-un Roshi

This German Benedictine and Zen master was ordered to cease all public activity (teaching, writing and presenting). According to John L. Allen, Jr., of the National Catholic Reporter (March 1, 2002), “Jäger has been faulted for playing down the Christian concept of God as a person in his work as a spiritual guide, and for stressing mystical experience above doctrinal truths.” In other words, he questioned the relationship between spiritual experience and doctrinal claims.

Fr. Josef Imbach, OFM Conv.

Assigned a year of “reflection,” or suspension, while his 1995 book on miracles (in English translation, Miracles: A 21^st Century Interpretation, 1988) was under review.

Again, John L. Allen, Jr., writes in the NCR: “Imbach…was accused of not believing in the divinity of Jesus, of refusing the magisterium of the church, of describing the gospels as teaching texts rather than historically reliable accounts, and of excluding the possibility of miracles. He denied holding these views.”

Fr. Thomas Aldworth, OFM

This Chicago theologian, author and pastor was censured for how he presented teachings on original sin and related points in two books he wrote for popular audiences, Shaping a Healthy Religion, Especially If You Are Catholic (1985) and Fashioning a Healthier Religion (1992).

2004

Fr Roger Haight, SJ

Was found to be in grave doctrinal error and banned from teaching Catholic theology. The CDF took issue with his take on Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity and the meaning and value of Jesus’ death and resurrection, among other points.

2005

Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ

Under pressure from the CDF, the Jesuits removed Reese from his post as editor of America magazine for his insistence on presenting multiple points of view (and not only official church teaching) on such hot-button issues as HIV/AIDS, homosexuality, abortion/contraception, priestly celibacy and pluralism/ecumenism. A renowned scholar on church organization and politics, he has since gone on sabbatical at Santa Clara University.

Several of those listed by Catholics for a Free Choice [a euphemism for Catholics who are pro-abortion and euthanasia, pro-homosexuality and same sex marriage, pro-married priests, pro-women's ordination, in fact pro almost everything that the Catholic Church opposes] are New Agers. A few decades earlier, the same priests and nuns, even a slew of bishops [see following pages] would have been branded as the heretics that they are. If Rome has castigated or censured or excommunicated them, it is for very good reason.

The inclusion of the pro-choice anti-life “Catholic” lobby’s vilification of Cardinal Ratzinger’s offensive against their dissent and error is for academic purposes. One need not take their defenses too seriously.

“…he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects ALL faith.”

-Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896

II. FROM A CATHOLIC MINISTRY:

Information Related to Specific Dissenting Catechetical/Evangelization Programs

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/index.html

Title	Author	Topics
Renew 2000	(compilation)	A large quantity of information is available on our Renew page.
Should ALPHA be used in a Catholic Context?	Gillian Van der Lande	An article describes the ALPHA program in Europe.
Is ALPHA for Catholics?	William J. Cork, D.Min.	The purpose of this paper is to describe the process and content of the Alpha Course, and to evaluate whether Alpha, either in its original form or in the “Alpha for Catholics” model, should be recommended to Catholic parishes looking for evangelization tools.
Catholic Action Network	Jeff St.Louis	Promoting ordination of women among a plethora of other “social justice” issues.
Ministry of Mothers Sharing (MOMS)	Women for Faith and Family	A brief but telling analysis of the MOMS program.

Dissenting authors and speakers

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm

Matthew 12:30: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

2 John 1:9-11: Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

Galatians 5:19-21: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts [wicca], enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of these which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

Matthew 18:15-17: If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Solemn Warning!

The following people are those who

claim

to be Catholic but dissent from the Truth as handed down from Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, the Divine Word, to His Apostles and their successors. Unfortunately, even clergy are included on this list. However, since the beginning of Christianity, history shows that even

heresy

can begin with clergy, one notable example being the priest Martin Luther who started all of Protestantism.

These people are commonly associated with various Dissident Organizations or beliefs as indicated (see also the

Dissident Organization page

). The names of these individual dissidents, which are listed in alphabetical order by common dissent topic, are offered for your education and awareness. This list is not complete and will be modified as more information is learned over time. Read also on

how does a person get placed on this list

This set of people is unfortunately acting like JUDAS – Just Undermine Doctrine And Spirituality!

Since ”

God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth that all men be saved

” (1 Timothy 2:3), remember that it is your duty to pray for these people so that they may embrace the full Truth of the Catholic Faith! God’s Love, Mercy and Forgiveness are boundless for the repentant sinner.

Note: each topical section is sorted by last name to simplify browsing (or just use our

search engine

Abortion and Euthanasia

Abortion and Euthanasia
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League‘s “Deadly Dozen.”
Sr. Mary J. Bujak	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Sr. Margretta Dwyer	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Joan Harriman	National Organization for Women member who founded Catholics for a Free Choice.
Mary Hunt	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Bishop Franz Kamphaus	German bishop in Frankfurt who, in direct defiance to cease and desist orders from the Vatican, offers counseling certificates to pregnant women who can use said certificates to obtain abortions.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)	Catholic politician, currently running for president in the Democratic party (of death) who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Fr. Arthur L. Kinsella	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Frances Kissling	President of Catholics for a Free Choice.
Sr. Marie A. Kopin	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Daniel C. Maguire	Teaches at Marquette University. Justifies abortion by saying “when the woman consents to the pregnancy … God then infuses a soul into the body,” thereby implying that killing the “fetus” is not killing a person.
Patricia Fogarty McQuillan	National Organization for Women member who founded Catholics for a Free Choice.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Meta Mulcahy	National Organization for Women member who founded Catholics for a Free Choice.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Jon O’Brien	Catholics for a Free Choice.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings . One of American Life League’s “Deadly Dozen.”
Denise Riley	Catholics for a Free Choice.
Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).

Artificial Birth Control / Sex Education
Artificial Birth Control / Sex Education
Sr. Mary J. Bujak	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Sr. Lavinia Byrne	Book titled Women at the Altar (condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith)
Bill Callahan	Catholics Speak Out (Quixote Center).
Kathy Coffey	“… We should declare once and for all that the use of birth control is a question of conscience that Catholic couples should decide for themselves. The church need not make a pronouncement on the moral good or evil of the decision …“
Fr. Charles Curran	A leader in an effort to gain signatures to oppose the Pope Paul VI Encyclical Humanae Vitae.
Sr. Margretta Dwyer	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Maureen Fiedler	Catholics Speak Out (Quixote Center).
Mary Hunt	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Fr. John Forliti	Dissenter against Humanae Vitae.
Fr. Arthur L. Kinsella	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Frances Kissling	Catholics for Contraception, a project of the Catholics for a Free Choice organization.
Sr. Marie A. Kopin	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Rosemary Radford Ruether	Promotes Catholics for Contraception, population control.
Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Fr. Richard Sparks	Dissenter against Humanae Vitae. Contributor and promoter of sex educational material being pushed in Catholic elementary schools (“Growing in Love”).

Homosexual Lifestyle Homosexual Lifestyle Homosexual Lifestyle
Sr. Mary J. Bujak	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Frank DeBernardo	Homosexuality (New Ways Ministry).
Marianne Duddy	Homosexuality (Dignity USA).
Sr. Margretta Dwyer	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Sr. Fran Ferder	Teaches that the homosexual life style is not a deviance, but a healthy alternative lifestyle. Presents at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress. Co-director of TARA: Therapy and Renewal Associates. Co-author of the book “Tender Fires: The Spiritual Promise of Sexuality” saying that “Whether we are married or single, young or old, divorced or remarried, male or female, gay or straight, celibate by choice or by circumstance, each of us is called to make the long and arduous journey of claiming our sexuality with reverence and integrating it with responsibility” and “Spirituality without sexuality is a phantom.”
Fr. John Heagle	Teaches that the homosexual life style is not a deviance, but a healthy alternative lifestyle. Presents at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress. Co-director of TARA: Therapy and Renewal Associates. Co-author of the book “Tender Fires: The Spiritual Promise of Sexuality” saying that “Whether we are married or single, young or old, divorced or remarried, male or female, gay or straight, celibate by choice or by circumstance, each of us is called to make the long and arduous journey of claiming our sexuality with reverence and integrating it with responsibility” and “Spirituality without sexuality is a phantom.”
Mary Hunt	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Philip Keane	Author of “Sexual Morality” (Paulist Press. 1977). Says that homosexual lifestyle is not immoral. In April 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ordered Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle to withdraw his imprimatur from this book.
Fr. Arthur L. Kinsella	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Sr. Marie A. Kopin	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Robert F. Miailovich	Homosexuality (President of Dignity USA).
Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND	Homosexuality (New Ways Ministry). Formally notified of her error by the Vatican and removed from her position.
Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS	Homosexuality (New Ways Ministry). Formally notified of her error by the Vatican and removed from his position.
Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza	Sex Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS).
Bishop Michael V. Seneco, CTM, DD	President of the National Conference of Independent Catholic Bishops (NCICB), a group which supports the active homosexual lifestyle.
Fr. George Wertin	Pastor of St. Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis, MN. He “totally disagrees” with Archbishop Flynn who withdrew a “Catholic” award to lesbian Kathy Itzin. He tried to have Mel White give a homily on accepting gay and lesbian lifestyles, but was also shut down by Archbishop Flynn. This parish actively promotes the intrinsically disordered homosexual lifestyle by marching in gay liberation parades and maintaining a ministry group affirming such a lifestyle.

Married Priests Married Priests
Louise Haggett	Celibacy Is the Issue (“Rent-a-Priest“)
John Horan	Published article pushing married (and women) priests in U.S. Catholic magazine.
Allen Moore	President of CORPUS, an Association for a married priesthood.
John W. O’Brien	CORPUS (Baltimore).
John Oesterle	Association of Pittsburgh Priests.
Anthony T. Padovano	CORPUS, an Association for a married priesthood.

Women Priests Women Priests
Sr. Lavinia Byrne	Book titled Women at the Altar (condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith)
Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB	A supporter of Call to Action who promotes women priests.
Paul Collins, ex-priest	Author of the books “Papal Power” and “Mixed Blessings,” who was under investigation by the Vatican claims since 1998, claims that it is far too early for definitive closure on the issue of women’s ordination.
Sr. Fran Ferder	Quixote Center book titled Called to Break Bread? A Psychological Investigation of 100 Women Who Feel Called to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church. As co-author of a National Catholic Reporter article dated 5/12/02 she states “Central to a more inclusive, open system is, of course, the need to welcome sacramental ministers from all lifestyles and both genders.”
Barbara Fiand	Theologian teaching that women should be priests.
Maureen Fiedler	Interim Co-Coordinator of Women’s Ordination Conference.
Ruth Fitzpatrick	Women’s Ordination Conference.
Fr. John Heagle	As co-author of an article printed in the National Catholic Reporter dated 5/12/02 he states “Central to a more inclusive, open system is, of course, the need to welcome sacramental ministers from all lifestyles and both genders.”
Andrea M. Johnson	Women’s Ordination Conference National Coordinator and support of Catholic Organizations for Renewal.
Sr. Elizabeth Johnson	Promotes Women priests.
Sr. Theresa Kane, R.S.M	Promotes Women priests.
Fr. Richard McBrien	Claims that a future Pope must overturn the infallible document disallowing women “priests” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
Sr. Ruth Schafer	Organized “Action Purple Stole,” a women’s ordination protest.
Christine Schenk	FutureChurch, Women in Church Leadership (WICL).
Sandra Schneiders ( cited in Renew 2000 )	Speaker at Call to Action conferences.
Karen Schwarz	Coordinates San Francisco Women’s Ordination Conference/WomenChurch.
Bishop “Willie” Walsh	Bishop of Killaloe Ireland said that he would happily ordain women and that the Church “missed out” by not doing so.
Fr. John Wijngaards	Author of “Did Christ rule out women priests?“
(Ex-Bishop) Romulo Antonio Braschi: Christine Mayr- Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris Muller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner, Angela White	Seven women who went through a mock ordination ceremony held by a schismatic ex-bishop Antonio Braschi. See their warning and subsequent formal excommunication notice here.

Hierarchical Teaching Authority of the Church Hierarchical Teaching Authority of the Church
James E. Biechler	Association for Rights of Catholics in the Church.
Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB	A supporter of Call to Action who promotes dissent. See her many articles in the National Catholic Reporter dissenting magazine.
Lisa Sowle Cahill	Complains about the Vatican’s Formal Notification for Sr. Jeannine Gramick, SSND and Fr. Robert Nugent, SDS.
Fr. Charles Curran	Promotes dissent (see entry in the artificial birth control section).
Terry Dosh	President of Association for Rights of Catholics in the Church, an organization who wants to create their faith through a “democratic” vote and constitution. Mr. Dosh should read the Vatican II documents and realize that we Catholics already have several Constitution documents.
Sr. Fran Ferder	As co-author of the book “Partnership: Men & Women in Ministry” says that “The mobilizing metaphor of this council document (Lumen Gentium, specifically its description of the Church as The People of God) remains the image of the church as a community of faith in history. The result has been a revolution in Catholic consciousness that is stronger than our words and deeper than our symbols. It is a shift from understanding the church primarily as the hierarchical institution to experiencing it as a community of disciples. It is a way of recognizing the primordial dignity of baptism as the basis for all mission and ministry.” Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium makes it perfectly clear in chapter 3 that the Church is Hierarchical.
Fr. John Heagle	As co-author of the book “Partnership: Men & Women in Ministry” says that “The mobilizing metaphor of this council document (Lumen Gentium, specifically its description of the Church as The People of God) remains the image of the church as a community of faith in history. The result has been a revolution in Catholic consciousness that is stronger than our words and deeper than our symbols. It is a shift from understanding the church primarily as the hierarchical institution to experiencing it as a community of disciples. It is a way of recognizing the primordial dignity of baptism as the basis for all mission and ministry.” Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium makes it perfectly clear in chapter 3 that the Church is Hierarchical.
Robert McClory	Promotes dissent as advancing Catholic thought and Christian teaching (U.S. Catholic magazine, May 1999). Author of the books “Power and the Papacy” (1997) and “Faithful Dissenters: Stories of Men and Women Who Loved and Changed the Church” (2000). Former board member of Call to Action.
James Muller	As chairman of Voice of the Faithful, he promotes a “democratic” church.
Terence L. Nichols	Tries to avoid the Hierarchical teaching authority of the Church by proposing a re-definition of the hierarchy as something called a “holarchy.” This is a thin disguise for a “democratic” Church.
Ingrid Shafer	Association for Rights of Catholics in the Church.
Leonard Swidler	Wants a Catholic Constitution.

True Presence of Jesus Christ – Body, Blood, Souls and Divinity – in the Eucharist [Note that all Protestant denominations also deny the true Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist]True Presence of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Souls and Divinity – in the Eucharist [Note that all Protestant denominations also deny the true Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist]
Monika Hellwig (contributor to Renew 2000)	Says that “[Jesus saying this is My Body] `more probably was intended to mean that His action of blessing, breaking, sharing and eating in such an assembly in His Name and memory was to be seen as the embodiment of the presence and Spirit and power of Jesus in the community.` “
Fr. Karl Rahner	Proposes a ” `transfinalization` ” or ” `transignification` ” which claims the ” `meaning` ” of the bread changes after Consecration – a symbol – rather than the Bread really and truly changing into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This heresy is specifically condemned in the Pope Paul VI Eucharistic Encyclical Mysterium Fidei.
Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx	Proposes a ” `transignification` ” whereby the ” `sign` ” of the bread and wine are changed into the ” `sign` ” of Jesus Christ. This heresy is specifically condemned in the Pope Paul VI Eucharistic Encyclical Mysterium Fidei.
Piet Schoonberg	Influence for Monika Hellwig and Edward Schillebeeckx.
Anthony Wilhelm	” `When we say that the bread and wine 'become Christ' we are not saying that bread and wine are Christ ... What me mean is that the bread and wine are a sign of Christ present.` “

Divorce and Re-Marriage (Adultery) [Note: this group does not follow the official annulment process in the Church]Divorce and Re-Marriage (Adultery) [Note this group does not follow the official annulment process in the Church]
Sheila Rauch Kennedy	Wants divorce and re-marriage allowed. Author of “Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage.”
Janice P. Leary	Reform of Annulment & Respondent Support, an organization attacking the annulment process.
Ingrid Shafer	Wants re-marriage without an annulment (in Association for Rights of Catholics in the Church).
Charlie Davis	As Call to Action speaker, he promotes re-marriage after divorce and claims that St. Augustine improperly interpreted some Epistles by St. Paul on the indissolubility of marriage (in order to “justify” changing of Church teachings) He was also a leader in Call to Action (N. Virginia) and a board member of Catholics Speak Out.

Mass and Liturgy Mass and Liturgy

Mary Hunt

Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).

Diann Neu
(contributor to Renew 2000)

Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER).

Theology Incompatible with the Catholic Faith
Sheila Briggs	Feminist Theology.
Fr. Patrick Brennan	Denies the value and necessity of Indulgences.
Tom Beaudoin	“Pop culture is important (e.g. be with the world),” “Pluralism can be a virtue,” “Suspicion of institutions can be a good thing,” “Humility is the center of all … teaching authority.” See the article “Irreverently Yours: A Message from Generation X” in U.S. Catholic magazine April 1999.
James Carroll, ex-priest	Wrote a book titled Constantine’s Sword: the Church and the Jews. Time magazine explains well: “a new book claims that Christianity, not just bad Christians, is to blame for the persecution of the Jews.“
Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB	A supporter of Call to Action who promotes Feminist theology.
Paul Collins, ex-priest	Author of the books “Papal Power” and “Mixed Blessings,” who was under investigation by the Vatican claims since 1998, claims that a “true and binding revelation [to obey the Church teachings] does not exist,” denies that the Church of Christ is identified with the catholic Church, and hold an erroneous view of papal infallibility, among other things.
Sr. Carol Coston, OP	Carol Coston was NETWORK’s executive director during its first 11 years and later remained on its board of directors. In a 1984 autobiographical essay, Coston said her feminist perspective, developed during the 1960s and 1970s, enabled her to see “domination” on all sides and gave her freedom to “try to transform” it, as well as to choose her own work, companions and “life-style”, and to discover “feminist spirituality.” She discussed her spirituality in a 1980 speech published by NETWORK and included in Tuite’s NARW-CWU “conscientization” kit. It draws heavily on the thought of Sr. Madonna Kolbenschlag and recommends the “positive images” to be found in the goddess traditions of Ishtar and Isis.
Fr. Anthony De Mello (contributor to Renew 2000)	Vatican ruling which states that his teachings are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.
Fr. Jacques Dupuis	Author of the book “Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism” which obtained a formal Notification from the Vatican.
Matthew Fox	Author of the book “Creation Spirituality” and the founder of a movement with the same name, he was investigated by the Vatican and subsequently dismissed from the Dominican Order in 1993. Creation Spirituality has 10 Principles which replace the 10 Commandments, among which are claims of “Divinity is as much Mother as Father” and “That we experience that the Divine is in all things and all things are in the Divine (Panentheism).” Panentheism is an old heresy which has been resurrected in New Age thought. He has “Techno-Cosmic Masses” which “integrates live music, electronics, multi-media imagery and eastern and indigenous spiritual elements to create a multi-cultural, intergenerational and ecumenical form of worship.” The real Catholic Mass makes Jesus Christ present in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Fox claims that Christianity has been spiritually destitute ever since St. Augustine came up with the doctrine of original sin. (Friends of Creation Spirituality is also part of Call to Action‘s Catholic Organizations for Renewal).
Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia	Liberation Theology.
David Gentry-Akin	Pro-feminist men.
Fr. Roger Haight	The author of the book “Jesus: Symbol of God” promotes pluralism, similar to that of Fr. Jacques Dupuis (above). He was prevented from continuing to teach and is presently under investigation by the Vatican. Any real Catholic knows that Jesus is God, and not just a symbol. He also presents at Call to Action conferences. In 2002, he promoted feminist theology, pick whatever religion suits your conscience (indifferentism) and that “Catholics need a new theology” rather than Dominus Iesus, decried the “sexist” Church because women are not leaders (priests), and chided the Church for clericalism because the laity cannot perform priestly duties.
Diana Hayes	Author of the book “And We Still Rise: an Introduction to Black Liberation Theology.”
Sr. Jose Hobday	As disciple of Matthew Fox and his creation spirituality, she has been quoted as saying that Catholic teachers “should forget about any church doctrine prior to twenty years ago cut the spiritual and emotional umbilical cord to the Church and start in a new direction.”
Mary Hunt	WomenChurch, Feminist theology.
Sr. Karol Jackowski	As the author of “Sister Karol’s Book of Spells and Blessings,” Jackowski is into new age, pagan and occult spirituality. Her books says simply: “Find your own favorite prayers, your mantra … Whatever God or divine power you call upon, whatever moves you make, whatever words you speak, whatever spell or blessing you choose, all of that now becomes charged with the magic in ritual..“
Bishop Franz Kamphaus	Supports dissent via a false freedom of conscience: “Conscience can oblige the individual to acts that are in contradiction of Church teachings …. It is the responsibility of the individual alone.”
Hans Kung	Former theologian condemned by the Vatican.
Fr. Richard McBrien	Says, among other things, that Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church, and calls into question the virginal conception of Jesus and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, and promotes dissent.
Sr. Mary John Mananzan	Feminist theology, supporter of Call to Action.
Michael Morwood, ex-priest	Author of the books “Tomorrow’s Catholic” and “Is Jesus God?” has had the former book banned by Archbishop Pell in Australia. He denies the teachings on the Divinity of Christ and the Most Blessed Trinity.
Diann Neu (contributor to Renew 2000)	WomenChurch, Feminist theology.
Sr. Carolyn Osiek	Feminist Theology. Also the author of Beyond Anger: Being a Feminist in the Church, and says that monotheism “becomes bad news” when you have to decide “whether you have a male or female God.”
Jacques Pohier	Theologian condemned by the Vatican.
Rosemary Radford Ruether	Eco-Feminist theology.
Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM	Center for Action and Contemplation, focused on the occult Enneagram.
Bishop (retired) Remi De Roo	Supports women priests, Liberation Theology, married priests, artificial contraception.
Edward Schillebeeckx	Theologian condemned by the Vatican.
Margaret Starbird	Says Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
Sr. Carmia Navia Velasco	Feminist Theology, Liberation Theology.
Fr. George Wertin	Pastor of St. Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis, MN. In a homily on Sunday, January 12th, 2003 titled “A Baptism That Transforms,” he denies the doctrine of Baptism” “People are still locked into the old sin/redemption theology that sees all human being as infected by a hereditary sin from Adam that keeps them from God.” Baptism not needed to remove original sin or personal sin but rather the sin of the world. In a July 14, 2002 homily, he preached that “we need to let go of fall/redemption theology” and “How refreshing to embrace a creation-centered spirituality.” He was written up favorably in the August 2003 ChurchWatch section of the Call to Action dissident group.

Public Supporters of Dissident Organizations Public Supporters of Dissident Organizations
Fr. Art Baranowski (contributor to Renew 2000)	Supporter of Call to Action.
Phil Berrigan (Jonah House)	Supporter of Priests for Equality.
Fr. Patrick Brennan	Supporter of Call to Action.
John Coleman, SJ	Supporter of Priests for Equality. (Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley, CA).
Fr. Michael Crosby	Supporter of Call to Action.
Sheila and Dan Daley	Supporter of Call to Action (Chicago).
William J. Davis	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Romero Institute).
Hubert Feichtlbauer	Head of We are Church in Austria.
Matthew Fox	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Friends of Creation Spirituality).
Bishop Jacques Gaillot (deposed!)	Permitted married priests to celebrate Mass, blessed homosexual unions, encouraged distribution of condoms in public schools, and worked to change Church teachings about divorce and contraception.
Saundra Glynn	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Catholics of Vision/Canada).
Jeannine Gramick, SSND	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (National Coalition of American Nuns).
Joe Grenier, Cathy Grenier	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Good Tidings).
Thomas Gumbleton (Auxiliary Bishop, Detroit)	Supporter of Priests for Equality and Call to Action.
Paul Halsall	Publishes a web page called “Radical Catholics” which support and link to all forms of dissenter information.
Rea Howarth	Supporter of Call to Action. (Northern Virginia).
Carole Howell	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Promises).
Sr. Theresa Kane	Supporter of Call to Action.
Thomas Kerwin	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Catholics for the Spirit of Vatican II).
Fintan Kilbride	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Coalition of Concerned Canadian Catholics).
Janice P. Leary	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Save Our Sacrament /Annulment Reform).
Bishop Raymond Lucker (New Ulm, MN – Deceased)	Supporter of Call to Action.
Cardinal Roger Mahoney (Los Angeles, CA)	Sponsors a “Religious Education Congress” stuffed to the gills with dissenting speakers. The recent session on April 7-9, 2000 had those such as: Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia, Sr. Fran Ferder, Sr. Barbara Fiand, Fr. Richard Rohr, Fr. Patrick Brennan, Dr. Diana Hayes, Bishop Ken Untener, Bishop Robert Morneau, Fr. Thomas Reese, Fr. Michael Crosby, Megan McKenna.
Sr. Mary John Mananzan	Supporter of Call to Action, feminist theology.
Fr. Richard McBrien	Supporter of Call to Action.
Tom McCabe	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Renewal Coordinating Community).
Robert McClory	Call to Action board member promotes others to practice dissent.
Megan McKenna	Supporter of Call to Action.
Bridget Mary Meehan	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Federation of Christian Ministries).
Bishop Robert Morneau	Speaker at various dissident conferences.
Bishop Albert Ottenweller (retired bishop of Steubenville, Ohio)	Supporter of Call to Action.
Ned Reidy, CSC	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Pathfinder Renewal Weekend).
Fr. Richard Rohr	Supporter of Call to Action.
Rosemary Radford Ruether	Founder of Call to Action.
Fred Ruof	Supporter of Call to Action (Baltimore).
Christine Schenk, C.S.J.	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (FutureChurch).
Fr. Richard Sinner	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (North Dakota Peace Coalition).
William Slavick	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Pax Christi – Maine).
Bill Thompson	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (coordinator).
Bishop Ken Untener	Supporter of Call to Action and feminist events.
Lena Woltering	Supporter of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (Fellowship of Southern Illinois Laity)

Publications and Periodicals who Publish Dissenting Material Publications and Periodicals who Publish Dissenting Material
Rev. Mark J. Brummel	Publisher of U.S. Catholic magazine.
Thomas C. Fox	Publisher of National Catholic Reporter magazine.
	The American Catholic magazine.
Fr. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., Editor in Chief	America, the magazine published by the Jesuits.

Schismatics and Sedevacantists Schismatics and Sedevacantists
Fr. Anthony Cekada	Sedevacantist who claims that Pope Paul VI, who promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass, “… imposed [was] evil, sacrilegious, faith-destroying. This is why as Catholics we reject it.“
Bishop Daniel Dolan	Sedevacantist who claims that Pope John Paul II is an apostate and that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid.
Reverend Anthony Hash, D.D.	“Presiding Bishop” of the schismatic United American Catholic Church.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre	Former head of Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) who illicitly consecrated four Bishops.
Fr. Curzio Nitogliae	Claims that Vatican II is false.
Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher, O.F.M. Cap	Sedevacantist who claims to be the new “Pope Pius XIII.”
Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI	As head of the Sedevacantist organization The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae – CMRI), claims that Vatican II and all popes after Pius XII are heretical and false, as well as that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid.
Fr. Donald J. Sanborn	Sedevacantist who claims that Pope John Paul II is an apostate and that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid.
Fr. John Trosch	Claims that Pope John Paul II is a heretical, automatically excommunicated masonic pope and that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid.

Church Renovation (“Wreckovation”)Church Renovation (“Wreckovation”)

Fr. Richard Vosko

Well known for modernist Church renovations which do not uphold the Catholic requirements.

Bishop Rembert Weakland
(now retired)

Modernist militant Bishop of Milwaukee openly defies Vatican orders that his Cathedral wreckovation does not meet Church teachings.

Speakers at the 2004 Call to Action Conference

(Note: Complete list in alphabetical order. It is unclear whether all speakers claim to be Catholic)Speakers at the 2004 Call to Action Conference

(Note: Complete list in alphabetical order. It is unclear whether all speakers claim to be Catholic)

Celeste Anderson Byrne – discusses
”

Nguzo Saba," basis for Kwanzaa

Brian David Christian – Pagan “prayer” session for “wild men of God” with “ritual, drumming, archetypes and discussion.” He was mentored by a Hopi elder.

Kathryn Christian – feminist / female god: “we honor the Holy One with feminine images”

John Chuchman and Karen Schrauben – focused on spiritual healing (what spirituality?)

Lalor Cadley
- feminist / female god: “We view images of God from women’s experience and contemplate a world where God’s image shines in all Her people…”

Charles Curran – against “patriarchal approaches” and for liberal “sexual ethics”

Fr. John Dear, S.J. - author of “Jesus the Rebel, wants us to “disturb the peace with trouble-making nonviolence,” promotes Pax Christi

Russ Ditzel – promotes women and homosexual priests

Clarissa Pinkola Estes – Jungian psychoanalyst talking about the “creative fire”

Margaret Farley – into feminism and “sexual ethics,” proposes “a framework for Catholic Christian sexual ethics appropriate in today’s world … responsive to contemporary questions and experience.”

Brendan Fay, using examples with his own so-called “spouse” Tom Moulton, promotes homosexual unions (so-called “gay marriage”)

Fran Ferder – claims that “rigid orthodoxy” has facilitated the tragedy of clergy sexual abuse

Barbara Fiand – into feminist spirituality, she wants a “faith relevant for these arid times” based on “contemporary experience lest our precious story wither”

Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza – a feminist promoting women priests, claims that “Roman Catholic theology has developed not only hierarchical-kyriarchal understandings of the universe but also a politics of exclusion that has made women second class citizens”

Mary Ann Garfold – promotes “ways for parish ministers and catechists to pass on the vision of church in religious education programs” (what kind of vision?) using a “prayer” session of “music, movement, reflection, and ritual sharing of many types of bread”

Ivone Gebara – “seeks a new understanding of ‘sacred’ in the realm of our bodies,” using principles of eco-feminism

David Gibson – author of “The Coming Catholic Church,” he describes” the transformations already underway through both a revolution from below and an impending change at the top.” He is working on a follow-up book about the next pope.

Neris Gonzales – works for ECOVIDA, a Latino social justice / ecology group, and tells her story

Jeannine Gramick

Jeannine Gramick – will display an 82-minute film about her disobedience to the Vatican regarding gay and lesbian Catholic teaching and “ministry.”

Salome Harasty and Janet Herrick – founders of Stone Circle spiritual resource center for women, will lead a pagan prayer session to “form the ritual circle.”

Diana Hayes – feminist theologian who claims that “the bodies of persons of African descent … have been dehumanized and rendered demonic by … the Catholic Church”

Pamela Hayes – discusses how the Church’s justice system is working for victims and the wrongfully accused

Daniel Helminiak – uses “human consciousness plus the findings of … social sciences to make the case that sexual = personal = spiritual integration. The result is a broadly inclusive view of sexuality which is contemporary, not medieval”

Thomas Honore (ex-priest) and Lena Woltering – Call to Action board members who claim to “go beyond personal prejudice to face the misuse of power by systems and institutions”

Joan Horgan – guides a “prayer” session using “the art forms of movement, writing and drawing to heighten awareness of the Holy Spirit at work within us.”

Patricia Beattie Jung – claims that sexual ethics “must be re-examined in light of all Christians’ experiences, whether gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-gender or heterosexual”

Joseph Kelly – talks about the “portrayal of Magdalen in Dan Brown’s best selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, which has caused more than 60 million readers to look at her in a new way”

Joseph Kilikevice, OP – leads a creation spirituality based “workshop” using a “rich diversity of spiritual traditions: Jewish, Christian, Muslim and others” and using “simple chants and reverent movement in a circle.” He is the founder of SHEM Center for Interfaith Spirituality, which “honors and embraces the truth as it appears in the teachings of all faith traditions.” (never mind that Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life)

Martha Ann Kirk and Covita Moroney – “share story, music and ritual from ancient Jewish, Christian and Muslim women, challenging and healing us for our journeys into the future”

Renee LaReau – talks about young adult Catholics and “their problem areas of disconnect with the institutional Church.” LaReau is a columnist whose work has appeared in dissident magazines U.S. Catholic, the National Catholic Reporter, and America.

Robert McClory – as a former board member of Call to Action, he claims that “the institutional Church seems bent on driving everyone out of the pews or out of their minds.”

Melvin John P. Miller and Kuukua Dzigbordi Yomekpe – lead a “participatory and interactive [prayer] session, working with us to find ways in which movement can enhance spirituality.” They also lead morning prayer, “Communing with the Spirit through Dance”.

Paul Ojibway – claims that “the American Indian experience of the Sacred as critical for understanding of our place in the universe and our individual path.” Wants to “look at ways of praying that inform and challenge our post-modern notions of gender, sexuality, relationships, and exclusive, personalized spirituality and ritualized prayer.”

Diarmuid O’Murchu – claims that “relationships and sexuality for long have been conditioned and undermined by narrow anthropocentric and biological terms of reference.” Redefines Christianity with so-called “Quantum Theology” wanting us to return to worship of Mother Earth.

Anthony Padovano – As a leader in the International Federation of Married Catholic Priests, he wants to re-define “fidelity”

Linda Pieczynski – a previous president of Call To Action, she talks about the clerical sex abuse crisis

Catherine Pinkerton – looks at globalization “and the theological currents which are interwoven there”

Cindy and Ken Preston-Pile – Pax Christi supporters who want to “create peace” using methods of “ritual, stories, interactive exercises, creative expression, and presentation.”

Mary Ramerman – tells her story: “how a pastoral assistant and mother of three became a priest and pastor to the vibrant community of Spiritus Christi in Rochester, N.Y.”

Victoria Rue and Anne Pezzillo – promoting women priests. Ms. Rue, in “Heeding her own call to the priesthood … expects to be ordained to the diaconate in summer, 2004, by Austrian ‘Bishop’ Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger.” (Note that Mayr-Lumetzberger was formally excommunicated)

Christine Schenk – FutureChurch member promoting a married priesthood in the Latin (Western) Tradition.

Brian Swimme – Associate director of The Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality, claims that “our failure to find a meaningful approach to the universe has left a distorted mode of human presence upon the Earth”

Mary Evelyn Tucker – discusses the drafting of the Earth Charter and “promot[ing] its spiritual vision,” eco-religion, Mother Earth. (creation spirituality oriented)

Gloria Ulterino and Judith Boyd – use Mary of Magdala to lead a “prayer” session using “music, storytelling, and a participatory ritual.”

Susan and Jim Vogt – about raising children with values (which values?)

Susan Weissert – looks at AIDS claiming millions of deaths are preventable due to “poverty, debt, lack of access to medicines, and unjust structures”

Getting placed on the dissenter lists

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/listqual.htm

How does an organization or person get placed on our lists of Dissenting Organizations and Dissenting Authors and Speakers?

In summary, very carefully.

Certain qualifications must be met and verified before anyone or any organization is placed on these lists.

In the words of St. Francis de Sales in his book “Introduction to a Devout Life,” “it is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep, wherever he is.“

Similarly, Pope St. Felix III said “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it.“

1. The person or organization must claim to be Catholic. By definition this excludes all those of other faiths who do not accept Catholic teachings. This distinction is critical because a person or organization claiming to be Catholic must follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church, without exception. One who accepts part of the Faith and reject others – today commonly called “cafeteria Catholic” or a follower of pluralism – is really nothing more than a form of heretic if they obstinately reject the Church’s teachings (Summa Theologica, Part 2 of the Second Part, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 5, Article 3 ^[1]).

2. The person or organization publicly promotes non-Catholic ideas to be acceptable as Catholic doctrine. In some cases, various dissenters might try and twist the true meaning of Vatican II to appear to support their agenda. This is very commonly done under the distortion of the true meaning of Freedom of Conscience.

3. The person or organization publicly speaks out against the official teachings of the Church, which commonly manifests itself by the call for a change to Church teachings, i.e. replace the Church’s teachings with their own agenda as manifested in item 2 above.

4. The person or organization publicly speaks against the Pope’s rulings as Supreme Pastor of the Church, or denies/attacks the teaching authority of the Church – the Magisterium – headed by the Pope. This in an necessary consequence of the above three items, since dissenters try and get their own opinions sanctioned in any way possible.

5. Any person who is part of a dissenting organization which meets any the above criteria [1 through 4] is a candidate for the Dissenting Authors list. However, we report more practically only on those in leadership roles or those who most publicly proclaim the views of the dissenting organization. Similarly, an organization meeting said criteria is a candidate for the Dissenting Organizations list.

6. A person who has had their teachings formally condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be placed on the Dissenting Author list. This means that the Church has already formally determined their lack of Catholicity.

Lastly, these lists are not an exhaustive listing of all the dissenters.

REFERENCES

[1] SUMMA THEOLOGICA Second Part – Part II – Treatise on the Theological Virtues
QUESTION 5: OF THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH
ARTICLE 3: Whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in other articles?

OBJ 1: It would seem that a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith can have lifeless faith in the other articles. For the natural intellect of a heretic is not more able than that of a catholic. Now a Catholic’s intellect needs the aid of the gift of faith in order to believe any article whatever of faith. Therefore it seems that heretics cannot believe any articles of faith without the gift of lifeless faith.
OBJ 2: Further, just as faith contains many articles, so does one science, viz. geometry, contain many conclusions. Now a man may possess the science of geometry as to some geometrical conclusions, and yet be ignorant of other conclusions. Therefore a man can believe some articles of faith without believing the others.

OBJ 3: Further, just as man obeys God in believing the articles of faith, so does he also in keeping the commandments of the Law. Now a man can obey some commandments, and disobey others. Therefore he can believe some articles, and disbelieve others.
On the contrary, just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.
I answer that neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
Reply OBJ 1: A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment.
Reply OBJ 2: The various conclusions of a science have their respective means of demonstration, one of which may be known without another, so that we may know some conclusions of a science without knowing the others. On the other hand faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith.
Reply OBJ 3: The various precepts of the Law may be referred either to their respective proximate motives, and thus one can be kept without another; or to their primary motive, which is perfect obedience to God, in which a man fails whenever he breaks one commandment, according to James 2:10: “Whosoever shall. . . offend in one point is become guilty of all.”

Dissident Groups and Priests

http://saint-mike.org/warfare/library/

By Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L. Th., Oblates and Missioners of St. Michael

Miss Block gives an excellent critique of Fr. Richard Rohr’s organization, which promotes heterodox views against the Church on such issues as homosexuality, the agenda of Call to Action, radical feminism, and Liberation Theology, amongst many other views.

1.
The

Center For Action and Contemplation

http://saint-mike.org/warfare/library/category/dissident-groups

By Stephanie Block, The Wanderer, January 2011

The Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC) is situated on the parish property of Holy Family Church in Albuquerque. From this site, retreats and workshops are made available to the city’s progressive Catholics. The center is New Mexico’s Call to Action hub, and well-known CTA personalities, such as radical feminist Rosemary Radford Ruether and ’60s war protester Daniel Berrigan, have been speakers at the center in the last several years; also offered are alternative spirituality programs, such as Dr. Ruben Habito’s annual retreat weekend at the center that includes “instruction in the elements of Zen practice.”

CAC’s founder, Fr. Richard Rohr, is a prolific writer and retreat master. He has done as much as anyone to spread the study of the enneagram around the United States. He has been a prominent leader of the “men’s movement” (see accompanying article, “Coloring Outside the Lines,” elsewhere in this issue). And he has been a recent speaker at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress (February, 1997), the New Ways Ministry Symposium in Pittsburgh (March, 1997), and the Call to Action Conference (November, 1996).

It is not surprising to discover, therefore, that much of Albuquerque’s Call to Action activity emanates from the Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC) and from Holy Family Parish. The center describes its “vision” as providing “a faith alternative to the dominant consciousness.” It is faithful to its vision.

CAC’s bimonthly publication, Radical Grace, features articles of significance to the center. January, 1997′s issue contains the story “Bridge Building” by Thomas Williams, which describes the Bridge Building Community, a community inspired by the New Ways Ministry and operating out of CAC. The community’s gatherings “have addressed the homosexual’s role in the Church: celebration of the gift of homosexuality, coming out, and spirituality; and relationships, commitment, and roles.” February-March, 1996′s issue of Radical Grace contains an article by Clarence Thomson on “The Parables and the Enneagram” in which Thomson informs the reader that “sin is trying too hard, doing the few things we know how to do.” The same issue announces that the Education Summit for the Industrial Areas Foundation local, Albuquerque Interfaith, promotes a men’s retreat with Fr. Rohr called “A Rite of Passage,” and advertises the center’s Seventh Annual Justice and Peace Conference.

To better appreciate the radical nature of this periodical and the center which produces it, it is necessary to examine some of the ideas and issues which define them. Are the center’s responses to those issues Christian, or are they modernist deviations which no longer bear any but the most superficial resemblance to the spiritual life of the Church?

The Enneagram

The Center for Action and Contemplation has taught the enneagram for years in Albuquerque. Classes for the enneagram have been advertised in Albuquerque’s Catholic Communicator (a Sunday bulletin which is distributed weekly in many parishes throughout the diocese). They are also advertised in the center’s own newsletter, Radical Grace, and in diocesan “For Your Information” packets that are mailed monthly to priests and deacons.

The enneagram is purportedly a tool for helping a person to self-understanding. It has been described by Fr. Rohr as an “inner work that can lend authenticity to our spiritual path” (p. 15, Discovering the Enneagram, by Fr. Richard Rohr), and it has been compared by its supporters to other typologies of the human character, such as astrology and Jungian analysis.

Where did the enneagram come from? According to Fr. Rohr, who states openly that the “history and genesis of the enneagram are unknown,” its earliest roots may go back over 2,000 years, developed in the Sufi brotherhoods (although there is no proof for this), or it may (according to the same author) be the mescaline-induced invention of one man (ibid., p. 5 and p. 12). It is irrelevant to Fr. Rohr what the enneagram’s true beginning is, however, because he has been so impressed with its benefits. He writes that when he “first learned about the enneagram, it was one of the three great conversion experiences” of his life (ibid., p. 13).

Despite such an uncritical concern about the enneagram’s origins, the enneagram has nevertheless been used by numerous New Mexican Catholics to “promote ongoing conversion and spiritual growth” (from a Radical Grace advertisement, February-March, 1996). It is evidently of no concern to them that those origins (either one; either its possible origin as ancient Sufic “wisdom” or its possible origin as a drug-induced “wisdom”) will have a bearing on the sort of “conversion” or “spiritual growth” experienced by its practitioners.

There are nine enneagram types. Each is assigned a symbolic color and symbolic animals. According to Fr. Mitch Pacwa, who studied the enneagram in the early 1970s, in the enneagram’s structure there are “. . . not merely nine character types, but 9 divine ideas, the 9 faces on the mountain of God, or the 9 faces of God within creation. At the same time, the 9 types are 9 devils, personal demons with their own will and intellect. Each type is a neurotic behavior, making it a caricature of a divine attribute, or the ‘face of God turned upside-down.’ During the lecture [at an enneagram workshop], I understood these statements to be symbols, not thinking through their theological ramifications. Only in later years did their inconsistency with Christianity become clear” (Catholics and the New Age, pp. 100-102).

What are these inconsistencies? Fr. Pacwa unveils a number of them based on the writings of its various teachers, including bizarre occult connections. For example, there is the situation of Oscar Ichazo, the man who claims to have developed the use of the enneagram for personality work during a mescaline “trip.” Ichazo is “said to be a ‘master’ in contact with all previous masters of the esoteric school, including those who have died” (ibid., p. 114). This sort of “spirit contact” (assuming that Ichazo is in earnest) is forbidden by Scripture (Lev. 19:31; 20:6; 27; Deut. 18:10-11; Is. 8:19). Ichazo also holds views about free will which are in opposition to Christianity’s, believing that we do not have free will until we have reached certain stages of enlightenment.

It is conceivable that a Catholic, however, might use the enneagram “differently” than Ichazo. A Catholic might try to “baptize” it, by using its valid insights and discarding the more suspect elements. One has to ask, however, what the value or desirability of these “extra-Christian” spiritual journeys are. One needs to ask how this self-absorption with one’s personality type helps the individual to be a better Christian, focused on Christ, who is the way; on God, who is the goal; and on one’s neighbor, in active love.

Pacwa describes the enneagram’s “myths,” such as the teaching that Jesus Christ (the perfect Man) is a complete 9, and is a perfect embodiment of the whole enneagram. “Jesus our Lord made no mention of nine faces of either God or the Devil,” Pacwa writes. “I see no need to add an enneagram myth to our faith.” This is a human “addition” to the faith, an attempt to discover an esoteric, hidden key to salvation. This is not Christianity.

One is “free” to experiment with one’s soul, of course, but in the case of the spiritual life, everything is at stake.

Radical Feminism

One cannot blame all the instances of distorted feminism among the New Mexican Catholic population on the Center for Action and Contemplation, but radical feminism is clearly being nurtured there. CAC, for example, hosted speaker Rosemary Radford Ruether in the winter of 1996 (Radical Grace advertisement, February-March, 1996).

Donna Steichen, writing in Ungodly Rage, says, “As a ‘feminist Christology,’ Ruether proposes that [and here Steichen quotes from Ruether's own writing] ‘the mythology about Jesus as Messiah or divine Logos, with its traditional masculine imagery,’ be discarded [God-Talk, Ruether, p. 137]. Women ‘must emancipate themselves from Jesus as redeemer and seek a new redemptive disclosure of God and of human possibility in female form,’ [Ruether] says [ibid. p. 135]. ‘Feminism represents a fundamental shift in the valuation of good and evil,’ because ‘past descriptions of evil,’ rooted in patriarchy, were ‘themselves ratifications of evil’ [ibid., p. 160]. Destruction of ‘blasphemous’ patriarchy—’the idol with flashing eyes and smoking nostrils who is about to consume the earth’ — is, she announces, the primary goal of feminism [Women-Church, Ruether, p. 3].”

Steichen continues, “According to Ruether, the image of God as ‘Father’ is an idolatrous projection of ‘transcendent male ego’ that ‘sacralizes’ patriarchal culture and ‘inferiorizes’ woman as symbolic of nature [God-Talk, Ruether, p. 66].

“According to Ruether, the male enslaves the female because he images her as ‘a threatening lower “power” ‘seeking to ‘drag him down’ to the ‘realm of body and nature’ [ibid. p. 74 f.]. . . . The very name of God, Ruether proposes, should be replaced with gnosticism’s androgynous term ‘God/ess’” (quoting Ruether’s God-Talk, pp. 34,46, 67-71, from Ungodly Rage, Steichen, pp. 302-303).

Whether influenced by Ruether, or simply affirmed by her in his own convictions, Fr. Rohr spoke in Los Angeles at the 1997 archdiocesan Religious Education Congress, using multiple pronouns for God, both “He” and “She.” Rohr said, “I [not intending the speaker, but a hypothetical Catholic] want . . . a God who values the great risk of allowing us to sin, which clearly He does-She does, clearly this God allows us to break the rules, to color outside the lines” (emphasis added) (“Spirituality of Imperfection,” Fr. Richard Rohr, 1997 Religious Education Congress in Los Angeles).

The Industrial Areas Foundation

One of CAC’s social justice activities has been to help establish the New Mexican Industrial Areas local, Albuquerque Interfaith. As of late 1995, Albuquerque Interfaith had 28 organizational members. All of those organizations are religious communities. Thirteen of them are listed as Catholic, including the Center for Action and Contemplation. As there are 30 Catholic parishes in Albuquerque, this means that one-third of Albuquerque’s parishes have an Interfaith membership.

Albuquerque Interfaith is one of over 40 local affiliates around the United States. Each of these local affiliates is organized under the national umbrella of the Industrial Areas Foundation. The Industrial Areas Foundation (which was founded in 1940 by a man named Saul Alinsky) sends its professional organizers to train and engage, in each of these 40 locations, congregations from all denominations (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim). The organizer’s job is to bring these denominations into a “relationship” which will enable them to act together on civic issues.

Questions such as how does the Industrial Areas Foundation function, how does it operate and organize, what are its activities, and what are the changes it is mobilizing member congregations around the country to bring about, are all worthwhile and interesting. The present discussion will concern itself only with those IAF activities within the Catholic Church which are expressly designed to change Catholic ethics and religious sensibilities.

The Industrial Areas Foundation has, for example, for the past several years, conducted a national project called IAF Reflects. IAF Reflects is a series of “intense, two-week seminars for veteran organizers” (Organizing the South Bronx, Jim Rooney, p. 249, footnote n. 23).

These retreats for the congregational leaders of IAF members are designed to put those “leaders in touch with the biblical tradition that might give deeper insight into their work together, bind them more closely, and empower them to go forward to build God’s reign. The IAF has come to realize that it is about holy work” (“Moving Beyond Anguish to Action: What Has Saul Alinsky to Say to Justice Education,” Suzanne C. Toton, published in Religious Education, summer, 1993).

Christian denominations and their individual congregations, as well as Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques, are exploring the particular “vision” of social activism which the IAF holds out to them, and are trying to discern the spiritual foundation on which to root that activism.

Faith communities, writes the Catholic Villanova religion professor, Suzanne C. Toton, “must be conversant in two languages — the language of the faith and the language of public discourse,” which Toton equates to IAF-style activism. “Both are essential for communities committed to furthering God’s reign” (“Moving Beyond Anguish to Action . . .,” Toton).

Ed Chambers, national IAF executive director and a former Catholic seminarian, has a similar idea. He is quoted as saying, “I’d had a little training in philosophy. And I started forcing myself to look at what our kind of organizing meant to people. We worked with people in the churches, and their language was the language of the gospel. Their language was nothing like Alinsky’s language [Alinsky, recall, was the IAF founder]. His language was power talk. Tough, abrasive, confrontational, full of ridicule. And those are really all non-Christian concepts. So I started looking at it. Here are the non-Christian concepts . . . here are the Christian concepts. Are there any similarities? Is this just a different language for the same thing?” (“Gospel Values and Secular Politics,” Mary Beth Rogers, The Texas Observer, Nov. 22nd, 1990).

Alinsky explains where his power talk comes from. He writes, in the opening paragraph of his book. Rules for Radicals, that it is Machiavellian. “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Machiavelli’s The Prince used to be on the Catholic index, when the Church had an index, as forbidden reading. Why? Because the object of Machiavelli’s discussion was to protect the rich? No! Because the way Machiavelli taught the rich to hold power was unethical.

The “power talk” of Alinsky is also unethical. He teaches, at great length, that the “ends justify the means.” In fact, an entire chapter of Rules for Radicals is devoted to hammering home that point. Rom. 3:8, however, says, “It is not licit to do evil that good may come of it,” and Pope John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, has gone into great depth explaining this passage. These two positions are not reconcilable. They are not two languages saying the same thing. It is not moral to speak the language of pious ethics at worship, and then go out into the world and speak the language of opportunism and might is right and whatever else “the ends justify the means” ethics produces. A person who speaks this way is hypocritical.

Nevertheless, the IAF encourages its member clerics to find ways to teach organizing by using Gospel language. Last summer, Albuquerque Interfaith’s lead organizer, Tim McCluskey, during a leadership development seminar at Our Lady of Guadalupe, “interpreted” Scripture for seminar participants which was designed to compare the community organization to Moses’ selection of elders. McCluskey then went on to propose that he be allowed to interview and handpick people who would undergo “leadership training” with the IAF. Those IAF-trained leaders could then, in turn, help facilitate the parish’s RENEW program as well as serve on the parish’s Albuquerque Interfaith committee.

Besides retreats, like IAF Reflects, IAF communities in Los Angeles and Texas have experimented with “value-based organizing” through scriptural consciousness-raising. Writer Harry Boyte revealed that “in St. Timothy’s Church [in San Antonio, Texas], for instance, new catechisms connected biblical and Mexican historical and cultural themes with the current issues COPS [the IAF local] was working on. From such experiences [as at St. Timothy's], the organization [the IAF] developed an ongoing process of community and parish renewal” (emphasis added; Community Is Possible: Repairing America’s Roots, by Harry Boyte, 1984, p. 149).

The IAF uses not only Bible study groups but values clarification techniques (which have been repudiated by their own originators as unethical and manipulative) to change the way Christians understand their faith. Peter Skerry writes, “Ten years ago IAF went into parishes and immediately began organizing around political issues. But in recent years its organizers have moved toward theological reflection, to the point where they have developed a series of Bible study classes to get prospective members thinking about the spiritual life of their parish. From the outside this may look opportunistic, but parish priests praise IAF organizers for challenging them theologically and getting them to rethink their clerical role” (“The Resurrection of Saul Alinsky: Neighborhood COPS,” Peter Skerry, The New Republic, Feb. 6th, 1984).

All of this is to say, that within given congregations, pastors have allowed the shepherding of their flocks, the evangelization, the Scripture interpretation, and the. moral formation of their people and of themselves to be “shaped” by the IAF, an organization whose founder, Saul Alinsky, writes in the “dedication” of his book, Rules for Radicals: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Alinsky was, perhaps, meaning only to tweak those “bourgeois” values of the middle class with a shocking bit of humor, but the words have deep import, whether or not Alinsky himself understood them. Scripture does teach us that there is a “diabolical” relationship to the world and its power, as well as a correct relationship. Specifically, Christ’s third temptation was to be shown all the kingdoms of the world and promised by Satan, “All these will I bestow on you if you will prostrate yourself in homage before me” (Matt. 4:9).

Jesus’ response was, of course, to give “homage to the Lord alone.” Consider, though, what His temptation consisted of — power over all the kingdoms of the earth; power to multiply the loaves infinitely into bread, but not into His Flesh; power to heal the lame, but no longer the power to forgive sins; and power to build a Utopia on earth without hope of Heaven. If such “power” tempted Jesus, small wonder that it tempts us as well. For us, however, of weaker wills and smaller intellects, the temptation rejected in the clarity of prototype is reintroduced with countless variations, and myriad opportunities for spiritual compromise. The Prince of the World still tries to persuade us to grasp for his golden promises, while reassuring us that we will retain the Lord’s blessing.

Scripture must be reinterpreted if it is to be useful to Alinskian-based community organizations. Retreats, like IAF Reflects, and St. Timothy’s new IAF “catechisms,” create that “different” way of understanding the Scriptures. Peter Skerry writes, “Through their organizations [the IAF locals] they [congregations] learn to speak the truth where it is not spoken and to create the truth where it never was, for all to see” (“The Resurrection of Saul Alinsky: Neighborhood COPS,” Peter Skerry).

Create the truth? If a “truth” must be created, then it is a lie.

Professor Toton writes, “[T]he process of building Poor People’s Organizations reminds the church over and over again that it does not own ‘The Truth’” (“Moving Beyond Anguish to Action . . .,” Toton).

From passages like these, it is clear that .the religion which the IAF is feeding its people has been twisted. This is not what the Bible or the Catholic faith teaches. The “power language” of Saul Alinsky and his IAF simply does not contain the same concepts as Christianity.

Delivering On The Call To Action Agenda

The Center for Action and Contemplation, as the primary Call to Action (CTA) member in New Mexico, has assisted CTA in propagating its We Are Church referendum. Fr. Jack Robinson, the pastor of Holy Family Parish where the center is located, has been a speaker for the center and spoke at the We Are Church, CTA forum from the Aquinas Newman Center of the University of New Mexico in March, 1997. The Aquinas Newman Center hosted two Sunday afternoon talks, which were called, “The Catholic Church: What Changes? What is Constant?” Fr. Robinson spoke at the first session about taking “a general look at how our faith and Tradition develops over time” (sic — from a flier advertising the talks). Sharon Pikula of the Newman Center addressed “A Look at the Question of Woman’s Ordination” at the second session.

It was clear at both talks that at least one objective of these Sunday sessions was to generate signatures for the Call to Action Referendum. Fr. Robinson’s specific contribution was to examine those aspects of the Church which may legitimately be altered, and have been altered over the centuries, distinguishing them from the constants of the faith.

Unfortunately, Fr. Robinson illustrated his position with revisionary history and flawed Hebrew. For example, he seemed to have completely misunderstood the early Church’s lifting of Jewish dietary restrictions. He mistranslated the Hebrew root for “Israel” as “wrestle” in an attempt to demonstrate that Israel’s role was to enter as a people into “dialog” with God, “wrestling [being] a form of dialogue, right?” Father also developed the notion that only in the Church of the last 200 years has there been any understanding of the evil of slavery, a notion which must ignore the Church’s constant and heroic position against slavery since her inception.

Fr. Robinson used these and other mistaken illustrations in an attempt to make the legitimate point that there have been changes in the Church throughout its history. One instance has been the Church’s evolving attitude toward clerical celibacy (which has been toward greater support and understanding of the discipline, although this was not, of course, how Father developed the point).

Fr. Robinson failed to distinguish between those aspects of the Church which are open to change and those, such as the moral law, which are changeless. His talk seemed merely aimed at building acceptance for the Church reforms proposed by the CTA referendum, in which the act of change becomes valuable in and for itself. “To deny the value of change is to want to stop living, is to want to stop growing, is to want to deny that God has given us the ability to reason,” was Father’s impassioned conclusion.

Audience members challenged the We Are Church referendum on several points, particularly its apparent desire to move the Church away from its position that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered and objectively sinful. Fr. Robinson, in turn, argued that there has been a long-standing misunderstanding of the several Scripture references pertaining to homosexuality.

He felt, for example, that the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to their inhospitality to strangers, and not to their desire to sodomize them. Fr. Robinson’s unusual perspective came as no surprise to area Catholics who were aware that five months earlier, Fr. Robinson had co-presided with Fr. Rohr at the “wedding” of a lesbian couple.

If the CTA agenda were not plain enough, a table at the Newman Center provided literature for the forum participants, which carried the titles . . . And Woman Said, This Is My Body, This Is My Blood and A History of Celibacy in the Catholic Church.

Given the Center for Action and Contemplation’s relationship with both Call to Action and the Industrial Areas Foundation, the history of Call to Action is extremely interesting. It was established in 1976 with the organizational assistance of Alinsky disciple and IAF-trained Msgr. Jack Egan. Nine position papers were adopted by the 1976 Detroit Call to Action Conference, designed to stimulate an appetite among the faithful for a reconstructed, democratic Catholic Church, rebuilt along humanistic lines. The conference demanded, in 1976, much the same reform that it seeks in its 1997 We Are Church:

• that the People of God participate in the process of selecting their bishops and pastors.

• that the Church permit the ordination of women to the priesthood

• that priests may choose either a celibate or non-celibate way of life.

• that the primacy of conscience be the deciding factor in issues of sexual morality (for example: birth control and abortion).

• that the human rights of all persons regardless of sexual orientation be respected (and those human rights are considered to include the sexual activity of homosexuals — which CTA wants the Church to condone).

• and that theologians and others who exercise freedom of speech be welcome in the Church. Several of CTA’s principal speakers are Richard McBrien, Charles Curran, and Hans Kung; the latter two theologians have been forbidden to speak in the name of Catholicism, because their theology is not Catholic.

Conclusion

It is apparent that the Center for Action and Contemplation has become a magnet for the dissenting elements of the Catholic Church, particularly in Albuquerque. Parishioners around the city have begun to observe the connections between their parish’s IAF activities and the rebellious demands of Call to Action. At Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary, for example, which is an IAF-organized parish (see The Wanderer, Jan. 11th, 1996, p. 4, “IAF Priest Envisions ‘Church 2000′” about Holy Rosary’s pastor Fr. Joel Garner, who has been very active with Albuquerque Interfaith), a petition has been circulated challenging the parish’s distribution of CAC’s Radical Grace on church property. Petitioners were extremely disturbed by elements of the publication which they perceived as a distortion of Scripture, an affront to doctrine, and a perversion of their Catholic call to holiness. They referred specifically to the enneagram, to the We Are Church referendum, and to the teaching that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality, all of which they had read about within the pages of Radical Grace.

“This is not Catholicism,” said one of the petition’s signers, holding up his copy of Radical Grace. “We don’t want this in our church.”

Catholic charismatics recalled Fr. Rohr from 15 years ago. “He was a wonderful, inspiring speaker back then,” they reminisced. “And he still is quite a speaker. He has a real gift. But somewhere along the way, over the years, he fell off the track.” [END]

Father Sibley gives a summary of the issues and controversies surrounding the dissident priest Fr. Richard Rohr, who in addition to taking issue with the Church’s teaching on homosexuals, supporting Call to Action, radical feminism, liberation theology, and more, also flirts with heresy on doctrines on the Nature of God as Father, Original Sin, and nature of Redemption by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.

The Fr. Richard Rohr Phenomenon

http://saint-mike.org/warfare/library/category/dissident-priests

By Fr. Bryce Andrew Sibley, New Oxford Review, 2006

During the past few years, I’ve noticed among Catholic circles a marked increase in the attention paid to the work of Fr. Richard Rohr. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Fr. Rohr wrote and spoke often on the Enneagram, but lately he seems to have abandoned “personality spirituality” for the now-popular “male spirituality.” Through several recent visits to my own diocese, Rohr has attracted quite a local following. So, in order to better understand the increasing “Rohr phenomenon,” I decided to purchase his most recent book, Adam’s Return, and attend a conference given by him titled “Men Matter: A Quest for the True Self.” Surprisingly, there were over 400 people in attendance, some having traveled hundreds of miles to be there. After reading the book, going through a few of his other writings, and then listening to his presentations, I have come to believe that Fr. Richard Rohr adheres to some very questionable, if not dangerous, beliefs. Although most of what he says and writes may appear harmless to most people, the discerning Catholic reader will notice that underneath the surface lie ideas and opinions, some of them fundamental to Rohr’s message, that reside outside of the realm of orthodox Catholic teaching. I would like to look at a few of these ideas here.

God the “Mother”?

Rohr began his presentation by speaking about the phenomenon of the “Father Wound” that he has noticed in young men throughout the world, but especially in the U.S. Many young men, he claims, grow up with weak, abusive, or absent fathers, which leaves the young men wounded. From that wound flows what Rohr calls a “Father Hunger” — a desire to have an authentic father figure in their lives. Rohr’s “masculine spirituality” uses symbols, archetypes, and rituals that, he argues, speak especially to males in order to help cure the “Father Wound.”

But Rohr fails to demonstrate a true Christian solution to the problem he diagnoses. I would argue that such a remedy must encourage a healthy family life and authentic fatherhood on earth, but most importantly must be founded in having the young men become aware of God the Father’s paternal love for them. Part of the reason that Rohr is unable to provide this solution is because of his flawed concept of Revelation, especially regarding the paternity of God.

Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God “Father.” He writes in Adam’s Return (which was the basis for his presentations) that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God….”

Rohr bases this claim on his belief that “God is the ultimate combination of whatever it means to be male and whatever it means to be female.” He asserts that God is in no way sexed, and here he seems to be in agreement with the Catechism, which states: “In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes” (#370). However, this does not mean that it would be proper to refer to God as “Mother.” Rohr’s thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called “Mother” is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, “Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father…” (#240)

Rohr’s problem also extends to his vision of the Church. During his presentations, he made several negative references to patriarchy, particularly to the Church as a patriarchal institution (patriarchy finding its roots in the Latin word pater, meaning “father”). The vague references he made during the conference become clearer when seen in relation to what he writes about the patriarchal dimension of the Church in his book Simplicity, in the first chapter, titled, “God the Father — God the Mother?” Here Rohr describes the structure of Catholicism as patriarchal. Jesus was happy to call God “father,” but “presumably that has something to do with his patriarchal culture.” The Gospel text then “reveals the beginnings of the bias against women,” and the beginnings of patriarchy. Our “liturgical texts are almost completely patriarchal, and they perpetuate this narrow image of God.” But fortunately (according to Rohr), “we belong to the first generation of the Church that has come to consciously recognize our patriarchal biases.”

Like many others today, Rohr thinks that patriarchy carries a negative connotation. Once again, however, he runs into the problem of Revelation. It was Christ who became incarnate as male, who deliberately chose men to lead His Church.

Although the Church is patriarchal by structure and office, the true symbol of the Church is not Peter, but Mary. Maybe having a more developed image of the Church as feminine would assuage Rohr’s desire to have God reveal Himself in feminine terms.

The ultimate irony here is that, while concentrating on the problem of rejecting our earthly fathers, Fr. Rohr rejects his heavenly Father. He also rejects the spiritual fathers whom God has called to be representatives of His paternal authority on earth. It follows logically that if someone rejects the definitive Revelation of God as Father, then it is very difficult to teach men to be good Christian fathers (or males) themselves.

Homosexual Advocacy

The reality of sexual difference — that man was created as male and female by God for a reason — is a basic teaching of Catholic anthropology and theology. Pope John Paul II wrote beautifully about the significance of sexual difference in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem, in which he calls the reality of man being created as male and female a “truth which is immutably fixed in human experience” (#2). At first, I was encouraged to see that Rohr appeared to ground his “male spirituality” in the reality of sexual difference as one truly positive aspect of his presentation. However, when I took a closer look at some of his other writings, particularly those dealing with homosexuality, I began to question whether Rohr really holds a strong belief in the importance of sexual difference.

The website of Soulforce, a homosexual advocacy group, carries a letter written by Fr. Rohr (dated 2000) supporting this organization’s mission. Soulforce claims that its purpose is non-violent resistance to the “spiritual violence” perpetrated against “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons by social and religious groups. The Soulforce website defines spiritual violence as “the misuse of religion to sanction the condemnation and rejection of any of God’s children.” Soulforce claims that spiritual violence is a misuse of God and religion to perpetuate society’s prejudices against “gays,” lesbians, etc. Needless to say, Soulforce protests the condemnation of homosexual activity and homosexual “marriages” by the Church and other religious organizations.

Rohr’s support of Soulforce and its goals is rooted in his interpretation of Jesus’ all-inclusive love. He writes that the Church has failed to live up to the Gospel values by “judging” and “excluding” homosexuals. He hopes that the Church will realize the error of her ways, but until she does he hopes that Soulforce will maintain its loving, inclusive position because “our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters have been left outside of [Christ's] realm of grace for far too long.”

Since homosexual activity is the ultimate denial of sexual difference, Rohr’s support of homosexual-advocacy groups such as Soulforce (and thus his implicit support of homosexual activity) is a radical contradiction of the apparent importance he places on sexual difference in his presentation on “male spirituality.” As the Catechism states, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (#2357). “They do not proceed from a genuine sexual complementarity” clearly states that homosexual activity runs counter to the God-given meaning of sexual difference.

There is yet another irony. While Rohr endorses the work of a homosexual advocacy group (on that group’s website), he criticizes political conservatives active in the 2004 presidential election for their preoccupation with what he refers to as a “body oriented morality.” He writes in an essay posted on the website of his Center for Action and Contemplation, “In the upcoming years we must find ways to address this ‘body oriented’ morality, which has always held churchy people captive, but now seems to be widespread. The body holds human shame and inferiority, and people can be most controlled at that level…. We [i.e., political conservatives] want body morality, not really a demanding Biblical morality. No concern about social values, or justice values, or basic truthfulness, just puritanical concern for keeping human bodies so called ‘pure,’ by preoccupation with issues like abortion, those terrible gays, and stem cell research. All of which can be addressed by a more nuanced morality.

But America does not like nuance or compassion…. These body issues, these pretensions at being pro-life, demand very little change of 90% of the population, but allow us to remain preoccupied with trying to change others. How convenient for the ego. How disturbing for the future of religion and state.” Rohr echoed these same sentiments in his conference when he said that religious people often use religion to condemn others, particularly those who participate in abortion and homosexual activity. Religious people do this, he claimed, so that they do not have to hear the Gospel message and transform themselves. (Of course, Rohr is condemning those who condemn.)

So, if Rohr thinks we should look beyond these “body issues” to a more “demanding Biblical morality” why is he so concerned with the “body issue” of homosexuality?

“He Was Paying No Debt”

And so our discussion of the body brings us to Rohr’s thinking on the Redemption that Christ brought about in His body. In the first chapter of Adam’s Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: “‘Incarnation is already redemption,’ and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God’s commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing’ place of God.” Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption. This is made more evident in this passage from his critique of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, supposedly taking the teaching of John Duns Scotus as his justification: “As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of the Franciscan understanding of the redemption, based on the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus in the 13th century. He did not believe in any ‘substitutionary atonement theory’ of the cross: Jesus did not have to die to make God love us, he was paying no debt, He was changing no Divine mind. Jesus was only given to change our mind about the nature of God! (Imagine what we are saying about the Father, if he needed blood from his son to decide to love us! It is an incoherent world with no organic union between Creator and creature. No wonder so few Christians have gone on the mystical path of love, since God is basically untrustworthy and more than a little dangerous.) For Duns Scotus, Jesus was the ‘image of the invisible God’ who revealed to us a God’s eternal suffering love for humanity, in an iconic form that we could not forget. He was not ‘necessary,’ but a pure gift. The suffering was simply to open our hearts, not to open God’s — which was always open.”

I will not belabor arguing the point in detail that the crucifixion and death of our Lord was not only part of God’s eternal plan but also necessary for the atonement of sins. I would hope all faithful Catholics already know this. Rohr’s teaching here is at best confused. It does not seem clear to me that the “substitutionary atonement theory” teaches that the death of Christ was necessary for God to love us or to change His mind about us. What the atonement theory does teach, however, is that there is a real debt rendered to God when we sin, which is our death. How can we, of ourselves, mend a relationship initiated freely by God Himself? How could our sin, our rejection of the free friendship offered us by God at the creation, result in anything else but our death? In terms of our sinfulness, only God can fix what we broke, and He did. Christ died in our place. He himself suffered the real punishment for our real sins — He paid the debt — and therefore those who accept Christ have access to divine life.

Instead of focusing on Rohr’s error in claiming that Christ’s death was not necessary for redemption, let’s look at his teaching on Original Sin and how his teaching leads to an erroneous proposition. In the section on Original Sin in Adam’s Return, Rohr says that Original Sin “names the ‘corporate body pain’ that we all suffer from together.” It is the “tragic flaw in all of us” and we should not “waste time blaming anybody” for its existence. It is the collective hurts that have been passed on to us by our parents, just as they were passed on to them. Baptism washes away this “original wound” and “our endless capacity for self-rejection and self-hatred” by “situating one’s life in a much bigger picture.” For Rohr, Original Sin is the “original wounding,” it is the “shadow self that you do not understand,” “the dark side that seems to be in everything,” “the common pain of being human.” “It does not deserve punishment. It deserves tears.”

Clearly, Rohr has a very weak understanding of Original Sin. Once again, I do not think it necessary to go into great detail about the teaching of the Church on Original Sin (see the Catechism, #388-421). It should suffice to say that Original Sin comes as the result of the sin of the first man. It resulted in the loss of the state of grace and a tendency toward sin that is passed on through human nature. It is more than just a “tragic flaw” or an “original wound” — it is a loss of grace and divine friendship, which is what necessitates a Messiah and Redeemer. One paragraph from the Catechism explains this point particularly well: “The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the ‘reverse side’ of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ” (#389).

Here we see the real root of Rohr’s redemptive theology. His “tampering” with the correct understanding of Original Sin truly leads to an undermining of the saving mystery of Christ. If Original Sin is nothing more than a “tragic flaw” or “shadow side,” if Original Sin is not seen from the perspective of the fall from grace, then the just penalty due for that, and hence the necessity of salvation, of Christ, His message, His death and Resurrection are all meaningless. As the above quote from the Catechism points out, one cannot have the Good News of salvation that comes through Christ without the bad news of condemnation that comes through Adam. Without a proper understanding of Original Sin, Christ is reduced to nothing more than a prophet who teaches us to love ourselves, and this is unfortunately who Rohr’s Christ turns out to be.

“People Who Creatively Hold the Tension of Opposites”

As we have already seen, Rohr is fond of the theology of John Duns Scotus. It is fair to say that between Scotus and St. Thomas, and therefore between Scotists and Thomists, there exists a significant difference in their regard for human reason. In comparison to Thomists, Scotists manifest a marked distrust of the native intellectual powers of the soul. This leads them, in some cases, to a greater trust in the will and the emotions, not only in theological discourse but also in the spiritual life. Rohr’s descriptions of the spiritual life often unfold in this vein, especially in Simplicity. He claims that “we tend to find out if things are true or false by engagement with them instead of thinking or theorizing about them.” But there are dangers in relying primarily on experience.

Throughout his talks, Rohr made a number of negative remarks about those who search for answers in religion instead of being willing to put themselves in a “liminal space” deprived of answers. There were also several subtle snide comments reserved for those concerned with orthodoxy and doctrine. Rohr has several sections in Simplicity criticizing those who feel compelled to be “right” dogmatically. Rohr claims that one should renounce being right and instead “‘go deep in one place’ and let your God lead you to a place of surrender, love, and humility.” Speaking from his own experience, Rohr writes, “I have found that a great deal of wisdom comes in the world through people who creatively hold the tension of opposites on difficult and complex issues.”

While elaborating on this nebulous position, Rohr makes condescending remarks about those who hold fast to dogma and doctrine, especially young laymen and young clergy. In Adam’s Return he asks why so many intelligent young people are attracted to “very conservative politics and fundamentalist religion.” He surmises that the reason is that young people need order in their lives, and they find this in tradition and dogmatism. He also notes that many young laymen and young clergy today have a longing to return to an earlier and false innocence that never really existed. As they get older, and hopefully undergo some form of “mystical” experience, however, Rohr hopes that they will realize the inadequacy of their youthful views. Rohr also notes in several of his works that Jesus never spoke about moral issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Jesus’ sole concern was effecting justice, loving the poor and marginalized, and bringing about the “Kingdom of God.”

However, God has given us the gift of reason so that we might understand His laws and meditate upon His Revelation. Faith is a supernatural gift for the intellect, which allows us to know what God knows. Both faith and reason must work together in spiritual life, and this necessarily creates in the Church a place for doctrine and dogma. By refusing to search for and acknowledge a definitive right and wrong, especially in the moral life, one becomes a fool, not a sage. It is just this type of muddled thinking that is used to justify the moral relativism present in the Church and in the world. And certainly this leads to moral chaos, when no one can claim to know right from wrong.

Rohr’s critique of the young who search for orthodoxy betrays a subtle ad hominem argument — he contends that it is just because the young are young that they believe such things. He does not address their position, but casts off the position outright simply because of their age.

In reference to his insistence on getting back to Jesus, Rohr seems to forget that there are other writings in the New Testament, also inspired by the Holy Spirit. For example, in his first letter to the Corinthians, we hear St. Paul making such dogmatic statements as, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [active homosexuals], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9-10).

We also hear St. Paul say such things as, “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:1-4). These passages seem pretty insistent on dogma and sound teaching.

Pagan Ritual

A central theme of Rohr’s “male spirituality” is the importance of ritual for the transformation of the male. Through these rituals, these rites of initiation, the man is supposed to experience his powerlessness through some form of suffering, and later emerge as Jonah from the whale, a transformed and more spiritually aware man. Traditionally, the sacred liturgy and the rituals surrounding the Sacraments were the way in which Catholics (both men and women) experienced this ritualistic initiation and transformation (especially through the Sacraments of Initiation). Rohr, however, criticizes Catholic ritual for not having any efficacy in the form that it presently takes. His concern is that the Sacraments lose the ability to transform if their accompanying ritual does not produce a desired psychological effect.

I will be the first to admit that there is something lacking today in the Church’s sacramental celebrations, but Rohr’s proposal for solving this problem is strange. Instead of advocating an authentic renewal of the Sacraments and the rituals surrounding them, he has taken it upon himself to create new rituals that, he hopes, will speak to the men of today. In fact, the appendix of Adam’s Return gives an outline of a sample rite for men. The sponsoring of such male rituals is one of the main activities of Rohr’s Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Men from around America pay hundreds of dollars to “find themselves” in the New Mexico desert. What makes these rituals problematic for discerning Catholics is that they draw from and retain elements of various pagan rites of initiation.

Rohr argued at his conference that the rites that inspired him are Native American. Most disturbing was Rohr’s description of crawling around naked on all fours with a group of men in a Native American sweat lodge. He gushed about what a powerful experience it was for him. But Christ came to free us from such pagan rituals.

Rohr’s almost uncritical adoption of religious rituals alien to the Gospel brings us to the main problem with his theory of male initiation. Rohr’s rites can in no way bring about Christian redemption or a thorough understanding of who we are as baptized sons of the Father and brothers of Jesus Christ. Only a deep surrender to the person Jesus Christ, through prayer and confession of His Name, in and with the means made available through the Church, can do that. Only in Christ will man come to know who he truly is and find the spiritual transformation he is seeking. Pagan ritual cannot provide this.

To his detriment, Rohr, in his writings and conferences, gives the impression that Christ is not truly the divine Son of God, whose sufferings redeemed us from our sins, but rather just another guru, prophet, or great moral teacher, who like so many others before Him came to show us the path to self-enlightenment. Constantly quoting Buddha, Joseph Campbell, and Hindu aphorisms, Rohr’s syncretistic vision of Christ strips the Incarnate Son of God of His divinity and His uniqueness as mankind’s only Savior. Rohr’s unfortunate flirtation with paganism or Arianism leaves his wounded men naked, on all fours, crawling in the dark on the floor of the New Mexico desert, looking blindly for meaning in their lives, instead of humbly approaching Christ, their Lord and Savior.

Conclusion

At the conference I explained to another attendee that I did not think Rohr should call his “male spirituality” Catholic. This individual responded that I was being too rigid in my interpretation of Catholicism, that Rohr just has a very “broad” sense of what it means to be Catholic. To which I posed this situation in reply: Imagine that you, a Cajun, traveled to some state in the Midwest and went to a restaurant advertising that it sold “Cajun food” and you ordered a bowl of gumbo. But what was brought out to you was a bowl of watery soup with a few pieces of steak floating in it. Would you call that authentic “Cajun food”? Of course not. No Cajun in his right mind would. Then why would you be more dogmatic in your approach to food than in your approach to your faith?

In sum, Rohr’s presentation of his so-called “male spirituality” should certainly not be called Catholic. Though he claimed at his conference to sit in the “larger Christian and Catholic tradition,” he fails to demonstrate how referring to God as Mother, encouraging homosexual advocacy, denying the spiritual reality of Original Sin, denying the necessity of the Cross for redemption, and promoting pagan rituals resides within the Catholic or even Christian tradition.

The Rev. Bryce Sibley, STL, who holds a Licentiate degree from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family in Rome, is Pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Parks, Louisiana, in the Diocese of Lafayette.

COMMENTS

With material presented as Catholic teachings by “Fr.” Rohr only leads to confusion of the beautiful truths of our Catholic faith. Rohr’s teachings are empty of the truths of God’s spoken Word. With his misguided compassion toward those outside of marriage, he writes untruths to help others cope with their vocations in life by not having to practice chastity. “Your okay, I’m okay” theory is misleading.

It takes Jesus’ sacrifice to set us free from our sin. The commandments allow us to reflect on our life and learn about ourselves and our sinful ways. Then we are able to know what is truly right and truly wrong and righteously serve God.

Experiences and feelings can mislead us to accept evil as goodness.

If Rohr loves the Lord and his Christian audience, he would better serve them with God’s truth rather the Gospel of Richard Rohr, modern day guru. Questions…Why would Rohr still use the title of a Catholic priest when he teaches heresy?

…Why would he want to hold the title of Father…why not Mother Richard Rohr?

With all due respect Richard, I don’t understand why you would want to remain a Catholic priest of an organized Catholic Christian religion with its teachings that are apparently unacceptable to you yet under the guise of “Father” Rohr, you mislead and pretend to teach Catholic teachings and the most damaging things is a person (soul) is trusting you for guidance to the truth and salvation.

Your method of approaching each of Rohr’s misguided statement with Truth allowed me to view the contradictions clearly.

I pray that anyone in search of attending one of Rohr’s seminars will come across your review before signing up.

May God bless you with His love and eternal truth. –Juliana

Thank you for the eye opener. Someone just told me about this Priest. But after looking up him in a search red flags flew all over! I am an American Indian Catholic and it also seems he has abused various American Indian ceremonies for his own selfish interests. It is a shame a so called leader of our faith falls into the “New Age” trap.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, Timoteo

List of dissenters

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=48552
EXTRACT

Catholic Answers Forums, April 8, 2005

-The website http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/ contains a list of dissenting authors, speakers and organizations.

-There is a good list of dissenting organizations published in the book Call to Action or Call to Apostasy. It is written under the auspices of Human Life International. This list is well researched inasmuch as the official statements of these organisations are weighed against the Catechism. I really recommend it for anyone who wants to know what kinds of movements are present in progressive Catholicism.

Public dissenters and heretics in the Catholic Church

http://www.tldm.org/news6/dissenters.htm
EXTRACT

The web site ourladyswarriors.org has compiled a list of some of the more notorious dissenters and heretics in the Catholic Church. Notice that many are bishops, priests, and nuns.

And this from the ultra-left, dissenting itself, National
Catholic Reporter:

Theological disputes

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/022505/022505h.php

National Catholic Reporter, February 25, 2005

The List

Editor’s note: Following is a list of Catholic theologians and others disciplined by the Vatican during the papacy of John Paul II. Though not an exhaustive list, it is a substantial representation of the range of people subject to papal discipline during the past 26 years. The list was compiled by Tara Harris, assistant to the editor.

Fr. Jacques Pohier: A French Dominican priest, he was the first theologian to be disciplined by Pope John Paul II. In 1979 Pohier, the dean of the theology faculty at the Dominican theological school near Paris, lost his license to teach theology, was banned from saying Mass or participating in any liturgical gatherings. The Vatican objected to his views on Christ’s resurrection. He left the Dominicans in 1984.

Fr. Hans Küng: A Vatican investigation into the writings of this Swiss-born theologian began in 1975. He lost his license to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after the Vatican found fault with his views on papal infallibility. He continued to teach at the University of Tübingen as a professor of ecumenical theology.

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx: A Belgian Dominican, he was the theologian of the Dutch bishops at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and has endured several Vatican investigations. He was initially investigated in 1968 for questioning the virginity of Mary. The Dutch hierarchy, clergy and laity rallied to his defense, and Fr. Karl Rahner, who himself would be investigated, convinced the Vatican of Schillebeeckx’s orthodoxy. In 1979, a trial or “procedure” was convened to investigate his writings on Christology. In the face of an international campaign of protest against the trial, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dropped the matter in 1980. He has since received several “notifications” from the congregation that his writings remain in conflict with church teaching.

Fr. Charles Curran: Once a professor of moral theology at the Catholic University of America, Curran lost his license to teach theology in 1986 because the Vatican did not approve of his views on sexuality and medical ethics. He currently teaches at Southern Methodist University. He is a member of the NCR board of the directors.

Leonardo Boff: A Brazilian Franciscan and one of the most famous proponents of liberation theology, Boff was investigated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981. The Vatican objected to his views on Christology and the structure of the church. Boff was silenced for a year in 1985. Boff enjoyed the support of his religious order and two of Brazil’s cardinals, Aloisio Lorscheider and Evaristo Arns, but he was silenced again in 1991. In 1992 Boff left the Franciscans and the priesthood.

Fr. Anthony Kosnik: A priest of the Detroit archdiocese, he was forced to leave his teaching position at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary because he co-authored a Catholic Theological Society study called Human Sexuality. The Vatican disliked the study’s theology and Kosnik was pressured to resign in 1982. Seminarians and faculty threatened to boycott the school’s spring commencement if Kosnik was not reinstated. He got his job back, but was forced to resign the next year.

Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez: Often called the “father of liberation theology,” Gutiérrez has had to face numerous investigations by the Vatican. In 1983, the Peruvian bishops received a notification from the Vatican containing 10 complaints about Gutiérrez’s writings. They declined the request to condemn them. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued instructions in 1984 and 1986 that criticized certain aspects of liberation theology. In 1988, the congregation began another investigation of Gutiérrez. Nothing came of any of these investigations. In 2001 Gutiérrez joined the French province of the Dominicans in a move that was seen as an attempt to distance himself from the conservative Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne, the conservative archbishop of Lima.

Fr. Karl Rahner: Considered one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century, Rahner spent much of his career under Vatican scrutiny. John XXIII had him silenced and was extremely critical of his writings. Under Paul VI, he was rehabilitated and his theology greatly influenced the Second Vatican Council, where he served as an expert for the German bishops. In his later years, he was very critical of the conservative direction the church had taken under John Paul II. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith took issue with Rahner’s views about priestly ordination, contraception and his doctrine of the “anonymous Christian”. After his death in 1984, a gradual reassessment of Rahner’s theology took place, and by the time of his centenary in 2004, the secretary to the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared Rahner to be “an orthodox theologian”.

Fr. Matthew Fox: A former Dominican priest, his views on sexuality, original sin, and pantheism attracted the notice of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1983. His work was reviewed by a panel of fellow Dominicans and cleared. However, he was silenced by his superiors after the congregation found fault with his views. In 1993 he was expelled from the Dominican order after refusing to return to his community in Chicago. He joined the Episcopal church in 1994.

Mary Agnes Mansour: A Sister of Mercy, she was forced to choose between her job as the director of Michigan’s Department of Social Services and her religious vows. In 1983 after 30 years of religious life, Mansour left her congregation.

Elizabeth Morancy and Arlene Violet: Both were Sisters of Mercy in Rhode Island. Morancy, a Rhode Island legislator, and Violet, Rhode Island’s attorney general, were forced by the Vatican to choose between keeping their jobs and remaining in religious life. They chose to keep their jobs and left religious life in 1983.

Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen: The former archbishop of Seattle found himself under investigation after the Vatican received letters complaining of liturgical abuses. In 1983, Archbishop James Hickey of Washington conducted a visitation of the Seattle archdiocese. His report to the Vatican resulted in the appointment of an auxiliary bishop in 1985, and Hunthausen was stripped of much of his authority. After a wave of complaints and protests from laity, clergy, religious and Hunthausen’s brother bishops, the Vatican restored Hunthausen’s authority and replaced his auxiliary bishop with a coadjutor in 1987. He retired in 1991.

Fr. Ernesto Cardenal: He was a member of the Sandinista party in Nicaragua. When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza regime in 1979, Cardenal became the Sandinista’s minister of culture. When John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he publicly chastised Cardenal for his participation in the Sandinista government. Cardenal and four other priests were ordered to quit their government posts by the Vatican. Cardenal refused and lost his priestly faculties. He remained in the government until 1988. In 1994 he resigned from the Sandinista party, accusing its leadership of corruption.

Fr. Robert Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick: The two spent much of their religious careers working in ministry to homosexuals. In 1984 they were forced to leave their New Ways Ministry. In 1988, they were again investigated and in 1999 the Vatican sanctioned them for not representing authentic church teaching about homosexuality.

They received sanctions from their religious congregations that essentially prohibited them from participating in public ministry to homosexuals. Nugent, a Salvatorian priest, accepted the sanctions. Gramick left the School Sisters of Notre Dame and joined the Loreto Sisters in 2004 (
see story).

Dr. John McNeill: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith opened an inquiry in 1974 into the former Jesuit priest‘s view about homosexuality. In 1977, church authorities in Rome officially silenced him. He was no longer allowed to speak about or minister to homosexuals. He disobeyed that order in 1986 and the Society of Jesus began formal procedures to expel McNeill. The expulsion became official in January 1987 and McNeill became a psychotherapist.

Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey: Sisters of Notre Dame de Namour, they left their religious order 1988. They and 91 other nuns and priests signed an ad in a 1984 issue of The New York Times that proclaimed a “diversity of opinion regarding abortion” existed among Catholics. Ferraro and Hussey alone refused a Vatican order to retract their support for the ad. Although their religious congregation supported them throughout their investigation, the two left religious life, protesting the process used by the Vatican against them.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: The leader of traditionalist Catholics was excommunicated in 1988 for ordaining four bishops. Lefebvre rejected the reforms of Vatican II, believing the council opened the church to the negative influences of communism and modernism. He also rejected the “new Mass.” During the reform council, he led a group of traditionalists who firmly opposed anything new or different. After the council, he established his own seminary in Econe, Switzerland. Paul VI suspended him for ordaining the graduates of this seminary. John Paul II made many attempts to reconcile Lefebvre to the post-Vatican II church, but the episcopal ordinations made Lefebvre’s excommunication automatic.

Fr. Tissa Balasuriya: A Sri Lankan Oblate of Mary, he attracted the negative attention of the Vatican with his writings on Mary, the divinity of Christ, and original sin. In 1994 he was notified that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had found errors in his writings. In 1995, he was ordered to sign a profession of faith or risk excommunication. He responded by signing a profession of faith written by Paul VI. He was formally excommunicated in 1997. One year later, after protests and negotiations, Balasuriya was “reconciled” to the church.

Fr. Eugen Drewermann: A German theologian, he was suspended from the priesthood in 1992. He questioned the virgin birth of Christ and the physical reality of his resurrection. He was later expelled from the priesthood.

Ivone Gebara: A Brazilian Sister of Notre Dame found herself under investigation in 1993 for publicly advocating legalized abortion. A yearlong investigation by the Brazilian bishops’ conference ended with Gebara reaffirming her defense of human life in all forms. Although the Brazilian bishops considered the matter closed, the Vatican did not. Citing problems with her theological writings, in 1995 the Vatican pressured her religious congregation to sanction her. The sanctions resulted in Gebara being silenced for two years.

Bishop Jacques Gaillot: He was removed from his position as bishop of Evreux, France, in 1995. The Vatican, and several of his brother bishops, saw his identification with the poor and advocacy of homosexuals and contraception as too unorthodox for a bishop.

John Allen’s strategy for legitimizing Catholic dissent

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/opinion-john-allens-strategy-for-legitimizing-catholic-dissent/

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews, May 19, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Thoughts on post-tribal Catholicism http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/thoughts-post-tribal-catholicism, April 15, 2011

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

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

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

The real problem for Allen and NCR: “evangelical Catholicism”

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

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

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

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

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

Among the groups he names to perform this amalgamating function is Canada’s Salt and Light Television, run by Allen collaborator Fr. Thomas Rosica. In a recent Salt and Light interview with Rosica (beginning at 19:49), Allen promises viewers that there will be a “new spiritual awakening” where “we realize the sterility of this dead-end street of importing the culture wars into the Church” and names Salt and Light as an institution that conforms to his “zones of friendship” concept.

“One of the things that has always struck me about you personally and the Salt and Light network generally is that it genuinely is open to all of the different tribes of the Catholic landscape; that is you are not speaking from one side of the street, you are not speaking for one constituency, you are speaking for, and to, and about the entirety of the Church,” Allen gushes to an affirming Rosica.

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

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

Allen’s Plan B

If the “common ground” aspect of the Allen Strategy fails, however, Allen has a backup plan, which we shall call “Plan B.”

In Plan B all pretense of reconciliation and syncretism is dropped. Faithful Catholics are tar-brushed as extremists, while NCR’s dissenting viewpoints are portrayed by implication as the reasonable middle ground in the Catholic Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Allen Strategy really means

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

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

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

The response it is hearing is a clear “no” to the culture of death and sexual perversion, and to compromise and laxity with regard to the truths of the faith. It is a voice that will only grow louder until the Catholic faith, in all its integrity, is fully upheld and protected in the Church.

John Allen and his unfortunate patron are facing an inexorable imperative of Catholicism: the tribe of life must prevail over the tribe of death. Then, and only then, will authentic justice and peace reign among Christians.

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman is LifeSiteNews’ Latin America correspondent. His award-winning articles have appeared in many major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Sunday Times of London, Christian Science Monitor, Detroit News, and Nicaragua’s La Prensa. He can be reached at mhoffman@lifesitenews.com.

Selected comments

It would be best if Pope Benedict XVI would kick John Allen and the latter’s bosses OUT! –Angelonius

Bishop Helmsing CONDEMNED National Catholic Reporter in 1968 -M Hichborn

John Allen is just another wolf in sheep’s clothing trying to convince anyone who does not think critically, that dissent is just fine as long as we keep discussing and capitulating. Christ and the Apostles did not capitulate, nor did they dissent from the Truth of Divine Revelation, handed down from Christ. It’s time to shake the dust off of our feet and the foul dust of the immorality propagated by the National catholic Reporter. –Mark Andreas

The fact is, this ‘dissent’ has been enshrined at every level over many, many years and in the places where it is ruling triumphant it can be observed over and over again that it simply never ‘dialogues’ and instead in a militant and even abusive way simply stomps out the opposition, even if mild and innocuous. So this has been tested and it totally failed.

Further, one can look at the places in which dissent is the norm and see what is going on, there are few to no vocations, Catholic institutions being shuttered, and even with respect to the selective bits of social justice doctrine which have been permitted to be taught and retained, the faithful even in their affirming of their reasons for dissent are not in fact practicing even the most minimal bits of faith which have been allowed to be transmitted such as the ideals of tolerance and outreach to the poor. So many of the leaders of the dissent are simply so out of touch with the needs of ordinary Catholics, whatever demographic, ethnicity, socio-economic level. That they have been able to cobble together certain constituencies or factions which unite in their mutual hatred of the Church is really sad and itself speaks to an exploitative regard for souls in their supposed care, people are in effect held hostage to a political agenda and not permitted to join the entirety of the truth and the unity of the faithful. –Blandina

This is one of the most accurate depictions of the Catholic Church that I have read in a long time. These themes run through out the Church, and it is killing the Catholic faith. I said to my wife yesterday that the Catholic Church is not attracting people to its truths because those who are teaching the faith (Bishops, Priests, DRE’s, etc.) do not believe what they are teaching and therefore they are not excited about the Catholic Church and what it teaches. These people are internally destroying our Church the one true faith, and it is sad. You know if these people (Liberals) actually believed what the Church has revealed in its orthodoxy, there would be no divisions, but no we have to have a protestant church with in the Church. Matthew Cullinan Hoffman you have my admiration for writing such an informative article. -James Dorchak

Mr Hoffman has written a remarkably strong and amazingly calm article exposing a frightfully strong and chillingly calm adversary of Catholicism. The syncretists are complacent in their human preparations, Hoffman is at peace because he honestly believes that the outcome in God’s hand. Those who would reduce the struggle of Faith to culture wars in post-modern despair rely on the strength of their clever arguments. Men like Hoffman obediently look forward to the will of God being done on earth as it is in heaven. We can see that. What a marvelous apostolate is LSN! I am sure you take similar consolations when you are attacked and maligned by collaborateurs. –Francesco

The Pope should excommunicate all of the staff that belongs to that blog! There are often times so many blasphemies that come from their website! I was of course referring to the “Nation Catholic Reporter” -Josh

I think you meant to say “National Catholic Distorter” which apparently is sometimes much better known as “The Fish Wrap“. –Cynthia

MyCatholicSource.com: Listing of Possible Dissenters

http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/cg/possible_dissenters.htm

Notice: The following is only a “small list” of possible dissenters (sadly, there many more dissenters – and there may be new ones each day).

The following is provided for informational purposes only and is not comprehensive. We do not guarantee that any group / organization / movement / etc. actually dissents, even if that group / organization / movement / etc. is listed herein. Some groups / organizations / movements / etc. which do promote or assist dissent may object to being considered a “dissenter”. All items herein may be subjective, may be disputed, may be temporary, etc. If a group / organization / movement / etc. dissents, it does necessarily mean that all (or even many) of its members / adherents similarly dissent. Note that members may also be unaware of dissent or their participation in dissent may be unintentional (it is said that “true dissenters may appear truthful, combining 90% truth with 10% errors and lies”). Problems with groups / organizations / movements / etc. may not trace from their origin, and may not be officially sanctioned by the group / organization / movement / etc. Some groups / organizations / movements / etc. may not actually dissent, but they may have aligned themselves with dissenters, or they may have lent support to dissenters, etc. Even if a group / organization / movement / etc. does dissent, it does not necessarily mean that all of their activities / teachings / etc. are problematic. On the other hand, dissenting groups may ‘package’ harmful teachings with pleasant sounding terms (e.g. love, tolerance, acceptance, etc.). Groups / organizations / movements / etc. indicated herein may dissent on one or more points (commonly, dissenters may object to the Church’s teaching / practices regarding homosexuality, the male-only priesthood, the hierarchical priesthood, divorce, abortion, contraception, celibacy, etc.) or they may promote certain unacceptable practices (e.g. New Age, feminist, sinful behaviors, sinful actions, etc.), or they may promote one or more activities / goals, etc., such as: pushing for change, promoting disobedience, teaching against doctrine / discipline, subversive activities, unorthodox teaching, propagation of modernism, etc. Groups / organizations / movements / etc. may have various locations (even if not listed below). All information herein is subject to change at any time without notice. Some groups / organizations / movements / etc. indicated herein may have some diocesan acceptance / approval. Groups / organizations / movements / etc. may no longer be active, may have changed names, may go by alternate names (or acronyms), etc. Groups / organizations / movements / etc. indicated herein may no longer be active or dissenting (or others may have assumed their name). This list may favor well-known / influential organizations / movements / groups / etc. of a progressive / liberal nature, which appear (or may appear) to be Catholic and which are located in the U.S. May exclude some or all individuals, colleges, religious orders, diocesan groups, publications, various conferences, etc. This list may favor liberal / progressive dissenters (and may therefore omit some or all schismatic / sedevacantist dissenters). Various non-dissenting organizations / groups / movements / etc. may exist with the same or similar names (or acronyms) as those of dissenting organizations / groups / movements / etc. Locations and other identifying information may be inaccurate, incomplete, and subject to change. Not all acronyms may be listed. We do not guarantee accuracy or completeness of any item herein and we are not responsible for updating any information herein, even if we know it is outdated / inaccurate / etc. We have relied on various sources to compile the list herein. We do not guarantee that any source is accurate / reliable or that any source is not out of date. We are not passing an official judgment on any group / organization / movement / etc. – rather we leave that to the proper, orthodox Church authorities. We make no guarantees regarding any item herein. We are not liable for any occurrence which may result from using this site. Use of this site is at your own risk.

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the Church has been plagued with widespread dissent. Many seek to change doctrines and practices that they simply do not like (or do not agree with). In many cases, this is done “by infiltration and stealth”. Often dissenters may appear truthful, “combining 90% truth with 10% errors and lies”. Catholics must be careful not to support true dissenters, as they may poison one’s faith and endanger one’s soul. Further, true dissenters may be considered “enemies of Christ and of His Church”.

While the following groups / organizations / movements / etc. may be dissenters, we can’t guarantee that any particular group / organization / movement / etc. listed herein actually is a dissenter
(we leave official judgments regarding dissenters to the proper, orthodox Church authorities). In any event, one should use an additional degree of caution with regard to potentially suspect groups / organizations / movements / etc. [Note: One must be especially careful when evaluating groups / organizations / movements / etc. in this confused age since materials may be deceptive and it may be rather easy to become "taken in unaware" (2 Cor. 11:14-15: "...for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."). One must also remember that even if a group / organization / movement / etc. has some diocesan "approval", this does not necessarily guarantee that the group / organization / movement / etc. is "safe".]

ACLN – See “American Catholic Lay Network”

Adrian Dominican Sisters (Adrian, MI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

American Catholic Church [Source: Clowes, 1997]

American Catholic Lay Network (ACLN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Aquinas Institute of Theology (St. Louis, MO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

ARCC – See “Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church”

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Association of Pittsburgh Priests (Pittsburgh, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Bear & Company [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Bear Tribe [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Benedictine Sisters of Erie (Erie, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Black Sister’s Conference (BSC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Bread for the World (Detroit, MI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Bread Rising (Minneapolis, MN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Brothers for Christian Community (Warren, MI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

BSC – See “Black Sister’s Conference”

BVM Network for Women’s Issues [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Cabrini Mission Corps (Radnor, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CAE – See “Catholic Advocates for Equality”

Call for Dialogue on the Future of Priestly Ministry [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Call to Action (CTA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Carmelites of Indianapolis (Indianapolis, IN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Advocates for Equality (CAE) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Coalition for Gay Civil Rights [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Common Ground Center (Long Beach, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Gay and Lesbian Family Ministry [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Organizations for Renewal (COR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Parent’s Network (CPN) (Baltimore, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) [Sources: Various, 2006]

Catholic Reform (Albert Lea, MN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Women for Reproductive Rights (CWRR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholic Women’s Network (Sunnyvale, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics Act for ERA [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics Against Capital Punishment (Arlington, VA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics for Renewal (Saverton, MO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics for the Common Good [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics for the Spirit of Vatican II [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Catholics Speak Out (CSO) (Hyattsville, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CATT – See “Central American Telephone Tree”

CCC – See “Coalition of Concerned Catholics”

CCCC – See “Creation-Centered Catholic Communities”

CCCC – See “Cross Cultural Christian Concerns”

CCL – See “Conference for Catholic Lesbians”

CCW – See “Chicago Catholic Women”

CEE – See “Center for Education and Enlightenment”

Celibacy Is The Issue (CITI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Center for Action and Contemplation (Albuquerque, NM) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Center for Arts & Spirituality (Hudson, NH) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Center for Education and Enlightenment (CEE) (Lexington, KY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Center of Concern (COC) (Washington, DC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Central American Religious Study Group [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Central American Telephone Tree (CATT) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CFFC – See “Catholics for a Free Choice”

Chicago Catholic Women (CCW) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Chloe’s People (Hayward, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Christian Faith Committee (Washington, DC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Christic Institute [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Church of Reconciliation [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Church Women United (CWU) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CITI – See “Celibacy Is The Issue”

CIWPC – See “Committee for Incorporation of Women’s Perspectives into Curriculum”

Clare’s Well [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CLSA – See “Canon Law Society of America”

Coalition of Concerned Catholics (CCC) (United States) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

COC – See “Center of Concern”

College Theology Society (CTS) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Committee for Incorporation of Women’s Perspectives into Curriculum (CIWPC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Communitas (Washington, DC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Communities of Peace and Friendship [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Communities of the Christian Spirit (Blue Bell and Noble, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Community of the Anawim (Denver, CO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Companions of Chiara – Vestments for Women [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Conference for Catholic Lesbians (CCL) (New York, NY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

COR – See “Catholic Organizations for Renewal”

Corps of Retired Priests United for Service (CORPUS) (Morris, NJ) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CORPUS – See “Corps of Retired Priests United for Service”

CORPUS – See “National Association for a Married Priesthood”

CPCSM – See “Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities”

CPN – See “Catholic Parent’s Network”

Creation-Centered Catholic Communities (CCCC) (St. Louis, MO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CREDO Liturgical Dance Company of Boston [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Cross Cultural Christian Concerns (CCCC) (Oak Park, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

CSO – See “Catholics Speak Out”

CTA – See “Call to Action”

CTS – See “College Theology Society”

CTSA – See “Catholic Theological Society of America”

CWRR – See “Catholic Women for Reproductive Rights”

CWU – See “Church Women United”

Dignity/USA [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Domestic Catholic Church [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Dromenon Center for Sacred Psychology (Boca Raton, FL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Ecumenical Catholic Communion [Sources: Various, 2006]

Ecumenical Feminist Roundtable [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Eighth Day Center for Justice (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Emmaus Communities [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Esther House Groups [Source: Clowes, 1997]

European Conference for Human Rights in the Church [Source: Clowes, 1997]

European Network [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Family Life Ministry (Rockaway Park, NY and Brooklyn, NY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

FCM – See “Federation of Christian Ministries”

Federation of Christian Ministries (FCM) (Upper Darby, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Fellowship of Southern Illinois Laity (FOSIL) (Belleville, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Feminism and Faith (Indianapolis, IN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Feminist Action Coalition (Jersey City, NJ) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Feminist Liturgy Group [Source: Clowes, 1997]

FOSIL – See “Fellowship of Southern Illinois Laity”

Freelance Faith Group (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Friends of Creation Spirituality (Oakland, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Friends of the Third World (Fort Wayne, IN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Future of the American Church Conference [Source: Clowes, 1997]

FutureChurch [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Gathering for Rituals of Women (GROW) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

GOD’S CHILD Project (Bismarck, ND) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Good Tidings (Canadansis, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Grail, Grailville and Grailville Conference [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Grail Women Task Force (Loveland, OH) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Green Nation (San Jose, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Greenhouse Experiment (Greer, SC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Groundwork for a Just World (Detroit, MI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

The Group (Vacaville, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

GROW – See “Gathering for Rituals of Women”

HELIX (Silver Spring, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

House-Church [Source: Clowes, 1997]

ICCS – See “Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality”

Immaculate Heart Community, Los Angeles [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality (ICCS) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Institute of the Blessed Virgin (Wheaton, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Institute of Women Today (IWT) (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

International Thomas Merton Society [Source: Clowes, 1997]

IWT – See “Institute of Women Today”

James Markunas Society (San Francisco, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Justice Campaign [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Kairos Community (Rochester, NY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Keryx (Morris Plains, NJ) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Koinonia Community (Lake Oswego, OR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Latin American North American Church Concerns (Notre Dame, IN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Lay Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

LCWR – See “Lay Conference of Women Religious”

LCWR – See “Leadership Conference of Women Religious”

Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Let Live [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Life and Light Ministries (Houston, TX) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Limina [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Listen to the Voices of the People [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Looking Toward the Light (Natuck, MA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Loreto Women’s Network (St. Louis, MO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Love Happens (Monte Clare, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Magdalene Group (Oshkosh, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Mary’s Pence [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Matrix (Oshkosh, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Mercy Justice Coalition Committee (Omaha, NE) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Miriam’s Circle (Waldwick, NJ) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Miryam Community (Highland Park, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Moveable Feasts [Source: Clowes, 1997]

NAPR – See “National Association for Pastoral Renewal”

NARW – See “National Assembly of Religious Women”

National Assembly of Religious Women (NARW) (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Association for a Married Priesthood (CORPUS) (Morris, NJ) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Association for Lay Ministry [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Association for Pastoral Renewal (NAPR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Association of Parish Coordinators and Directors of Religious Education [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Black Sister’s Conference (NBSC) (Washington, DC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Catholic Education Association (NCEA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Center for Evangelization and Parish Renewal (NCEPR) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Center for Pastoral Leadership (NCPL, formerly Time) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN) (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

National Federation of Priest’s Councils [Source: Clowes, 1997]

NBSC – See “National Black Sister’s Conference”

NCAN – See “National Coalition of American Nuns”

NCEA – See “National Catholic Education Association”

NCEPR – See “National Center for Evangelization and Parish Renewal”

NCPL – See “National Center for Pastoral Leadership”

NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby [Source: Clowes, 1997]

New Jerusalem Community (Cincinnati, OH) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

New Visions (Mount Prospect, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

New Ways Ministry (Mt. Rainer, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

NEWoman (Luxemburg, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

North American Conference of Separated and Divorced Catholics [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Nova Community Women’s Groups [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Ocean of Glory (Crofton, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Oecoumin (Walton, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Old Catholic Church [Sources: Various, 2006]

One Catholic Voice for Action [Sources: Various, 2006]

Open Window (Dallas, TX) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Pallotine Apostolic Association (Milwaukee, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

PAM – See “Performing Arts Ministry”

Pandora’s Circle (Tuxedo, NY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Parish Renewal Consulting Services (PRCS) (San Francisco, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Pathfinder Community of the Risen Christ [Sources: Various, 2006]

Pathfinder Renewal Weekend (Palm Desert, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Pax Christi USA (Erie, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

People of the Promise [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Performing Arts Ministry (PAM) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

PPMP – See “Priests and People for a Married Priesthood”

Prayerfulness Support Group (PSG) (Bastrop, TX) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

PRCS – See “Parish Renewal Consulting Services”

Priests and People for a Married Priesthood (PPMP) (Minneapolis, MN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Priests for Equality [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Project Search, Inc. (Burbank, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Promises (Alexandria, VA and Englewood, CO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

PSG – See “Prayerfulness Support Group”

Quest and Vision Study Groups [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Quixote Center [Convergence Task Force] (Hyattsville, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Rainbow Sash Movement [Sources: Various, 2006]

Renewal Coordinating Community (Garden City, NY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Rent-A-Priest [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Response-Ability (Rosemont, PA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Roncalli Connection (Sterling, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Roncalli Society (Bloomington, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Ruah (Holyoke, MA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SAIM – See “Student Advocates for Inclusive Ministry”

Sarah’s Circle (Midland, MI and Binghamton, NY) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Sarah’s Sisters [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SAS – See “Sisters Against Sexism”

Save Our Sacrament (SOS) (Re: Annulments) [Sources: Various, 2006]

Sea of Faith Network (San Francisco, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SFCs – See “Small Faith Communities”

Shalom Center (Splendora, TX) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SHEM Center for Interfaith Spirituality (Oak Park, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Sinsinawa Network on Women’s Issues (Atlanta, GA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SIS – See “Sisters in Solidarity”

Sisters Against Sexism (SAS) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Sisters for Christian Community (Freehold, NJ) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Sisters in Solidarity (SIS) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Monroe, MI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Small Faith Communities (SFCs) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SOFIA – See “Spirituality of the Feminine in Action”

Solinox (Reston, VA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Sophia House [Source: Clowes, 1997]

SOS – See “Save Our Sacrament”

Spirit (Columbus, OH) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Spiritual Directions (South Euclid, OH) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Spirituality of the Feminine in Action (SOFIA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Spiritus Christi Church [Sources: Various, 2006]

SteppingStone (Milwaukee, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Student Advocates for Inclusive Ministry (SAIM) (Notre Dame, IN) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Table Talk (Libertyville, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

TAU Volunteers (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Thomas Merton Center (Palo Alto, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Time Consultants (Annapolis, MD) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

TWO – See “The Women’s Option”

United American Catholic Church [Sources: Various, 2006]

United States Catholic Biblical Association (USCBA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Upper Room Community (TX) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

USCBA – See “United States Catholic Biblical Association”

VOCA – See “Voices of Catholic Action”

Voice of the Faithful [Sources: Various, 2006] (Controversial: Organization may vigorously dispute being a dissenter)

Voices of Catholic Action (VOCA) (Altadena, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Volunteer Missionary Movement (Greendale, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

WATER – See “Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual”

We Are Church [Sources: Various, 2006]

Weavers of Change (Grand Junction, CO) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Wellstreams Center (Chicago, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

WICL – See “Women in Church Leadership”

WIT (Lincoln, NE) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

WOC – See “Women’s Ordination Conference”

Womanchurch or Womenchurch [Convergence] [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Womanspirit [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women at the Well (San Jose, CA) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

WoMen Gathering (Lacon, IL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women in Church Leadership (WICL) [Sources: Various, 2006]

Womenprayer [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Eucharist Groups [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Institute on Religion and Society [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Liturgy Group (West Palm Beach, FL) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

The Women’s Option (TWO) (Dayton, OH) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Ordination Worldwide (WOW) [Sources: Various, 2006]

Women’s Spirituality Groups [Source: Clowes, 1997]

Women’s Worship (Circle) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

The Woodlands (Osseo, WI) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

WOW – See “Women’s Ordination Worldwide”

YFN – See “Young Feminist Network”

Young Feminist Network (YFN, a project of WOC) [Source: Clowes, 1997]

The Dissenters’ Secret Meeting

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/00215.html

By Deal Hudson, CatholiCity, Crisis Magazine

This morning, the Boston Globe dropped a bombshell of a story… though they seem to have little idea just how major it is.

The title was “Bishops seek out opinions, in private: conference focus is church future,” and began by explaining that some top bishops “met secretly with a group of prominent Catholic business executives, academics, and journalists to discuss the future of the church.” The gathering was convened by former Boston College trustee Geoffrey Boisi and was called “The Church in America: The Way Forward in the 21st Century.” Cardinal McCarrick hosted the event at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, DC.

The fact that any bishops were involved in a “secret meeting” is strange… but it gets a whole lot worse.

Reading through the article, the author refers over and over to the “prominent” Catholics – men and women, both lay and religious – who were called to the secret meeting. Some of them, it turns out, aren’t so prominent. In fact, I didn’t recognize half of the names on the list, and I like to think that I’m pretty familiar with the Catholic world.

As for the others – well, they’re prominent all right. The list is full of the kinds of liberal and dissident Catholics that would make a Call To Action conference jealous.

These are the people who are supposed to be representing the Church in a discussion about its future? Just look at a few of these names…and make sure you’re sitting down:

Monika Hellwig – director of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. Dr. Hellwig needs little introduction. Most people by now are familiar with her infamous statement calling Humanae Vitae Pope Paul VI’s “personal opinion” and her questioning whether Jesus is the only savior.

R. Scott Appleby – left-leaning professor at Notre Dame and media darling who has been critical of Church conservatives for not being open to women priests and a married priesthood.

John Sweeny – president of the AFL-CIO and open supporter of abortion.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend – former lieutenant governor of Maryland and an infamous and enthusiastic pro-abortion “Catholic.”

Peggy Steinfels – the former editor of Commonweal magazine, Steinfels is very open about her dissenting views. In fact, she laid them out in an article called “Holy Mother Church’s Loyal Opposition: Disagreeing with official Catholic teaching on birth control and other issues should not cut us off.”

Kathleen McChesney – executive director of the Office for Child and Youth Protection under the USCCB. McChesney has been reprimanded by some bishops for her willingness to meet with such dissident groups as Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), calling into question her impartiality when working for the lay review board. Her presence at this secret meeting certainly doesn’t help.

Mary Jo Bane – professor of public policy at Harvard. Also intimately involved with VOTF, she laid out her “personally opposed but publicly supportive” position regarding abortion rights in a paper presented at a Commonweal colloquium.

And these are just the names I recognize at first glance. If these people are representative of those invited to the conference, I think it’s safe to say that the real criterion for involvement was not prominence or influence in the Catholic Church but sympathy with dissenting points of view.

Other names seem to be big players in Catholic businesses and philanthropy organizations. Frank Butler, president of FADICA (Foundations and Donors Interested in Catholic Activities), is one such name. Why were these people there? You have to wonder if they’re being corralled in to fund a liberal reform agenda.

Another thing I notice when scanning the list is the number of names associated with Boston College and the city of Boston in general. More and more, Boston College appears to be the very epicenter of dissent. Should it be surprising that the home of VOTF is also the home of those convening secret dissenting meetings?

And that’s what’s so frustrating. Why on earth would high-ranking bishops – including the president of the USCCB, Bishop Wilton Gregory – entertain a meeting with such known liberals and dissenters…and do it in private? The author of the article mentioned the difficulty he had in finding participants willing to talk about the meeting in even the most general terms, let alone allow their name to be published. Those who participated were “sworn to secrecy,” he wrote.

Frankly, I find it ironic that the same people who lambaste the bishops for being “secretive,” the same people who want openness and transparency in the chancery, are now sneaking around behind the scenes, trying to escape the public eye.

In addition, these are the PRECISE questions about the future of the Church that liberals claim the laity has a right to address. (Predictably, the issues of women’s ordination and priestly celibacy came up in some of the meeting’s breakout sessions.) But how can we be a part of the great dialogue they champion when it’s held in secret?

This says nothing of the fact that there isn’t a single person on the list known for his or her stand in support of faithfulness to the Magisterium, the pope, and the teachings of the Church. If this was a meeting of “prominent Catholics,” where are the prominent orthodox representatives? Where are George Weigel, Michael Novak, and Father Neuhaus? Why fly in representatives from little-known colleges in Boston when the orthodox president of Catholic University in DC, Rev. David O’Connell, has his office literally right across the street?

It’s absolutely absurd to call the meeting a discussion of the direction of the Church and not include representatives from the very heart of Catholic thought. Apparently, those Catholics faithful to the Church don’t count.

Honestly, can you imagine these bishops holding a conference for a group of prominent conservative Catholics… listening to their concerns…noting their advice? Don’t hold your breath.

When the pope called on bishops to crack down on dissent after the sex abuse scandal, I doubt this is what he had in mind. One final irony to top off this nonsense is the fact that the meeting was held at the John Paul II Cultural Center – the Institute constructed in his honor as a testament to his life and dedication to the Truth.

But alas, the pope probably wouldn’t have heard about the meeting anyway. After all, it was supposed to be a secret.

Rest assured that we’re going to be following up with this story.

ADDENDUM
We’ve received some very reliable inside information that the cardinal was duped into attending the meeting, and was not happy with the way it turned out. I’m not sure he should be held responsible for it.

Deal W. Hudson is the director of the Morley Institute, and is the former publisher of CRISIS Magazine, a Catholic monthly published in Washington, DC. His articles and comments have been published in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, National Review, Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Village Voice, Roll Call, National Journal, The Economist, and by the Associated Press. He appears regularly on television shows such as NBC Nightly News, One-on One with John McLaughlin, C-Span’s Washington Journal, News Talk, NET’s Capitol Watch, The Beltway Boys, The Religion and Ethics Newsweekly on PBS, and radio programs such as “All Things Considered” on National Public Radio. He was associate professor of Philosophy at Fordham University from 1989 to 1995 and was a visiting professor at New York University for five years. He taught for nine years at Mercer University in Atlanta, where he was chair of the philosophy department. He has published many reviews and articles as well as four books: Understanding Maritain: Philosopher and Friend (Mercer, 1988); The Future of Thomism (Notre Dame, 1992); Sigrid Undset On Saints and Sinners (Ignatius, 1994); and Happiness and the Limits of Satisfaction (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996). His autobiography, An American Conversion (Crossroad, 2003), is available from Amazon.com.

The National Catholic Reporter
aside, there are several web sites such as the following that appear to be dedicated solely to publicizing Catholic dissidence wherever it occurs and whichever form it takes:

Catholic dissent – Queering the Church

http://queeringthechurch.com/tag/catholic-dissent/

Beware the Dangerous Catholics

http://youngadultcatholics-blog.com/tag/catholic-dissidents/

November 13, 2012 by Lacey Louwagie
[A self-declared FEMINIST]

Decrying the Our Lady’s Warriors list of dissidents, writes, “In a voice that rings of fanaticism, Our Lady’s Warriors claims…“

With dissenters seemingly outnumbering faithful Catholics, it’s hard to keep track of all the self-described Catholics who specialize in denying their faith

http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=3775
EXTRACT

By Karl Maurer, www.ourladywarriors.org, January 14, 2003

With dissenters seemingly outnumbering faithful Catholics, it’s hard to keep track of all the self-described Catholics who specialize in denying their faith. Until now, that is.

Our Lady Warriors has developed a handy table of the All-Star dissenters, which we encourage CCI members to refer to. Listed among them is Fr. Patrick Brennan, Pastor of Holy Family Church in Inverness, IL.

For the complete listing see this link: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/disspeop.htm

Catholic Dissenters in the Times

http://marymagdalen.blogspot.in/2012/08/catholic-dissenters-in-times.html

Posted by Fr Ray Blake, August 13, 2012

Far be it from me to ever suggest to anyone that “It is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate”, the Pope did that before his UK visit to the Bishops of England and Wales at their ad Limina visit to Rome.
In the Times this morning this little bit of dissent* appeared signed by those listed below, most I know nothing about:

James Alison, Theologian & priest
Ruby Almeida, Chair of Quest (LGBT Catholics)
Tina Beattie, Theologian
Mike Castelli, Educationalist
Mark Dowd, Journalist
Michael Egan, Chair, Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement
Maria Exall, Chair, Trade Unions Congress LGBT Committee
John Falcone, Theologian
Eileen Fitzpatrick, Educationalist
Kieran Fitszimons, Priest
Mary Grey, Theologian
Kevin Kelly, Theologian & priest
Ted Le Riche, Retired educationalist
Bernard Lynch, Priest
Gerard Loughlin, Theologian
Francis McDonagh, Lay-person
Patrick McLoughlin, Priest
Anthony Maggs, Priest
Lorraine Milford, Lay-person
Frank Nally, Priest
Martin Prendergast, Chair, Centre for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality
Sophie Stanes, Lay-person
Joe Stanley, Lay-person
Valerie Stroud, Chair, Catholics for a Changing Church
Terry Weldon, Editor, Queering the Church
Matias Wibowo, Lay-person
Deborah Woodman, Clinical Psychologist

This is a clear attempt to undermine the bishops. Some like Ms Beattie are associated with a well known “Catholic” weekly, others I think are involved with the Soho Masses.

Selected comments

If you look up the names that claim to be priests in the Catholic Directory, you will find that a number of them are not listed. The most likely explanation is that they are ordained priests who have been suspended from their priestly state. –Et Expecto

At least one of the priests listed already regards himself as being married to a man so he hasn’t waited for any ‘debate’ to happen. –Stevie D

Has anyone else noticed that all of the dissenting Catholic organisations that keep springing up (StandUp4Vatican2, We Are Church, etc ad nauseam) all seem to be composed of the same individuals? –The Raven

Many are well known liberal Catholics so there isn’t anything very surprising about their views. Oh look there are some liberals saying liberal things. Hardly earth shattering. What surprises me is that people bother to write these sorts of letters to The Times anymore. I thought it long ago ceased to be our newspaper of record.
–Amfortas

You can find all the priest signatories on Google and a right self-justifying shower they are. –Genty

I understand that several of those people write for “The Capsule” which might be better known as a public convenience, hence the smell of verbal diarrhoea.
-EF Pastor Emeritus

*British Catholic Leaders Support Marriage Equality Legislation

http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/british-catholic-leaders-support-marriage-equality-legislation/
EXTRACT

New Ways Ministry

One selected comment

None of the 27 people who signed this letter are Catholic Leaders, indeed only 1 of 27 is a blogger. The British Catholic Leadership led by Archbishops Conte and Nicholas are 100% opposed to redefining marriage. This is the kind of misleading headline I have come to expect from New Ways Ministry. –Luke

Even the New Ways Ministry blog had Luke and other Catholics standing alongside the Church. –Michael

Below is another site netplaces.com that supports and defends dissidence from Catholic teaching:

Dissent in the Church

http://www.netplaces.com/catholicism-guide/dissent-in-the-church/

The post-Vatican II era has seen major shifts in many aspects of Roman Catholicism, some rather subtle, others more obvious. Liturgical changes in the celebration of the sacraments, significantly fewer priests and religious, and, as a consequence, fewer Catholic schools are overt and visible changes. However, a more subtle, yet possibly more significant shift is found in the general acceptance of dissent in the church. While certainly part of Catholic history, dissent today is not only widespread, but it is manifest in nearly every aspect of the faith.

Catholicism Divided

http://www.netplaces.com/catholicism-guide/dissent-in-the-church/catholicism-divided.htm

By Richard Gribble, CSC, PhD

Theological dissent has created various camps within the Roman Catholic community, even to the point of schism. Arising in the wake of Vatican II, these groups, with the passage of time, have become more clearly defined and possibly more strident and unbending in their theological positions. Two distinct positions within Roman Catholicism, loosely distinguished by the terms conservative and liberal, are joined by a third perspective, traditional Catholics, who as a result of a staid view that rejects the present pope and the teachings of Vatican II, have been labeled a schismatic group since 1988, although in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI initiated dialogue seeking reconciliation.

Conservative Catholics

Conservative Catholics are those members of the faithful who seek to defend, advance, and live the teachings of the church through the proper implementation of the documents of Vatican II. While most members of this camp would not expressly describe themselves as “conservative,” the name has been given as a result of a specific group whose philosophy of the Catholic faith generally adheres to this more conventional understanding of the church. Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), a formal organization started in August 1968 by H. Lyman Stebbins, is characterized by loyalty to the Vatican and a spirit of cooperation with Catholic religious authorities. The organization sees Catholicism as a religious bulwark against modernity and as a corrective to the dissent generated in the wake of Humanae Vitae. The communitarian aspect of CUF is important; it does not see itself as an organization of ideas alone. Membership in CUF is small, with nine chapters, attached to specific parishes, in the United States.

Conservative Catholics in general believe that many of the new ideas that have arisen in the church since Vatican II have led to widespread doctrinal illiteracy and religious indifferentism. Those associated with this perspective believe authority in the church has been compromised. In response, adherents suggest complete faithfulness to magisterial teaching is necessary; no one has the right to pre-empt church teaching or go beyond what the church has stated.

Progressive Catholics

By far today the vast majority of Roman Catholics in the United States are found on the opposite side of the religious ideological spectrum. Often referred to as progressive Catholics, these members of the Catholic faithful are content to live in the “spirit of Vatican II” and thus do not feel constrained to follow magisterial teaching absolutely. Proponents of this perspective view the church in a more inclusive way. This group feels free to dissent from church teaching, accepting certain teachings but rejecting others. Members of this camp believe Vatican II freed church members to prayerfully and in conscience make prudent decisions on how to live and practice their life of faith.

Traditionalists

Catholic traditionalists actually are two groups in one. The majority of this group accepts the authority of and claims union with the pope. They do, however, reject the liberal tendencies of certain members of the hierarchy and their teachings. A second group, whose first great champion in the hierarchy was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, seeks to arrest and reverse religious change among Catholics and to preserve the ideological, organizational, and cultic patterns of the church that were present before the Second Vatican Council. This second form of traditionalism is a protest against the blurring of Catholic identity and the loss of Roman Catholic hegemony in the world. The movement began somewhat underground, but by the mid-1970s had gained worldwide support by its return to the pre-Vatican II (Tridentine) Mass.

The Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) in the United States was inaugurated in March 1965 by Father Gommar De Pauw, a professor at St. Mary’s Seminary and College in Emmitsburg, Maryland. CTM’s theology is a radical departure from Roman Catholicism, although it claims that the Roman Church has moved far astray from its tradition. The CTM rejects Vatican II, including the contemporary Mass, casting aspersions on its doctrinal integrity. Its ideology is animated by a conspiracy theory and apocalyptic imagery of the Great Apostasy.

The CTM believes that the papacy is sede vacante (seat is empty), believing that all popes after John XXIII were imposters. Through the work of Archbishop Lefebvre in France, clerical societies, the Society of St. Pius X, the Society of St. Pius V, and the Society of St. Peter, became part of the traditionalist movement. In 1988, against the orders of Pope John Paul II, Lefebvre ordained four bishops in the Society of St. Pius X, leading to his excommunication and placing the traditionalist movement in schism.

How Dissent Became Institutionalized in the Catholic Church

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1209

Ignatius Press – The Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Among the notable anniversaries marked by the Church last year in 1998—the 20th anniversary of the election of Pope John Paul II and the 30th anniversaries of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and Credo of the People of God—there was another 30th anniversary that passed mostly unremarked and indeed unremembered, just as the event it marked was itself largely unheralded and its significance not understood at the time that it occurred. Yet, as things have turned out, the event in question was destined to be of simply incalculable significance for the future of Catholic faith and practice in the United States.

The event in question was the publication, on November 15, 1968, of the Pastoral Letter of the U.S. bishops entitled Human Life in Our Day. As its title suggests, this Pastoral Letter was issued by the American bishops primarily in support of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, a papal encyclical which was greeted with instant dissent and vociferous public protest coming especially from educated Catholics and led by Catholic theologians— dissent and public protest that were virtually unprecedented in the history of the Church up to that time.

Yet, contrary to the general impression at the time, especially the impression purveyed by the media, the U.S. bishops were really neither hesitant nor ambivalent in defending Pope Paul VI’s reaffirmation of the Church’s traditional teaching that each and every marriage act had to be open to the transmission of life. This Church teaching meant, of course, that resorting to all the forms of contraception provided by modern technology was gravely immoral.

By 1968, however, contraception had come to be almost universally accepted in our society at large: it was considered one of the great boons of modern technology and science; one could no more question the value of contraception, it seemed, than one could question, say, the utility and convenience of modern air conditioning.

Only the Catholic Church continued to maintain that contraception was nevertheless morally wrong. Most people could no longer see what was wrong with it, however, and so, prior to the issuance of Humanae Vitae, it had come to be almost universally taken for granted that the Church too would eventually back away from a teaching considered to be an anachronistic and irrational holdover from an ignorant past; it was assumed that the Church would drop her moral condemnation of birth control, just as she was believed to have quietly dropped her earlier absolute condemnation of usurious interest taking or her earlier toleration of slavery.

Instead, Pope Paul VI ignored popular opinion and came out with Humanae Vitae, thereby maintaining the Church’s traditional moral condemnation of any intervention which altered or interrupted the human generative process, before, during, or after the marriage act. Those immersed in the assumptions of modern society and culture concerning what was considered the obvious desirability of birth control—which included practically everybody—were stunned and incredulous at the pope’s action; the dissent from the pope’s conclusions was immediate and massive. The sense of grievance and resentment against the Church’s teaching office in the person of Paul VI was especially marked among Catholic theologians who had put their professional reputations on the line in favor of a “necessary” change in the Church’s moral teaching. Perhaps understandably, the beleaguered pope appealed to the bishops of the world to support the teaching of his encyclical— which, after all, incontestably did represent the Church’s constant and invariable teaching on the subject of the transmission of human life. The bishops’ conferences in many countries responded with pastoral letters prepared in support of the encyclical which, in some cases, turned out to be rather less than forthright and unambiguous in the support they offered for the pope’s “hard sayings” in the encyclical. Even the Catholic bishops in many countries, it turned out, were finding it hard to swim against the strong modern cultural current in favor of birth control. By all indications, not only large numbers of their laity, but many of their priests as well, were already swimming with that same birth control current.

The U.S. bishops’ Pastoral Letter Human Life in Our Day was actually one of the stronger countercultural episcopal statements made in favor of Humanae Vitae. In it the American bishops explained carefully and at times eloquently the Church’s teaching—and Pope Paul VI’s—on the transmission of life; and they stated very plainly that “united in collegial solidarity with the successor of Peter, we proclaim this doctrine.” The bishops thus declined to grant the modern cultural assumptions favoring birth control and opposing the encyclical; they even found themselves able to assert that:

The encyclical Humanae Vitae is not a negative proclamation, seeking only to prohibit artificial methods of contraception. In full awareness of population problems and family anxieties, it is a defense of life and of love, a defense which challenges the prevailing spirit of the times. Long range judgments may well find the moral insights of the encyclical prophetic and its worldview providential. There is already evidence that some peoples in economically under-developed areas may sense this more than those conditioned by the affluence of a privileged way of life.

There is much else in this Pastoral Letter in the same positive pro-encyclical vein. In it the U.S. bishops dealt firmly with some other contemporary issues of morality and conscience such as abortion. They even got into the question of the morality of the then escalating Vietnam War, which was an even more burning issue at the time than the issue of birth control. Nowhere did the bishops lack either the candor or the courage to affirm the Church’s authentic teaching on all these difficult questions, regardless of the very different assumptions that had already come to be accepted by most people today, including many Catholics. For the American bishops, in 1968, there was simply no question but that Catholics had an obligation to assent to and act on the renewed papal teaching concerning birth control. At least this is what the written record shows.

Yet it is from the publication of this 1968 Pastoral Letter of the American bishops that we are also obliged to date what became the virtual “institutionalization” in the United States of theological dissent from the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium.

Among the things the bishops addressed in Human Life in Our Day, there was the patent fact that Catholic dissent from the encyclical had indeed been massive and was still both belligerent and unrepentant. As they wrote, the bishops had to be aware that their words were unlikely to change many minds, at least in the short run. Nevertheless they certainly understood very well that they had to uphold the Church’s teaching.

Unfortunately, they did not confine themselves simply to reaffirming and defending the Church’s teaching on the contraception question and other moral issues. They went on to deal with the burning issue of the dissent from the encyclical as well. And it was the way they decided to address this issue of the widespread dissent they were contending with that would prove to have serious negative consequences for Catholic faith and practice in the United States from that time up until the present. We must examine how and why this occurred. But first we must examine further the phenomenon and logic and the effects of the dissent itself which had become so publicly manifest in 1968.

The inexorable logic of dissent

Even though the U.S. bishops’ 1968 Pastoral Letter Human Life in Our Day contained a strong defense of the teaching of Humanae Vitae, few were under any illusion that the bishops’ words would prove to be any more acceptable to large numbers of Catholics than the pope’s words had been. Most people had already made up their minds that a change in the Church’s teaching about birth control was “necessary”; and not a few reputable Catholic theologians occupying official positions within the Church’s structure were being quoted in front-page stories and on the evening news telling everybody that there were indeed perfectly good “Catholic” theological reasons for opposing the pope’s teaching—a teaching now officially adopted by the bishops as well.

The whole Humanae Vitae affair, which extended over many months in 1968 and after, very quickly established quite firmly in the minds of most people the proposition that the Magisterium of the Church could err; the pope and the bishops might reaffirm the Church’s traditional teaching as solemnly as they liked, but they were nevertheless widely seen as simply being wrong about birth control. And if the Church’s Magisterium could be in error concerning a matter taught as long and consistently as the Church’s teaching condemning contraception, then the same Magisterium could surely be in error concerning other teachings, even those that the Magisterium might nevertheless continue to insist on.

The underlying logic of the situation escaped very few people. If the Church was wrong, dissent was not only permitted—it was imperative. It was on this basis that dissent quickly came to be nearly universal, in fact. In the minds of very many people, the dissenting theologians, not the pope and the bishops, had turned out to be right on the issue. Moreover, since most of the dissenting theologians continued to remain in place, and were neither removed nor rebuked by Church authority for their open dissent, the other thought that inevitably came to be lodged in people’s minds was this: maybe the Church herself really had doubts about the teaching in the final analysis; surely Church authorities could not really be very serious about the birth control teaching, in spite of their verbal reaffirmations of its authenticity. Otherwise, how could all these open dissenters simply be left in place to go on publicly contradicting and undermining the teaching Church, as was the case?

Nor did it make any great difference as far as the underlying logic was concerned that, at least initially, the theological dissenters were claiming to be able to dissent only from non-defined, non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium. Defined, infallible teachings were still supposed to be incumbent and binding upon believers, according to the dissenters themselves. Many in authority seized gratefully upon this distinction as providing proof that the dissenters really were basically “loyal,” except on something that probably really was “non-essential” to the faith anyway, namely, the whole birth control business.

But this position limiting permitted dissent to non-infallible teachings was inherently unstable and could not really be maintained. For the same logic underlying accepted and tolerated dissent would simply continue to work in the minds of those who had come to doubt or deny any of the Church’s announced teachings on any subject. The only thing standing behind a defined, infallible teaching, after all, was the authority of the Magisterium—and the authority of the Magisterium had supposedly now been shown in the case of birth control to be capable of error.

Thus, three decades after theological dissent came into its own, and came to be tolerated in practice as a result of the Humanae Vitae affair, it should not have been surprising to anyone that dissent had now become almost universal, not least among professional theologians. For example, the formal theological dissent which greeted Pope John Paul II’s declaration in his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to the effect that the Church had no power to ordain women to the sacred priesthood proved to be at least as far-reaching as the dissent which had greeted Humanae Vitae in 1968.

In vain did the pope declare that the teaching forbidding female ordination was to be “definitively held by all the faithful.” In vain did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in November, 1995, insist that this non-ordination teaching actually belonged “to the deposit of faith,” i.e., that it was in effect, infallible.

For the judgment that it was infallible was simply held to be itself fallible—all too fallible!—as a paper approved in June 1997, by a voting majority of the members at the convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) did not fail to point out— a paper which the CTSA had the chutzpah to send to the heads of the U.S. and Canadian bishops’ conferences. According to the theological establishment, the authority behind the statements of the pope and the CDF on the ordination issue had come to be considered as erroneous and as unwisely proposed as Pope Paul VI’s reiteration of the Church’s teaching against birth control had been back in 1968.

More or less the same negative reaction from large segments of the Catholic theological community and the educated laity greeted Pope John Paul II’s solemn condemnations of abortion, euthanasia, and the killing of the innocent in the present pontiff’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. No doubt the pope wished to place all the authority of his sacred office behind the moral condemnation of these terrible contemporary evils.

However, solemn condemnations by the pope no longer count for much in the era of accepted and tolerated dissent—and perhaps especially at conventions of the CTSA. Perhaps many dissenters even continue to oppose these obvious evils themselves—but they no longer do so because the pope has solemnly condemned them. Solemn condemnations by the pope no longer count for much at all in theological circles—since the papal Magisterium was shown to be capable of such an egregious error back in 1968 in the issuance of Humanae Vitae’.

Thus has the inexorable logic of dissent worked itself out over the past generation in the Church in the United States. There no longer effectively is any accepted Church Magisterium in the traditional sense of the word today—a Magisterium that teaches “with authority” and sees its pronouncements accepted on the basis of that authority. Not a few, perhaps especially in the ranks of the theologically trained, have even apparently lost their Catholic faith entirely as a result of the same inexorable logic of dissent: certainly many of them no longer assent to the faith in the sense that the Church has not ceased to propose it; they may go on calling and considering themselves Catholics, but they have for all intents and purposes really joined the ranks of Fr. Andrew Greeley’s famous “communal Catholics”—those who continue to consider themselves “Catholics,” even though they no longer believe the faith enshrined in the Creed they still recite on Sundays and Holy Days.

Evidence abounds, in fact—as regularly encountered, for example, in the pages of America, Commonweal, and the National Catholic Reporter, and, certainly, in the pages of Theological Studies—that many such “name Catholics” no longer apparently subscribe to the traditional faith at all in the same sense that the Church proposes it for belief; they have simply jettisoned significant portions of the traditional credenda and they pick and choose among what remains on the basis of what used to be called Protestant “private judgment.” And even when some things in the Catholic tradition nevertheless do continue to be accepted and affirmed by such people, they are no longer accepted and affirmed on the authority of the teaching Church, but rather merely on the basis of what modern scholars or experts—or simply “modern” people in general today—are prepared to affirm as acceptable and affirmable today. For them the Church may well continue to be a community, a tradition, a way of life, an ethnic heritage, even a “culture”; but she is certainly no longer believed to be the “teacher of truth” described in Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae #14, a teacher setting forth credenda which are binding upon the belief of her members as a condition of their membership.

In 1987, Pope John Paul II told the American bishops in San Francisco that it was a “grave error” to imagine that “dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a good Catholic and poses no obstacle to reception of the sacraments.” The presumption of the pope’s words had to be that dissent from established doctrines is not “compatible with being a good Catholic” and does pose an “obstacle to the reception of the sacraments,” if words mean anything.

By the time the pope got around to making this statement, however, the underlying logic of the dissent that had come to be tolerated in practice after Humanae Vitae had long since done its work. It is no exaggeration to say that, by 1987, this theological dissent already had become “institutionalized,” at least in practice, in the Church in the United States. And responsibility for this state of affairs, at least in part, must be laid at the door of the 1968 Pastoral Letter Human Life in Our Day.

Inviting rebellion

How could a bishops’ Pastoral Letter which so strongly affirmed and supported Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae be in any way responsible for helping to “institutionalize” theological dissent in the Church in the United States? Surely the intention of the bishops was to defend and justify the pope’s position, not permit dissent from it.

Yes, but the bishops unfortunately went somewhat beyond merely endorsing the pope’s position. They evidently thought that they had to reach out to and accommodate in some fashion the large numbers of those working within the Church’s official teaching and educational structure who turned out to be open dissenters from the pope’s encyclical. They accordingly included in their Pastoral Letter a short chapter entitled “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent.”

Without citing any other theological or ecclesiastical source beyond their own say-so, the bishops declared in this short chapter of their Pastoral Letter that:

. . . There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from non-infallible received teaching the norms of licit dissent come into play.

What the bishops were faced with in 1968, of course, was hardly mere “theological speculation and research,” whether or not “legitimate.” Rather, it was widespread public dissent from and disagreement with a solemnly proclaimed papal teaching, led and indeed egged on and orchestrated by well-known theologians, who had also evidently convinced large numbers of the clergy of the justice of their position. These theologians were hardly engaged in “professional theological work”; they were engaged in a politicized mass-media campaign frankly intended to discredit the teachings of the Church in the eyes of the faithful and the world as a whole.

In a situation such as this, to be drawing up and publishing “Norms of Licit Dissent” supposedly to be applied to “theological research” was at best an exercise in unreality (at worst it was yet another indication that the bishops had simply been ignominiously defeated in the media campaign by the dissenters). The situation the bishops faced had nothing to do with scholarly work at all; it was rather a situation of open, public rebellion against Church authority that just happened to be led by “scholars.” “Lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought” was probably the last thing on the minds of the latter; they were concerned rather that the whole world should understand that Catholics should henceforth be following them instead of the pope and the bishops.

In this climate, mere episcopal statements that the encyclical indeed represented authentic Catholic teaching and needed to be taught and enforced by priests in classrooms, pulpits, and confessionals diverged wildly from what nearly everybody understood the real existential situation to be, namely, that the teaching of the encyclical was being rejected on a huge scale by both clergy and laity alike, who were meanwhile being assured by theologians speaking through the mass media that this dissenting position was perfectly justified and even more “Catholic” than what the pope and the bishops were trying to say.

Moreover, the dissenters were mostly left in place in the positions they occupied, and they were thus able to go on asserting with much credibility that their positions were legitimate; nor was there ever any effective denial of this by the official Church. In only three or four dioceses did the bishops even attempt to impose what earlier would have been considered normal discipline upon those who were openly denying and denigrating Church authority. These disciplining efforts, in any case, uniformly failed—spectacularly so in Washington, D.C., where the late Cardinal Patrick O’Boyle—who had the theological ring-leaders of the dissent at the Catholic University of America on his hands— seriously tried to impose discipline and remove dissenters, but received no visible support from any of his colleagues.

Nor did Rome itself provide any tangible support to Cardinal O’Boyle, as far as anyone could see. It was not until three years later, in 1971, when it was too late to do any good, that the Congregation for the Clergy issued a statement more or less vindicating the disciplinary actions taken by Cardinal O’Boyle.

What occurred in 1968 unfortunately constituted a pattern that would recur over the next three decades: the Church’s authentic teaching, whether on birth control or other subjects, would be strongly and regularly reiterated by the pope in various documents and actions; and the bishops, meanwhile, would never fail in any important instance to adopt stances openly supportive of the pope’s teachings.

At the same time, few below the level of the bishops themselves were ever strictly required to uphold and enforce these official Church teachings as a condition of continuing to be considered a “good Catholic” and even to hold official positions. In fact, there is very little evidence from anywhere that what was being regularly taught at Catholic institutions at all levels was anywhere subject to any very serious episcopal oversight. As a practical matter, open dissenters were largely left in place in their university faculties or institutes, and this was often true of other types of educational institutions as well. It was perhaps not always the case with regard to, e.g., a few seminary professors—yet dissenting professors continued to hold even seminary posts in more than a few instances.

There were some exceptions to this pattern of tolerated dissent, of course, notably the case of the leading theoretician of dissent in the United States, Fr. Charles E. Curran of the Catholic University of America’s theology faculty. At the insistence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fr. Curran was eventually removed from his teaching position (after 18 years!). For the most part, however, open dissent from Humanae Vitae, and, later, from other doctrines as well, has not been a notably evident disability among the professional classes in the Church in the United States. As in our contemporary “non-judgmental” culture generally, the idea that people might ever be removed from official positions if unwilling to uphold the authentic teaching of the Church has seemed to be rather far from the typical mindset of those in authority in the Church.

If anything, it has been those who have attempted to call attention to the deleterious effects of dissent who have been the ones most readily criticized; often they have been marginalized for insisting on the Church’s authentic teaching.

This is the state of affairs that has roughly obtained in the Church in the United States from 1968 up until the present day. And it has often been justified—and, in one sense, even made possible—by the presence of the “Norms of Licit Dissent” in the Pastoral Letter of the U.S. bishops’ Human Life in Our Day. Merely to characterize dissent as ever possibly “licit” was perhaps already to give the game away; once this point was conceded, it inevitably became merely a question of what specific cases of dissent were therefore “licit.”

Of course, the bishops attempted to limit and circumscribe in their Norms the kinds of dissent that could be considered licit. They specified that “the expression of theological dissent from the Magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well founded, if the manner of dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church, and is such as not to give scandal”—but the whole purpose of the Humanae Vitae dissent was to question and impugn the teaching authority of the Church, and a good deal of scandal was regularly given in the process.

The bishops also tried to insist that the theologian who found it necessary to dissent should exhibit “respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation”—as if the rebellion against Humanae Vitae had in any important sense stemmed from any “judicious investigation.” Dissenting theologians were also required by the Norms to set forth their “dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.” “There is always a presumption in favor of the Magisterium,” the Pastoral Letter went on. “Even non-infallible doctrine, though it may admit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binding and carries with it a moral certitude . . .” (emphasis added; but if it “remains binding,” how can it ever be “licitly” dissented from?).

The Norms included yet other requirements, namely, that “even responsible dissent does not excuse one from faithful presentation of the authentic doctrines of the Church”; and that priests were supposed to heed “the appeal of Pope Paul that they ‘expound the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity.”‘

In the minds of the bishops in 1968, these Norms of Licit Dissent were perhaps drawn up and included in their Pastoral Letter in order to try to re-impose some measure of episcopal control and oversight over a situation of dissent that had literally already gotten out of hand.

Whatever the original intention, however, the Norms only made a bad situation worse. It was simply unreal to speak about dissent that did not “question or impugn the teaching of the Church” when it was the object of the dissent from Humanae Vitae to question and impugn the authority of the Church. Similarly, it was idle to attempt to require that dissent could only be expressed “with propriety,” when the favored method of the dissenters was precisely to challenge the pope’s teaching with maximum publicity, hopefully in or through the mass media.

In short, the Norms were fundamentally misconceived and incoherent; and even if it could be shown that they were in any sense valid, they certainly did not apply to the kind of dissent the Church was facing. Virtually none of the dissent of 1968 and after was carried out in accordance with these Norms or with anything resembling them.

Yet the fact that such Norms could be found in an official bishops’ document served to create the illusion and the justification that, yes, dissent from Church teaching could somehow be “licit.” By admitting that dissent could ever be licit, the bishops simply invited dissenters in all cases to assert that their particular dissent was licit. Any bishop even contemplating disciplining or removing a dissenter henceforth had to admit the plea that the dissent of the latter was, after all, at least arguably licit, according to the bishops’ own criteria. In practice, virtually all dissent was thereby enabled to be considered licit.

Tolerated dissent thus fostered widespread disloyalty to the Church. It fostered dishonesty too, since the pretence had to be maintained that those who were disloyal were not to be judged disloyal under the regime of the Norms.

It was in this fashion, then, that theological dissent from magisterial teaching became virtually “institutionalized” in the Church in the United States. That this was hardly the intention of the bishops does not alter the fact that it was the almost inevitable result of their unwise attempt to lay out official “Norms” for what amounted to simple rejection of the Church’s teaching.

Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education. He has authored or coauthored nine books, as well as many articles, and is the translator of some twenty published books.

Dissent at Catholic Youth Ministries

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/dissent-at-catholic-youth-ministries

By Austin Ruse, Crisis Magazine, July 19, 2013

Not long after
I published my recent column about Robert McCarty and the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministries (NFCYM), I started receiving emails from concerned and in some cases very well informed parents. One of the emails included screen shots from Facebook postings of one of McCarty’s senior employees.

On Facebook this fellow celebrates the recent Supreme Court rulings in favor of homosexual marriage as “historic” and an “affirmation of the love and dignity of all human beings.” In another post he congratulates Rhode Island for legalizing homosexual marriage. To his credit, on his Facebook page he also celebrates the recent pro-life victory in Texas.

There is a certain ho-hum quality to this news. Are we really surprised to find that an employee of a quasi-official Catholic organization is squishy on a key teaching of the Church? Sadly, no. Dissenters from Church teachings have occupied senior positions in chanceries, rectories, seminaries and certainly in quasi-Church organizations for at least 50 years.

Yet in these days of increasing orthodoxy isn’t it at least a little bit surprising that a senior official of a Catholic organization would flaunt his dissent so publicly? Some compare Facebook to a cocktail party, others to an office water cooler. But it is even more public than that. And in this public forum, in front of his boss McCarty who is on Facebook with him, this youth ministry leader felt quite comfortable announcing his dissent from this Catholic teaching that so deeply affects children. Maybe these views are de rigueur at the NFCYM water cooler. Did they all celebrate homosexual marriage after the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions? Do they know the teachings of the Church on homosexual marriage? More importantly, how do they instruct Catholic youth on the subject?

It makes sense that one of the last redoubts of the failed Church revolution would be youth ministries. As the revolutionaries are driven from the chanceries, rectories and bishops conferences, it makes sense they would remain imbedded in an area with so many impressionable minds and so little adult supervision.

Most of us would not come within a mile of Catholic youth ministries, for a whole host of reasons. It is not for adults, though adults run it. And much of it is simply strange to us. The floridly tattooed Bryan Kemper, who runs a thoroughly solid youth outreach for Priests for Life, says a certain level of excitement is necessary to keep the kids’ attention and I believe him. While many young people are attracted to the Traditional Latin Mass, many others need something quite different. But, do they need what McCarty’s annual conference offers them?

He regularly features a comedienne who makes fun of—or at least light of—Catholic practices. A campy Christmas skit from a recent NFCYM youth catechist conference featured adults dressed as Mary and Joseph and the Three Wise Men. While the choir sings Christmas hymns, the Mary character makes periodic comic grimaces, presumably from labor pains, to audience laughter. Other adults sashay and shimmy on stage until the climax of the skit, when, as the choir crescendos to the words, “This, this is Christ the King,” a man in a bear costume stumbles onto the stage. Hilarity ensues.

The skit was proudly posted on YouTube by the head of an archdiocesan Catholic youth ministry who attended the conference, but after it appeared among the comments of my last column on this topic it has been taken off YouTube—not likely because it is blasphemous, but because shining a spotlight on it is a danger to McCarty’s project.

Most of us steer clear of youth ministry. Other than a sojourn in a Methodist youth singing group called New Faith, so did I. My time in New Faith was mostly about girls. The whole scene was just too touchy feely, and not in the way I sought in those days.

Maybe kids need pop music and silly skits to keep them interested in the Church, but you have to wonder if this is the only way to pass along the faith to kids. And you have to ask if it is working. Look around your Church on Sunday and count the number of teenagers. You will be shocked at the how small the number is. So, you have to wonder if McCarty’s way is really working. After all, he and his have been at this for decades. Yes, he turns out 20,000 for his annual conference, but where are these kids on Sunday? Not in Church.

Not all diocesan Youth Ministry offices are content with the hippy-dippy way. Informed sources tell me the Diocese of Arlington has pulled out of the NFCYM, or at least its annual conference. There are probably many others.

Other groups offer a different and a better way. Curtis Martin and his Fellowship of Catholic University Students put on an annual conference for several thousand students that is respectful and thoroughly orthodox. His group is growing exponentially. The Steubenville youth conferences draw many thousands of young Catholics, too, where they hear about the love of Christ and the call to purity, chastity, and self-sacrifice.

Scott Hahn, once a charismatic himself, told me the charismatic movement was one lane coming into the church and six going out. What is the calculus for Catholic youth ministries? How many lanes in? How many lanes out?

The next national conference of McCarty’s group is in November in Indianapolis. Let us hope some fearless and faithful videographers attend.

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy.

Selected out of 117 comments

When the absolute last of the dissenters among the ordinary laity have either come back to orthodoxy or else left the Church entirely, I fully expect that the Church’s own bureaucracy will remain populated largely by dissenters until they all die off. –Matt Landry

Mr. Ruse, while there are many things that could be said about this article, I feel the need to address two:

1. Your ignorance of the ministry and profession of youth ministry, and 2. your biased lens and divisive approach.
1. Your ignorance of the ministry and profession of youth ministry. It is quite apparent that you do not have any firsthand experience of youth ministry or NFCYM. Of course there are other ways to catechize adolescent youth. However, the NFCYM – the arm of the USCCB for youth ministry – teaches and forms youth ministry leaders in the vision for youth ministry of our bishops found in their 1997 document, Renewing the Vision. See the document here: http://www.usccb.org/about/lai…. Catholic youth ministry today is based on decades of experience, ecumenical dialogue and a multitude of current and scientific research on adolescents today and on what is commonly referred to as “youth culture.” NFCYM seeks to train and equip youth ministry leaders in parishes, empowering them to engage today’s teens through a comprehensive structure and to journey with them as they grow as disciples of the Lord, something that is very difficult in the face of parish budgets that largely ignore this vital ministry altogether. In sum, read Renewing the Vision, do some research, and do not speak on a topic of which you have almost no knowledge. Criticize the guy who spoke on Facebook if you must, but don’t speak ill of youth ministry just because you stereotype all youth ministry leaders into the category of hippy. You have spoken without any real knowledge of the ministry and profession of youth ministry.

2. Your biased lens and divisive approach. NFCYM, as a good embodiment of the Church, includes collaborating member organizations that, while all promote the advancement of quality youth ministry that is in harmony with the bishops’ vision, nonetheless represent various Catholic groups and Catholic theologies. In simple (and non-helpful) terms, this means both conservative and liberal groups WITHIN the Church. For you to harshly judge Dr. Bob McCarty and the entire NFCYM organization, and by extension the USCCB, and even youth ministry in general, based on the comments of one individual is not only unfair but wholly un-Christ-like. Put plainly, you are being divisive rather than building the Body of Christ. Go interview the conservative youth ministry organization LifeTeen, an NFCYM collaborating member. Ask them about youth ministry and its importance in the life of the Church before talking negatively about youth ministry. And go to the source, to NFCYM, to Bob McCarty, to whomever has allegedly made these comments (your article was based on pretty poor reporting – not a lot of facts and quite a bit of “some parents told me…”) and give us the facts from the horse’s mouth. I agree that the person’s (again, I have no idea who) comments sound out of turn and certainly give reason to ask questions. But as Catholics, we are called to do so in both truth AND charity. “By this all men will know that you are my disciples: if you have love for one another,” (John 13:35). All you have done is make your regular readers skeptical of a great Catholic organization and, more importantly, skeptical of a ministry that is integral to the life of the Church – integral, that is, if you believe what our bishops have to say. -Mike Buckler

Are you really so indifferent that a senior staff member of McCarty’s outfit is a public dissenter on Catholic teaching? You criticize him “if I must.” Why won’t you? My article was actually based on reading the gentleman’s Facebook page myself. I chose not to name him but I could have. I could have named one of your peers who placed a video on YouTube of a blasphemous skit from one of your conferences. It was enough that a senior staff member felt so comfortable in his dissent that he put it on Facebook. Don’t you care about this? If not, why not?

I will just repeat what Scot Hahn said about the charismatic movement. It is one lane into the Church and six lanes out. I do look around our parish and ask myself where are all the teens? This after decades of your “scientific” approach. I began my skepticism of this “great Catholic organization” as I came to understand that Bob McCarty has given a whitewash to the very clear and longstanding connection between Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts. There is trouble in this organization and someone in authority ought to do something about it. -Austin Ruse

The church absolutely has a right to intervene in politics. And the church teaches that marriage of any kind can only be between a man and woman. Anything else places you in dissent -Austin Ruse

Dissenting Catholics’ Modernity Problem

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/dissenting-catholics-modernity-problem

By Samuel Gregg,
October 28, 2011

Judging from the hundreds of thousands of Germans who attended and watched Pope Benedict XVI’s September trip to his homeland (not to mention the tsunami of commentaries sparked by his Bundestag address), the pope’s visit was — once again — a success. And, once again, it was also an occasion for self-identified dissenting Catholics to inform the rest of us what the Church must do if it wants to remain “relevant.” To no-one’s surprise, their bottom-line remains the same. The Church is “out of touch.” Why? Because it’s insufficiently “modern.”

By “modernizing,” progressivist Catholic activists (who, incidentally, are increasingly hard to find below the age of 60 these days) aren’t normally proposing better ways to evangelize. Instead, they usually mean changing Catholic doctrines in ways that directly contradict what the Church has always taught so that the Church becomes more, well, modern.

It would be all too easy to focus on some of the less-than-noble motivations underlying many such propositions. In many instances, it’s frankly a case of wanting the Church to affirm choices that it has always regarded as intrinsically evil. In other areas, it reveals a view of the sacraments as instruments of power rather than as what the Catechism calls “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church.”

At another level, however, the “we-must-be-more-modern” argument reflects the workings of a logic that privileges whatever is considered “contemporary” (an ever-moving target) over the knowledge imparted by Christ to His Church from its very beginning.

Such reasoning often runs along the following lines. In modernity, X is considered not good; ergo, the Church must accept X is not good. Or, modern people regard X as good or licit; ergo, the Church should teach X is good or licit.

You don’t need to be a professional philosopher to recognize that these are what logicians call non sequiturs: arguments in which the conclusions don’t follow from the premises. The fact that something is considered modern tells us nothing about its goodness or evil, let alone whether it conforms to the truth found in Divine Revelation. It also produces very strange arguments such as the claim made in 1968 (of course) by the ex-Jesuit theologian John Giles Milhaven, that “modern people” (whoever they are) by virtue of their “modernity of spirit” (whatever that means) enjoyed a type of “standing dispensation” from God to pursue what they “feel” to be good.

Such talk could be easily dismissed as reflective of the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s. There is, however, an even deeper, specifically theological problem driving these non sequiturs: the substitution of Catholic faith with what might be called a “feeling faith.”

After Vatican II, many Catholic theologians began attaching enormous significance to people’s experiences or intuitions as part of the intellectual apparatus they deployed to explain why they now believed the Church’s settled teaching on any number of issues required “updating” (i.e., overturning).

Whatever their precise formulation, beneath the surface of such rationales we can detect post-Enlightenment tendencies to (1) locate the ultimate basis for one’s views on some combination of experience, intuition, and whatever one feels to be true; and (2) distrust reason’s ability to know more-than-empirical truth.

Experience, feelings and intuition are not unimportant. They can often incline us toward the good and against error. But they don’t provide us with reasons for believing and doing A rather than B. Nor does reference to feelings help us to resolve disagreement rationally. Instead, we’re left with my feelings, your intuitions, and everyone else’s experiences.

It’s not difficult to see the problems with reconciling such positions with the Catholic understanding of Christian faith. For one thing, they marginalize the conviction that the fullness of Christian truth is to be found in the reasonable faith entrusted to and proclaimed by the Church. And the faith of that Church goes beyond the particular views held by us today to embrace the right belief (orthos-doxa) of the whole communio of believers, the living and the dead, from the apostles onward — the truth of which is confirmed by the consensus of the Church Fathers, the lives of the saints, the witness of the martyrs, and the teaching authority of the successors of Peter and the other apostles.

This message was core to one of Benedict’s key addresses in Germany, in which he quietly highlighted the distinctly provincial understanding of Catholicism articulated by dissenting groups such as the “We Are Church” movement in Germany and Austria. To truly speak of the Church, Benedict insisted,

requires us always to look beyond the particular, limited “we” towards the great “we” that is the Church of all times and places: it requires that we do not make ourselves the sole criterion. When we say: “We are Church” — well, it is true: that is what we are…. But the “we” is more extensive than the group that asserts those words. The “we” is the whole community of believers, today and in all times and places. And so I always say: within the community of believers, yes, there is as it were the voice of the valid majority, but there can never be a majority against the apostles or against the saints: that would be a false majority.

A similar argument was at the core of Thomas More’s explanation of why he could not, in good conscience, accept Henry VIII’s separation of the Church in England from Rome.

More broadly, Benedict’s point illustrates that embracing the Catholic faith in its fullness means acknowledging the limits of the knowledge attainable by making the contemporary our primary reference point. Indeed, to assume that the “we” of today somehow enjoy insights that nullify what the Church has always believed on matters of faith and morals is to go some way toward denying that God ever revealed anything definitive to the Catholic Church at all. More honest dissenters have long recognized this as the logical trajectory of their position.

Of course, Catholicism doesn’t have an in-principle opposition to the post-Enlightenment world per se, any more than it allegedly locates everything that is good and true in the 13th century. Any effort to associate the fullness of Catholic faith with any one historical period risks relativizing those truths knowable by faith and reason that transcend time and bind Catholics across the ages.

Perhaps such a relativizing is what many dissenting Catholic activists want. If so, they should concede that this would mean making the Church in their own image rather than that of Christ the Logos. And there is no surer way of making the Church truly irrelevant in a modern world that desperately needs more reason and light than emotivism and darkness.

Samuel Gregg is Research Director at the Acton Institute. He has authored several books including On Ordered Liberty, his prize-winning The Commercial Society, The Modern Papacy, Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy, and most recently, Becoming Europe: Economic Decline, Culture, and How America can Avoid a European Future.

Catholics urge Vatican Cardinal to skip dissenting conference on Vatican II

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-urge-vatican-cardinal-to-skip-dissenting-conference-on-vatican-ii/

By Patrick B. Craine, July 23, 2012

OTTAWA, Ontario, July 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholic activists are urging a Vatican Cardinal to skip a controversial conference at Ottawa’s Saint Paul University this September that features numerous speakers strongly opposed to Catholic teaching.

The “Vatican II for the Next Generation” conference, to be hosted Sept. 27-30 by SPU’s Vatican II and 21st Century Catholicism Research Centre, is intended to honour the 50th anniversary of the Council’s opening.

In addition to numerous speakers who question Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and women’s ordination, it will feature a keynote address by Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Pro-life activist John Pacheco has launched an online petition to Canada’s nuncio, Archbishop Pedro López Quintana, asking that he ensure Cardinal Turkson is aware of the speakers’ controversial views. It has 240 signatures so far.

“We would hope that a Cardinal of the Church and representative of His Holiness would avoid an occasion of scandal which would be caused by his appearance and participation,” it reads.

Among the controversial speakers is Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, a theologian at Boston College who was rebuked by his bishop in 2008 when he wrote an op-ed arguing that Barack Obama was the “pro-life candidate” in that year’s federal election because of his social policy on poverty and healthcare. He has also questioned the definitive status of Humanae vitae, in which Pope Paul VI reiterated the Church’s condemnation of contraception, and the Church’s teaching on the impossibility of women’s ordination.

The conference will also feature a panel of “witnesses” to the Council who participated in its proceedings fifty years ago, which includes Gregory Baum and Bishop Remi De Roo.

Bishop De Roo, a Council father, is a trained teacher of the new-age ‘Enneagram’ and has been a featured guest at conferences of Call to Action, a notorious dissenting organization which has been denounced by the Vatican for its opposition to Church teaching. He played a key role in the Canadian Bishops’ adoption of the Winnipeg Statement in 1968, in which they opposed Humanae vitae.

De Roo also celebrated a bizarre giant Puppet Mass, with liturgical dancers at a Nov. 6, 2008 Call to Action conference in Milwaukee.

Baum, a former priest, is particularly notorious for helping rally opposition to Humanae Vitae, and has been a prominent activist for same-sex “marriage.”

In a 2009 talk at Saint Paul University, Baum accused Pope Benedict XVI of undermining Vatican II. “A conservative movement, sponsored by the Vatican itself, remains attached to the old paradigm, overlooks the bold texts of the conciliar documents and tries to restore the Catholicism of yesterday,” he said. “Vatican II may suffer neglect for a certain time, but as an ecumenical council it cannot be invalidated.”

A plenary session will feature Fr. Gilles Routhier, a theologian at Laval University whose testimony in a 2009 trial over the Quebec government’s controversial Ethics and Religious Culture program led the judge to forbid parents from opting their children out.

Prof. Catherine Clifford, the conference organizer, told the Catholic Register that critics have taken the speakers’ views “out of context.” “I think they misrepresent the work and damage the reputations of these people,” she said.

“I think we’re at a point in the Church where the laity really need to make their voices heard,” Pacheco told LifeSiteNews. “Faithful Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium need to have their concerns acted on by the hierarchy – no matter what the cost.”

Saint Paul University did not respond to LifeSiteNews.com by press time.

The online petition is available here.

Wall Street Journal: “As the Flame of Catholic Dissent Dies Out “

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/wsj-as-the-flame-of-catholic-dissent-dies-out/

Posted on 15 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf – My emphases and comments.

As the Flame of Catholic Dissent Dies Out

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By Charlotte Allen, January 14, 2010

Mary Daly, a retired professor at Boston College who was probably the most outré of all the dissident theologians who came to the fore of Catholic intellectual life in the years right after the Second Vatican Council, died on Jan. 3 at age 81. [Daly was so outré that she was out of the Christian religion, no?] Back in the 1960s and 1970s, which might be called the golden age of Catholic dissidence, [I think you can extend that through the 80's into the early 90's.] theologians who took positions challenging traditional church teachings—ranging from the authority of the pope to bans on birth control, premarital sex, and women’s ordination—dominated Catholic intellectual life in America and Europe.

[Let us not forget the South American Liberation Theology strain.] They seemed to represent a tide that would overwhelm the old restrictions and their hidebound adherents.

Now, 45 years after Vatican II concluded in 1965, most of those bright lights of dissident Catholicism—from the theologian Hans Küng of the University of Tübingen to Charles Curran, the priest dismissed from the Catholic University of America’s theology faculty in 1987 for his advocacy of contraception and acceptance of homosexual relationships—seem dimmed with advanced age, if not extinguished. They have left no coherent second generation of dissident Catholic intellectuals to follow them. [That is because they left no coherent ideas.]

Prof. Daly certainly pushed the envelope. In 1968, she published “The Church and the Second Sex,” a book that accused the Catholic Church of oppressing and “humiliating” women by excluding them from its “patriarchal” hierarchy. The title of her most famous work, “Beyond God the Father” (1973), is self-explanatory. At some point afterward, Prof. Daly, despite being raised Catholic and earning degrees in theology and literature from three different Catholic colleges plus the University of Fribourg, left the church to embrace ever more belligerent brands of feminism.

She got into trouble with Boston College, the Jesuit institution where she had taught since 1966, for barring men from her advanced classes in women’s studies. In the wake of a sex-discrimination complaint launched by a male student, Prof. Daly and her employer engaged in a round of litigation during the late 1990s that culminated in her voluntary retirement in 2001. She spent her last years promoting vegetarianism, anti-fur activism, a protest of Condoleezza Rice’s 2006 commencement speech at Boston College, and the coining of male-baiting neologisms (an example: “mister-ectomy”). [What a charmer.]

The trajectory of her life story is not unusual among Catholic dissidents. The Young Turk of Vatican II—and pet of the progressive Catholic media of the time—was Hans Küng. A Swiss-born, movie-star-handsome priest whom Pope John XXIII had made a peritus, or theological adviser, to the council, Father Küng swept through a tour of U.S. Catholic universities to accolades in 1963. And his 1971 book questioning papal infallibility—which got him stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology in 1979—turned him into a living martyr among progressives. He is still at Tübingen (last heard from in October blasting Pope Benedict XVI’s overtures to conservative Anglicans as “angling in the waters of the extreme religious right”), but he’s 81. [And really boring. Remember that Kung's position is that Vatican II didn't go nearly far enough in causing a break with the Church's past.]

The Belgian Dominican priest Edward Schillebeeckx, who had worked unsuccessfully to persuade the assembled bishops of the Second Vatican Council to downgrade the authority of the pope—and who was condemned in 1986 for holding that there was no biblical support for the ordaining of Catholic priests—died in December at age 95. [His theology distorted the ecclesiology of who knows how many seminarians and priests.] The Rev. Charles Curran, who was a controversial figure at Catholic University as early as 1967, when he was temporarily removed from his tenured position over his views on birth control, and who moved to Southern Methodist University after his final dismissal from Catholic two decades later, is now 75. [If I am not mistaken, his severance from Catholic University provided that he would still receive his salary... all these years.]

Another prominent figure in liberal Catholic intellectual circles is Sister Sandra M. Schneiders, who is famous for her assertions that Jesus was a feminist and that God should be referred to as “she” as well as “he,” as well as for her advice that progressive orders of nuns treat representatives of a planned Vatican investigation like “uninvited guests.” She is also past retirement age and is listed as “professor emerita” at the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif. [Lately she has had a risible series in the ultra-dissenting fishwrap NCR on religious life.]

[QUAERITUR...]
So where is the second generation of brilliant progressive Catholic theologians? There are plenty of liberal lay Catholics. [Who really don't know why they are liberals, but... they are. And they are of a certain age.] The church’s ban on artificial birth control is nearly a dead letter, a majority of Catholics say they believe their church should ordain women, and 40% have no moral objections to abortion, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. But dissident Catholicism seems to have lost steam as an intellectual movement, and not only because the issues relating to sex and papal authority that originally sparked Catholic dissidents have not changed in nearly 50 years. [And they are dying off.]

The first-generation dissidents were products of a strong and confident traditional Catholic culture against which they rebelled, one whose intellectual standards grounded them in the faith they later came to question. Sister Schneiders, for example, earned four degrees from Catholic institutions, including the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Yet most Catholics of her generation have not passed on the tenets of their faith to their children — [I think we have to say "most liberal Catholics" didn't pass on the faith.] the offspring of the Vatican II generation tend either to be churchless or not to go to church—or, in the case of academics, to their students. It’s hard to rebel when you don’t even know what you are rebelling against.

Not that conservative Catholicism is in any better straits; it’s a vibrant but niche branch of the religion, and its leading intellectuals—Robert George, Mary Ann Glendon—aren’t theologians. But it is fair to note that when Prof. Daly died, she left behind no young Mary Dalys to continue waging her quixotic war against the faith that shaped her, whether she liked it or not.

Ms. Allen is a contributing editor of the Manhattan Institute’s Minding the Campus Web site.

See 32 comments at Fr John Zuhlsdorf‘s blog

↧

Charism gifts building up the Church – BRO IGNATIUS MARY

July 30, 2013, 5:58 pm

≫ Next: Is it correct for a lay person to “lay hands” on another?

≪ Previous: Leading “Catholic” dissenters & heretics

JULY 26, 2013

Charism gifts building up the Church1

http://www.saint-mike.org/warfare/library/wp-content/docs/spiritualgifts.pdf

(Excerpt from the Rule of St. Michael) 2004, Order of the Legion of St. Michael, www.saint-mike.org

A detailed evaluation and review of the Charismatic Renewal

Bro. Ignatius Mary, OMSM(r), CCL, L. Th., DD, LNDC

The following is an excerpt from section VIII of the Articles of Observance of the Rule of the Order of the Legion of St. Michael, nos. 196-235. It contains a summary of thought about the “charismatic gifts” from the Church and from how we understand a Catholic Worldview. It also gives a list of thirty gifts listed or implied in Scripture. The research to write this section was conducted at the Seminary Library of Conception Abbey in Missouri, the Scriptorium Library of the Order of the Legion of St. Michael, documents from Catholic websites, materials from various sources of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, and field research.

SPECIAL NOTE: Although some endnotes contain bibliographic information, most of the endnotes convey important and extensive additional text and quotations that are necessary additions and further explanations to the main text. Please be sure to read the endnotes as you read along in this document.

196. Our love of God and our neighbor, our devotion and growth in spirituality and piety, the expression of our faith and love in good works is only the beginning. We must “…rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim 1:6-7)

197. We have a solemn obligation to not neglect the gifts that God has so graciously given us. We are not to be timid or commit the sin of timidity, but to accept and to utilize for the greater glory of God the gifts He has given us and to do so with a Spirit of Power, Love, and Self-discipline (2 Tim 1:7).

198. With His grace and His gifts, we may exercise our purpose to build-up the Church and the Faithful in order to bring the Gospel message to the world. In this, we exercise the Power of the Spirit, expressed in Love, and maintained through self-discipline. When we do this, we truly become Ambassadors for Christ.

199. Papal Encouragements

The expression of the charism gifts of the Holy Spirit, to whom we are imbued, sealed, and empowered when we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, is the normal way of Christian life. The Charismatic Renewal has reminded us of the need to experience the fullness of the Spirit that we received in the Sacraments. In this renewal Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, remarked, “I am convinced that this movement is a very important component of the entire renewal of the Church.”2

200. Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in a Foreword to the book, Renewal and the Powers of Darkness, by Cardinal Suenens who was at the time the Papal delegate to the Charismatic Renewal: At the heart of a world imbued with a rationalistic skepticism, a new experience of the Holy Spirit suddenly bursts forth. And, since then, that experience has assumed a breadth of a worldwide Renewal movement. What the New Testament tells us about the charisms—which were seen as visible signs of the coming of the Spirit—is not just ancient history, over and done with, for it is once again becoming extremely topical.3

201. The Council Fathers of Vatican II also praised the movement of the Holy Spirit in the manifestation of charism gifts: Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the Church.4

202. The Church gives a beautiful commentary on the Holy Spirit and His gifts: The Council presents the Church as the New People of God, uniting within itself, in all the richness of their diversity, men and women from all nations, all cultures, endowed with manifold gifts of nature and grace, ministering to one another and recognizing that they are sent into the world for its salvation (Church, nn. 2 a 5 13). They accept the Word of God in faith, are baptized into Christ and confirmed in his Pentecostal Spirit, and together they celebrate the sacrament of his body and blood in the Eucharist:
5

It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity. By distributing various kinds of spiritual gifts and ministries, he enriches the Church of Jesus Christ with different functions, “in order to equip the saints for the work of service, so as to build up the Body of Christ”.6

203. Episcopal Encouragements
7

The Charismatic Renewal has also received praise and blessing from many bishops.

Three examples include Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan, of Santa Fe:

I believe that the Renewal has been a great blessing for countless thousands of Catholics in our country. It has drawn people closer to their Catholic faith and devotion to the Holy Spirit and to prayer.

Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly, O.P., of Louisville observes: The strength of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal begins with the spirit of its people, many bringing a renewed passion and deep commitment to their faith. They are true evangelizers, reminding us of the power and presence of the Spirit in our lives. They challenge us to see the Pentecost event not merely as a one time happening, but as an ongoing phenomenon. They invite us to recognize that the Spirit-given charisms, both ordinary and extraordinary, are still at work in the Church.

And finally, Bishop Robert Hermann, of St. Louis, identifies a major strength of the Renewal: The strength of Catholic Charismatic Renewal is its ability to get Catholics more deeply involved with the Word of God, Jesus and his Scriptures. It enables people to enter more deeply into the spiritual life, so that they hunger to read the Word, hunger to reflect on the Word and hunger to live the Word. It opens the eyes of Catholics to a deeper understanding of the Sacraments, especially the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Eucharist. It helps Catholic enter more deeply into discernment about their lives. Finally, it also inspires Catholic to share their faith with others and to get more involved in working in the Church.

204. Cautions in the Midst of Encouragement

We agree with these strengths of the Renewal. Overall the Renewal is a blessing to the Church and her people, but we also recognize and agree with Bishop Josu Iriondo, of New York, the Bronx who warned: “The work of the Charismatic Renewal is immense and visible but it also has its great problems.”8

205. Colin B. Donovan, one of the “experts” of the Question and Answer Forum of the Eternal Word Television Network website, offers an important perspective to the Church’s encouragement of the Renewal: …the Church on the one hand recognizes that the Holy Spirit moves where He will, and so she does not want to oppose His working, and on the other, that the Church must discern the authenticity of each charism, lest it be a deception of the evil one. For this reason to say that the Charismatic Renewal is approved by the Church is not a blanket approval9 of every alleged charismatic gift or every charismatic group or individual within the Church. The discernment of the Holy Spirit’s action is an ongoing necessity within the Church and within the Charismatic Renewal.10

206. Another astute observation comes from Bishop Edward P. Cullen of Allentown: I don’t see any weaknesses intrinsic to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. In its actual practice, however, (dys)function can and has arisen. I found that such dysfunctions flowed from some flaw in those who carry leadership responsibility in the movement.
11

207. These articles will explore some of those problems and dysfunctions within the overall context of encouraging our members to be involved in deepening their lives with the Holy Spirit and His gifts.

208. Charismatic Expressions in our Community

Indeed the Church has recognized that the Spirit of God has moved through His people historically in many ways, including through the exercise of Charism (“spiritual”) Gifts. These gifts, according to Scripture and the Church, are meant to be uplifting to the Church and to build-up its people. Our Community is open to the expression of such gifts when they are exercised in ways proper to the orderly conduct of the meeting and situation, as prescribed in Scripture, and in such a way as to be uplifting to the spiritual health and growth of the Community. The nature of such extraordinary gifts, however, must include precise catechesis.

209. Therefore, within our Community, such expressions shall adapt themselves to the directives and norms set by this section of our Articles of Observance, by the discernments of the Superior, Spiritual Advisor, and Spiritual Visitor of our Order, and norms set by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Inventory of Spiritual Gifts

210. The Holy Spirit may bestow many gifts upon us to build-up His Church. Though not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive, the thirty major gifts listed here are all found in one form or another in Scripture.12 The gifts are arranged by Category and include a “brief” definition in parenthesis. Scripture references are listed in brackets:

1) Sacrificial and Consecrating Gifts (10):13

Charity …ability to express the love of God to the Church, to neighbor, and to the world in such a way that it becomes a model of perfection of the purity and fidelity of our Lord’s love, and which includes in its expression such selfless ways as to perform Heroic Acts of Charity14
, and to sacrifice unto death for one’s neighbor [Jn 14:23; 1 Cor 13; Jn 15:13] Virtue15…ability to practice Heroic Virtue: the four cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude) [Wisdom 8:7; 1 Pet 4:7; Lev 19:15; Col 4:1; Ps 118:14; Jn 16:33; Sir 5:2 (37:27-31); 18:30; Titus 2:12] and the three theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) [2 Pet 1:4; 1 Cor 13:13; Rom 1:17; Gal 5:6; Heb 10:23; Titus 3:6-7; Jn 15:9-12; Mt 22:40; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13; Col 3:14] in a continuing extraordinary way out of just and worthy service to the People of God and the Church

Martyrdom …ability to willingly and joyfully sacrifice oneself for the cause of Christ in service to others and to the Church, in fidelity to His Truth, in the face of persecution, ridicule, loss of reputation or position, or other sufferings from the world, friends, or family — even unto death [1 Cor. 13:3]

Celibacy …ability to offer to God one’s chastity, with Christ as one’s exclusive Spouse16
, and thereby renounce, for the greater glory of God and for His service, one’s right to marriage and family [1 Cor. 7:7; Mt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:32]

Poverty …ability to renounce and be unencumbered with the material riches and things of this world, which distract from the sacred things of God, in order to serve others and the Church that others might come to know the wealth of Christ [Mt 19:21; Eph 3:9ff; 2 Cor 8:9]

Obedience …ability to renounce the will and desires of the self to order and direct one’s life and thereby to submit to another’s authority, in the service of God and the Church, so that others might know the freedom of being co-heirs in God’s kingdom [Jn 8:29; 4:34; 14:15,21]

Substantial Silence …ability to be still and know that God is God17 in a manner that quiets the self and thereby reaches profound levels of meditation and contemplation in such a way that others may profoundly come to know the presence of the Lord [Ps 46:10; Zechariah 2:13]

Substantial Solitude …ability to be alone with God without need of the normal human interaction and social intercourse in such a way that others may come to a profound knowledge of the presence of the Divine Companion [Lk 5:15-16; Mk 1:35; Mt 6:6]

Prayer …ability to pray boldly, strongly, and unceasingly for others in such a way that they might experience the divine action of Jesus’ love in their lives [Mt 6:6; Pr 15:8, Phil 4:6; Jas 5:15; Eph 6:18]

Penance/Mortification …ability to live a life of penance and mortification in such a way that others may turn daily to a conversion to Christ and further to be inspired to the perfection that arouses the soul to God [2 Tim 2:4; Mt 5:39-48]18

2) Speaking Gifts (10):19

Apostleship …ability to minister, evangelize, and pastor in cross-cultural, missionary settings [1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11] Prophecy …ability to preach or proclaim the Truth of God with clarity and to apply it to a particular situation with a view to correction or edification. Prophecy may sometimes speak to future events, but is primary a supernatural gift of preaching [Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10, 28; Eph 4:11]

Evangelism …ability to effectively communicate the Faith in such a way as to bring people to Christian conversion; and to effectively disciple others into the fullness of the Christ-life [Eph 4:11]

Pastoring/Shepherding …ability to provide spiritual leadership, counsel, food, guidance, and guardianship in group settings and to individuals [Eph 4:11]

Teaching …ability to explain effectively the Truth of God in such a way that those being taught not only understand the Truth in a profound way, but are profoundly inspired by the Truth [Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11]

Exhorting …ability to counsel or to encourage those in spiritual, emotional, or physical need [Rom 12:8]

Word of Knowledge …ability to discover, know, and communicate deep spiritual Truths. In extremely rare instances, such as with St. Padre Pio, this gift may include the ability to “read souls” [1 Cor 12:8]

Word of Wisdom …ability to apply and communicate knowledge wisely [1 Cor 12:8]

Tongues20…ability to speak in a language not previously learned for the purposes, when interpreted, of prophecy and edification of the Church. This is not a private prayer language
21) [1 Cor 12:10, 28]

Interpretation …ability to interpret a language not previously learned into one’s native language for the purposes of prophecy and edification of the Church [1 Cor 12:10]

3) Ministering Gifts (10):

Ministry/Helps …ability to lend a hand or to serve others in a supportive role in a joyful and productive way [Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28] Hospitality …ability to provide open house and warm welcome to neighbor and for those in need, particularly travelers or others in need of shelter and assistance [1 Pet 4:9, 10; cf. Rom 12:13]

Giving …ability to give of one’s fiscal and personal resources to the Lord’s work with simplicity, generosity, liberality, and delight [Rom 12:8]

Government/Ruling …ability to administer, manage, and lead in God’s work [Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28]

Showing Mercy …ability to be compassionate with strength, cheerfulness, and action to those who are in need as evidenced by Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy22
[Rom 12:8]

Faith …ability to see something that God wants done and to sustain unwavering confidence that God will do it regardless of obstacles [1 Cor 12:9]

Discernment …ability to perceive good and evil spirits; and also to perceive the spirit of truth from the spirit of error in a profound and sublime manner [1 Cor 12:10]

Exorcism …ability to help people, in the face of intimidation from the Enemy, with spiritual afflictions (harassments, bondage, oppression, possession) caused by demonic attachments and forces; to discern the issues and needs required to facilitate healing and freedom for the afflicted through spiritual counseling and if necessary through “simple” or “solemn” rites. [Note: "Solemn" Rites of Exorcism are reserved to a priest designated by a local Ordinary and are conducted only upon the Ordinary's permission] [Mk 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7, 13; 16:17]

Miracles …ability to facilitate an event of supernatural power that is palpable to the senses and is accomplished as a sign of divine commission [1 Cor 12:10, 28]

Healing …ability to intervene in a supernatural way as an instrument for the curing of illness and the restoration of health as a sign of divine compassion [1 Cor 12:9, 28]

Proper Understanding of the Gifts

211. It is the responsibility of the Superior and the Vice-Regent for Formation to ensure that all members receive the proper teaching and catechesis concerning charism (“spiritual”) gifts. This is especially important because of the mandate of St. Paul for the People of God to “fan into flame” the gifts of the Spirit given to them for the benefit of the Church and her people. Proper instruction is also important because of the frequent misunderstandings and misdirected teachings concerning the “charismatic” experience.

212. The first understanding of the “gifts” is to ensure that we, as Catholics, define our “charismatic” experience with Catholic theology, doctrine, and praxiology (orthodoxy & orthopraxy).

The second understanding of the “gifts” is to ensure that we, as Catholics, approach that foundation of Catholic orthodoxy, as “Catholics” with the fullness and excellence of the all that Catholic principles and philosophy can teach us. It is not enough to be orthodox. Orthodoxy is only the springboard of our lives as Catholics. To be fully Catholic in fact, in practice, in demeanor, in spirit, in thinking, and in passion must order our lives and our activities to fulfill the principles and philosophies that compose the “Catholic Worldview.” It is an analysis of the Catholic Worldview that offers us profound insight into the differences between the Pentecostal charismatic experience, for example, and that of the Catholic experience. We must be more than orthodox charismatics; we must be truly and fully Catholic charismatics.

Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, refers to one of the central principles of the Catholic Worldview in his “Foreword” to Cardinal Suenens book: 23
First he (Cardinal Suenens) raises the basic question which is decisive for the fruitful growth of the Renewal. What is the relation between personal experience and the common faith of the Church? Both factors are important: a dogmatic faith unsupported by personal experience remains empty; mere personal experience unrelated to the faith of the Church remains blind. The isolation of experience constitutes a serious threat to true Christianity —a threat extending far beyond the Renewal movement. Even if this isolation has a “pneumatic” [spiritual] origin, it is the price that has to be paid for [it is the result that comes from] the empiricism [the notion that experience and the senses are the only, or the primary, source of knowledge] that dominates our time Such an isolation of experience is closely linked with the Fundamentalism that separates the Bible from the whole of salvation history and reduces it to an experience of self with no mediation whatsoever. It does justice neither to historical reality, nor to the breadth of the mystery of God. Here, too, the true answer lies in a comprehension of the Bible, in union with the whole Church, and not merely in an isolated historicist reading. All this shows once again that charism and institution overlap, and that what matters is not the “we” of the group but the great “we” of the Church of all times , which alone can provide the adequate and necessary framework, enabling us both to “hold on to what is good” and to “discern spirits.”

213. The two principles of Catholic Worldview described here are 1) that reason must always lead the way and guide experience, feelings, and emotions; and 2) our experiences must be integrated in the whole Body of the Church and not isolated into individual groups or movements.

214. Colin B. Donovan summarizes the Church’s position on the Renewal: The Church clearly wishes to follow a middle course, between a rationalistic skepticism and a blind credulity in alleged working of the Holy Spirit. In the past the Church had condemned what it called Pentecostalism, understood as the total dependence, even theologically, on the presence and manifestation of the charisms. Such a dependence is blind, for it fails to allow itself to be guided by the full content of the faith and the judgement of the Church’s teaching authority. It is total when such “gifts” displace the means of grace in the life of the Christian, such as the sacraments. On the other hand, the Church cannot condemn charisms, since they are part of the patrimony of our apostolic faith. What we have seen in our time is the appearance of the Charismatic Renewal, an apparent outpouring of the extraordinary charisms. This doesn’t mean that one has to be charismatic, that charismatics are better Catholics, or that every alleged charism is authentic. Yet, as the Council noted, the Church must respect the workings of God, discerning the authentic from the inauthentic.24

215. Taking the advice of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI (in the comments he made when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and the general guidance of the Council Fathers, we must take the time to carefully evaluate the “charismatic” experience.

216. The central imperative to any evaluation, we believe therefore, begins with the admonition that we cannot approach this personal charismatic experience from the isolated historicist, doctrinally inaccurate, and subjectively empirical approach of Pentecostalism. We must, rather, evaluate the “charismatic” experience with solid Biblical exegesis, listening closely to the teachings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church and with Sacred Tradition on this subject, using reason, deliberation, and discernment in union with the whole Church. We must be guided by that reasoned evaluation and not by the senses apart from reason or by mere personal experiences and ideas that are more vulnerable to misguidance or even to self-delusion. Clarity, from a Catholic point-of-view, is our goal.

217. We have outlined various Charism Gifts in the previous paragraphs, but more is needed to fully understand the true nature of the Gifts. We first offer information to help clarify the differences between genuine “charismatic” gifts and other kinds of gifts. We then offer an analysis of what to avoid in our Catholic expression of the Gifts by detailing the errors and problems of Pentecostalism, many of which have unfortunately bled into the Catholic expression of the charisms.

218. What Charism Gifts are Not

There is often confusion about the nature of genuine charism gifts. Charism gifts are not the Seven Gifts of the Spirit mentioned in Isaiah (Baptismal Gifts) given to all persons during the Sacrament of Baptism and strengthen in the Sacrament of Confirmation. Charism gifts are not the special grace of the perfection of prayer given to those in mystical union (Mystical Gifts). Charism gifts are not for personal benefit and edification (Private Gifts), but are for public service. Charism gifts are neither natural talents or gifts (Natural Gifts) nor para-sensory/preternatural abilities (Extraordinary Natural Gifts). Charism gifts are neither ordinary grace (Situational Gifts) nor are they spontaneous inspirations or knowledge (Impromptu Gifts). Charism Gifts are also not ministerial offices.

219. Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Baptismal Gifts

St. Justin Martyr identifies the seven gifts in Isaiah 11:2 as Gifts of the Holy Spirit which were bestowed on Christ in their fullness and which are again given “by Him, from the place of His Spirit’s powers, to all His believers according to their merits.”25
As believers, through Baptism and Confirmation, we are recipients of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are thus recipients of His sevenfold gifts: 1) wisdom 2) understanding 3) counsel 4) fortitude 5) knowledge 6) piety 7) fear of the Lord (reverence).

220. The fullness of these gifts in our lives is determined by our merits, but without these gifts in some measure, we would not be able to live the Christian life at all. These gifts make the Christian life possible.

Without them (without Christ), we “can do nothing.”26
The Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit “complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.”27

221. Since it is important to know the definitions of these Seven Gifts of the Spirit, we have duplicated in toto in the endnotes the definitions given in the Apostolate’s Family Catechism. 28 We advise all members to study and to know these definitions since all baptized believers are given each gift to help them in their Christian life.

222. Although some of these gifts appear to be the same as the “charismatic” gifts, they are not. All seven of these gifts are given to all believers in one measure or another so that it will be possible for them to live the Christ-life. The various “charismatic” gifts, on the other hand, are given to this person or to that person as God so pleases29 as an additional supernatural and particular gift to enable the person not only to live the Christian life, but to perform ministry and service to build-up the Church and the People of God for the greater glory of God.

223. Perfection of Prayer (Mystical Gifts)

The charism gifts are not mystical gifts and cannot aspire to the perfection of prayer that God grants to those in mystical union with Him. The Letter to Bishops on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation states that, “it should be remembered that charisms are not the same things as extraordinary (‘mystical’) gifts (cf. Rom 12:3-21)” (n. 25).
30

The Mystical Gifts are given to founders of Institutes and other saints by a special grace not available to everyone. The Christian Meditation document instructs (n.24): There are certain “mystical graces,” conferred on the founders of ecclesial institutes to benefit their foundation, and on other saints, too, which characterize their personal experience of prayer and which cannot, as such, be the object of imitation and aspiration for other members of the faithful, even those who belong to the same institutes and those who seek an ever more perfect way of prayer.(1)

(1) No one who prays, unless he receives a special grace, covets an overall vision of the revelations of God, such as St. Gregory recognized in St. Benedict. or that mystical impulse with which St. Francis of Assisi would contemplate God in all his creatures, or an equally global vision, such as that given to St. Ignatius at the River Cardoner and of which he said that for him it could have taken the place of Sacred Scripture. The “dark night” described by St. John of the Cross is part of his personal charism of prayer. Not every member of his order needs to experience it in the same way so as to reach that perfection of prayer to which God has called him.

224. All the Faithful are called to the ordinary level of mystical experience that is the “living experience of God” through the gifts of the Spirit, but the extraordinary mystical gifts are given by God only to those called to mystical union and thus they are not to be sought after: The Christian’s call to “mystical” experiences can include both what St. Thomas classified as a living experience of God via the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the inimitable forms (and for that reason forms to which one ought not to aspire) of the granting of grace.(Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia, IIae, 1 c, as well as a. 5, ad 1)31

225. Private Benefit and Edification (Private Gifts)

St. Paul is very clear on this point—for a gift to qualify as a “charism” gift it must serve the Church and her people in ministry, encouragement, and building-up the faith (Eph 4:11-12; 1 Pet 4:10-11; 1Cor 12:7; 14:3). If a “gift” does not do this, then no matter how wonderful the gift or how much fruit the gift produces in the life of the person with the gift, it is not a “charism” gift.

226. Natural Talents and Gifts (Natural Gifts)

In addition, it is important to note that while there may be corollaries and similarities to natural talents and gifts, “charismatic” gifts exercise a “supernatural” ability and grace that is not dependent upon any natural talent or upon any disposition or ability that may naturally develop with human effort, maturity, or intelligence. The faculties of human intuition and “hyper-sensitivity” are also “natural” gifts—that are often mistaken for supernatural gifts in a religious sense or extrasensory perception in a secular sense.32

227. Para-sensory Sensitives and Preternatural Abilities (Extraordinary Natural Gifts)

Charism gifts are not para-sensory or preternatural abilities (commonly thought of as ESP-type abilities), although there can be similarities with certain charism gifts. Para-sensory and preternatural abilities most likely originate from the extraordinary spiritual abilities that were available to mankind before the Fall when man was both physically and spiritually perfect and whole. Access to those spiritual abilities was generally lost to man after the Fall and will not be restored to him until the next life. The theory is that in some instances remnants of these pre-Fall (preternatural) abilities appear in certain spontaneous situations. It is not uncommon for a mother, as an example, to simply “know” that her child has been in an accident even though that child is 1000 miles away. Such bonds of love often appear to be a common denominator in the spontaneous expression of these preternatural abilities.

228. In other cases, in vary rare occasions, some people may seem to have an on-going ability or “sensitivity” to know things that cannot otherwise be known by normal means—such as the nature of a person’s illness, that a long lost brother will knock on the door on Thursday, or where a lost child is located.

229. Father Amorth, the exorcist for the Diocese of Rome, discusses the possibilities of legitimate “sensitives” in his books, “An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories.”33
Father Amorth warns, however, that it is “very difficult to find true seers or sensitives. On the other hand, there are a multitude of people who believe they have and are reputed to have these gifts. We need to be very careful.”34 In addition, Father La Grua, speaking about non-charismatic healing, warns in his book, La preghiera di quarigione there “may be the danger of evil infiltration” and thus the need for “extreme prudence.”35

230. Given that natural abilities can so easily be misinterpreted as para-sensory and preternatural abilities, and that such abilities can be fraudulent, or in some cases even be demonic, extreme caution and prudence is an understatement. Even remote consideration of the validity of such abilities should be under extreme scrutiny and discernment using strict criteria by those qualified to render a judgment.

231. There is rarely, if ever, a need for on-going preternatural abilities. We certainly are not to seek them or try to develop any such abilities that we believe we have.
36

It is usually advisable to ask God to remove from us such abilities unless it is His will for us to have them. If God wants us to have them, then He will also call us to practice such abilities for a specific purpose. This is a rare thing. God’s graces, in His normal economy of ordinary and extraordinary graces (such as through natural talents, spontaneous inspirations, and charism gifts), are the common and usual way He gives us His gifts. The reason for this is obvious due to the dangers the practice of preternatural abilities present to our souls.

232. We agree with Father Amorth that we must always be on guard and vigilant against the temptation to go “outside the common sacred means to obtain grace” and thus risk “unwittingly falling into the trap of magic.”37

233. Ordinary Grace (Situational Gifts)

Charism gifts are extraordinary graces given by God to His people according to His purposes. God may also bestow ordinary grace to his children. For example, God will give us sufficient graces to handle all situations that arise in our lives, both good and bad. He has promised this in Romans 8:28: “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.” Our Father also gives us the ordinary graces we need to perform ministry in our Christian life. In the ordinary course of our service and good works in Christ, our Father gives us whatever grace is needed to perform that service or good work in accord with our responsibilities, calling, and state-in-life. This grace comes to us ordinarily and may or may not be accompanied, as God wills, by a “charism” gift. For example, we may not all have the “charism” gift of evangelism, yet we all have a responsibility to share our faith with others (1 Pet 3:15). We may not all have the “charism” gift of exhortation, yet we are all called to encourage and build-up each other (1 Thess 5:11). In this way, we see ordinary graces working alongside the charism gifts. Similar direct corollaries can be made with each of the “charism” gifts (except for the “signifying” gifts of tongues, interpretation, miracles, and miraculous healing). Thus, while we may not possess a particular charism gift, we remain with the responsibility to participate to the level of our abilities, talents, and ordinary grace given to us in the service or ministry that gift represents.

234. Spontaneous Inspirations and Knowledge (Impromptu Gifts)

Another kind of ordinary grace from God involves spontaneous inspirations or knowledge granted to us to help us with a particular situation or moment. Jesus Himself reveals that this kind of grace is available to us with His words in Luke 12:11b-12: “…do not worry about how or what your defense will be or about what you are to say. For the holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say.” This spontaneous (at the moment) grace is not a “charism” gift, but an ordinary gift that a Father gives to His children when they need it. Another example is that God may choose, on rare occasions, to reveal to a person some private personal information about another person. This does not automatically constitute the charism gift of “word of Knowledge,” or any other charism gift, as many may suppose. It most often is merely another kind of spontaneous (at the moment) grace given by the Spirit according to the needs of the moment to uplift or to assist another person.

235. Offices

In addition, one should not confuse gifts with offices. A person may have the gift of pastoring, for example, without being in the office of pastor. Conversely, one may hold the office of pastor without having the charism gift of pastoring. It is a great grace when one has received the charism gift that corresponds to the needs of one’s office, but often that is not the case.

236. Purpose of the Gifts:
38
It is especially important to emphasize that God gives these gifts39 as He wills for the edification, uplifting, and building-up of the Church and of the Faithful (1 Cor 12:7; Eph 4:11-13). Thus for the health of the Body, God gives every Christian at least one gift, and some may have several gifts (1 Pet 4:10), so that within the community all the gifts that are needed will be present and available (1 Cor 12:12-31; 13:13). That is, He will ensure the presence and availability, but we who have been given those gifts must accept the responsibility and stewardship to develop, offer, and implement our gifts for the good of the Church, and not to neglect them (1 Tim 4:12, 14). We are, in fact, to fan into flame the gifts God has graciously given to us (2 Tim 1:6) so that the Church will be healthy and able to live out its mission to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ.

237. Misdirected and False Teachings

There is much misdirected and even false teaching found in the Pentecostal and Protestant “charismatic movements”, and even sometimes among the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. As pointed out above, Catholics ought to take care to ensure their beliefs and practices with the charismatic experience are not only fully obedient with Catholic teaching, but also consistent with the praxiology, philosophy, and worldview of Catholicism. Catholics in the Renewal need to take care that they do not seek to create a Pentecostalism within the Church. We need to always avoid “seeking the gifts of the Giver and not the Giver of the gifts.” Indeed, in respect to the Catholic worldview they ought to divorce themselves altogether from the following problematic or erroneous Pentecostalisms:
40

(a) On Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Sacramental Grace

The concept of “baptism in the Spirit” must not be confused with “another act of sacramental grace” as is taught in many Pentecostal charismatic circles.

Fortunately, few Catholics mistake that the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” as understood by the charismatic movement, is an act of sacramental grace. The pastors of the Church have, on this point, published its proper definition: that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not another act of sacramental grace but rather the “personally experienced actualization of grace already sacramentally received, principally in baptism and confirmation.”
41

(b) On “Baptism” in the Holy Spirit as a Historical Event: A corollary to sub-para. (a) above is the idea of a specific date when we were “baptized” in the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostals are correct in the idea of a specific date. That date is the day we are received in the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation.

There are no other dates by which we are “baptized” in the Holy Spirit. We can, however, speak of a “historical re-awakening or release of the Spirit” in the sense that in a particular moment in our past we came to realize (re-awaken) for the first time the power and gift of the Holy Spirit in our lives and may have specifically asked God to bring that actualization upon us. From then on, because we now know of the possibility of the intimate filling and power of the Spirit, we can continue to experience and actualize the “filling” of the Holy Spirit, to greater or lesser degrees, as God gives us the grace to do so and as we live out the Christ-life of holiness in our own daily lives. Most people, however, may experience this intimate and personal relationship with the Holy Spirit without ever having an emotional or historical event take place (other than the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation).

(c) On Using the term “baptism”: Although the Church has instructed the Renewal on the proper definition of the “baptism” of the Spirit, the use of the term, “baptism” in the Holy Spirit, is nevertheless misleading and is a “Pentecostalism.” A more accurate term would be a “re-awakening or filling with the Holy Spirit”42 since existentially and ontologically that is the phenomenon actually taking place.43 The term “baptism in the Holy Spirit” in the context of the charismatic experience was born in theological error. Pentecostals do not believe in the Sacrament of Confirmation. Thus when they read the passages in the book of Acts about laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit, they misinterpreted it to be some additional post-conversion act that must be performed. That is not true. The gift of the Spirit may not be separated in any way from conversion…44 There are no instances in the New Testament of the “laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit” outside of the Sacraments.

(d) On the Laying on of Hands and Anointing with Oil: The practice of anointing with oil and laying on of hands to “receive the Holy Spirit” was adopted by Pentecostals, as explained above, because they did not understand the doctrine of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Given this theological bias, it is not surprising that they misinterpreted the passages in the Book of Acts 45. As such, it appeared to them that this “laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit” was a separate act and experience from that of conversion, rather than as an act of the Sacrament of Confirmation. As Catholics we know that there is no need for us to “receive the Holy Spirit” in some extra-Sacramental way. As the Catechism instructs us, Confirmation gives us “the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost” (CCC 1302) We already have the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, there is no need for any additional forms of quasi-liturgical ceremonies or actions to “receive” the Holy Spirit and His gifts. In addition, the Magisterium has repeatedly warned the Faithful against performing rites and prayers that too closely resemble the Sacraments or the actions and prayers reserved to priests. The Instruction on Prayers for Healing, 46

Confusion between such free non-liturgical prayer meetings and liturgical celebrations properly so-called is to be carefully avoided. for example, makes this point: Another example is found in the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest: In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil.47
Pope John Paul II reminds us that: …the particular gift of each of the Church’s members must be wisely and carefully acknowledged, safeguarded, promoted, discerned and coordinated, without confusing roles functions or theological and canonical status.48 Also in the Collaboration Instruction: Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion … To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter. 49

Finally, in a letter sent to us from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Monsignor Mario Marini, Undersecretary, writes:

Prot. N. 1116/00/L Rome,

24 June 2000

This Congregation for Divine Worship has received your letter dated 4 May 2000, in which you ask whether the Instruction Ecclesiae de mysterio on Lay Collaboration in the Ministry of the Priest, article 9, should be interpreted as prohibiting the use by laypersons of blessed oil as a sacramental. While a certain degree of prudent reserve in this matter is indeed advisable, it is clear that the exclusion of traditional devotions employing the use of blessed oil, and in which there is no likelihood of confusion with the sacramental of Anointing of the Sick by a priest, is not the intention of this Instruction. Excluded instead would be any use by a layperson of oil, which even if not the Oil of the Sick blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday, would be interpreted as replacing the sacramental Anointing by a priest, or which would in any way be seen as equivalent to it, or which would be employed as a means of attaining for laypersons a new role previously reserved to clergy.

The intention of the person using the oil, the clarity with which such an intention is expressed by such a person, and the understanding of those present will all be relevant in determining the likelihood of misunderstanding and therefore the degree to which such a practice should be avoided. In this matter as in all similar cases, such a practice is subject to the supervision of the local Pastor and ultimately of the diocesan Bishop.

Thanking you for your interest and with every prayerful good wishes for a blessed Easter Season, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ, Mons. Mario Marini, Undersecretary

The common practices of the Charismatic Renewal of the quasi-liturgical “laying on hands to receive the release of the Holy Spirit” is often done without regard to the understanding of those present that the Congregation requires. Even when permission has been attained by a group’s Pastor, the actual practice among many groups tends to be quasi-liturgical in appearance. Many individual Charismatics seem present themselves as quasi-priest in their demeanor even if verbally claiming they are not. Thus, in much of the Charismatic Renewal this practice can be both potentially theologically problematic and certainly too closely resembling what is reserved to bishops and/or priests.

(e) On Receiving the Gifts through “baptism” in the Holy Spirit

237 Since the spiritual (“charismatic”) gifts are a manifestation50 of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, we must determine how we are so “baptized.” As previous quoted, the Catechism affirms that upon the Sacrament of Confirmation we are given “the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit…” (CCC 1302); “baptism” of the Holy Spirit comes with the Sacrament. (See para. (c) above for discussion on the improper use of the term “baptism.”) The Faithful, therefore, ought to have realized and experienced the fullness of the indwelling Holy Spirit and His Gifts upon receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation. Sadly, many or even most do not. This is the value of the Charismatic Renewal—to have reminded us of what we ought to have already known and experienced. The “gifts,” however, are available to us without any quasi-liturgical rites or prayers that mimics, however loosely, the baptism of the Holy Spirit received when we accept the Sacrament of Confirmation. Our goal, if we did not realize it when we were Confirmed, is to realize this fact now and thus to “discover” (not to seek) that gift or gifts we have been given and then begin to “fan them into flame.” To repeat the excellent warning of Colin B. Donovan (Donovan, [article online]), against “seeking the gifts of the Giver and not the Giver of the gifts.”51

(f) On the Predominance of Sensualism (Empiricism)

The primary problematic characteristic of the charismatic experience in Pentecostalism and in much of the Catholic Renewal, even greater than the undue emphasis on Tongues (see subparagraph. (i) below), is the predominance of Sensualism. Sensualism is the notion derived from Empiricism52
that the senses (experiences and emotions) are sufficient principle of all our ideas and knowledge.53
Indeed, God has created us as sensory beings. We experience the world through our senses. We are, in fact, a “sacramental people.” A “sacrament” is a visible manifestation discerned by the senses of an invisible reality. This is why God has given us the Seven Sacraments and numerous “sacramentals”—because He knows we experience reality through our senses. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “Man’s natural path to knowing things only his mind can grasp is thorough what he perceives with his senses … All our knowledge originates in sense-perception…”54[The fact of positive supernatural revelation]. The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; “for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” [Rom 1:20] Once such knowledge is gained, it must be tested and authenticated. Reason informs our sense perception. This is the role of reason. This is why Vatican I dogmatically proclaimed (De fide) that God can be certainly known by human reason by virtue of creation:
55 The Great Angelic Doctor helps us to understand. He teaches us that in God’s creation of living creatures exist up to three “souls.” The first soul is the “vegetative soul.” This is the life force of all living creatures—plants and animals. Next is the “sensitive soul.” This gives animals the faculty of experiencing the world about them and responding to that world through the senses. The third type of soul is the “rational soul.” This is the faculty that is the “image of God” given only to human beings. Human beings have all three kinds of soul; animals have the sensitive and the vegetative; plants have only the vegetative. And thus the Catechism concludes: Feelings or passions are emotions or movement of the sensitive appetite that incline us to act or not to act in regard to something felt or imagined to be good or evil. (CCC 1763) In themselves passion are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will . (CCC 1767) While human beings experience the world about them through the faculty of the sensitive soul (the senses), those experiences must be “qualified” and interpreted by the rational soul (reason). Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, identifies this empiricism (sense predominance), when isolated from reason, as a threat to Christianity 56. This leads us back to the official Church teaching that the senses, the passions, must be governed by reason (CCC 1767). Given this teaching of the Church, it is critically important for those who are involved in the Charismatic Renewal to “reason” through their experiences and not presume anything about their experiences on the weight of their experiences alone. We need to “test the spirits,” we need to know the presumptions behind the things we believe, we need to know where our beliefs and practices originate, we need to evaluate and to analyze the suppositions, consequences, and ramifications of what we believe and practice. To not evaluate and test our experiences against such “reasoned” analysis is to flirt with imprudent, problematic, or even erroneous ideas and notions that can lead us astray or at least rob us of the fullness of the victorious Christ-Life. Many in the Renewal exaggerate the empirical if not isolate it from reason. The leader of the Charismatic Renewal in Canada offers us an example of this exaggeration in his book, Understanding the Charismatic Gifts, in which it is suggested that we will “just know” if our Tongues was not from the Holy Spirit.57

The Letter to Bishops on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation speaks in some detail about the danger of one aspect of this exaggeration. This Curia document is important to review, since the phenomenon of Tongues is very similar to the effects of classical meditation.58

(g) On Spiritual Gluttony

It is often the case with very devout Catholics, especially those in the Charismatic Renewal, that another kind of Sensualism sets in — spiritual gluttony. Spiritual gluttony can take two forms. 1) Some are so covetous of the Eucharist that they will steal the Eucharist to have it, or will have great fits if a daily Mass is not offered when the Pastor is on vacation. This is patently improper and sinful. 2) The second type of spiritual gluttony is the seeking of “sensual sweetness”, the desire to experience that in which they feel and taste God emotionally, without regard to reason. St. John of the Cross, in his work “The Dark Night of the Soul” (I, vi), defines this sort of spiritual gluttony (a term he uses). He explains that it is the disposition of those who, in prayer and other acts of religion, are always in search of sensible sweetness; they are those who “will feel and taste God, as if he were palpable and accessible to them not only in Communion but in all their other acts of devotion.” The great Saint warns us that this “gluttony” is a very great imperfection that can produce great evils.

(h) On the Distribution of the Gifts

Another very common example of misdirected teaching is that each of us has the all of the “manifestation gifts.”59

These are the gifts that to some degree are present in each of us although one or the other may predominate, making us have a particular motivating force or direction in our lives. In light of this false teaching, it is important to re-emphasize and for members to understand that we do not all possesses the same “charismatic” gifts — the gifts are varied (1 Cor 12:14) and are distributed by God as He sees fit” (1 Cor 12:18), not as we desire. Despite this clear statement of St. Paul, leaders of the Charismatic Renewal teach the opposite. For example, Father Coughlin, in his book previously cited, states:
These are the gifts that to some degree are present in each of us although one or the other may predominate, making us have a particular motivating force or direction in our lives.60
It is fascinating to note that Father Coughlin quotes Romans 12:6-8 immediately before the statement quoted above. “These are the gifts…” refers to the Romans passage he quotes in his text. That quote from Romans begins with these words: “Let each one of us, therefore, serve according to our different gifts…” He repeats several times throughout his book that everyone has all the charism gifts.61

(i) On What Is Evidence of Spiritual Maturity

Although most Catholics generally understand this point correctly, it is important, in the face of misdirected teaching on this subject among non-Catholics, to understand that no particular charismatic gift is evidence of spirituality or maturity. No particular gift is evidence of “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” Neither is the manifestation of a “private prayer language” evidence of “baptism in the Spirit” or of some level of maturity or spirituality. The gift of a “private prayer language”, as with all gifts, may be given by God to whom He pleases and as He sees fit. Thus, not everyone will exhibit this particular “gift.” 62
The true evidence for spirituality, maturity, and “baptism in the Spirit,” according to Holy Scripture and Church teaching, is the “Fruit of the Spirit” which is love (1 Cor 13:1-3; Gal 5:22-26). While Catholics in the Renewal understand this point intellectually and articulate the point correctly in their rhetoric, their behavior often implies something else to an onlooker or a seeker. The emphasis on Tongues (subpara. (i) below) and especially the idea that Tongues is the way to “pray in the spirit” or to pray more “perfectly” (see subpara. (j) below) are two major ways that at least implies that being “spiritual” requires “Tongues.” An attitudinal assent, praxiology, and consistent understanding throughout the charismatic experience must follow intellectual assent to this doctrinal point.

(j) On the Emphasis on the Gift of Tongues and Other Sigil Gifts

Despite the clear teaching of Scripture, the Charismatic Renewal, in one fashion or another, to one degree or another, seems to maintain an emphasis upon the Gift of Speaking in Tongues and upon a private prayer language. St. Paul spends a great deal of time admonishing the Church at Corinth against their immaturity and abuse of the Gifts, and especially that of Tongues. One of St. Paul’s instructions on this subject is found in 1 Corinthians 14:6-12: Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning; but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Cor 11:31a) Father Coughlin, however, writes, “each gift is of equal value. No one is greater than another.”63

Pentecost Today, a journal of the Charismatic Renewal, illustrates the emphasis on Tongues in the passage quoted below that suggests the principle that Tongues is a “gateway” to the other gifts. We believe that the Church teaches us that the Sacrament of Confirmation is the gateway to the charism gifts of the Spirit. In the Life in the Spirit Seminar, the script is often repeated that Tongues can be a gateway to the rest of the gifts. When asked why, the response is that Tongues is the easiest gift to obtain. We agree—Tongues is easily manifested psychgenically, which is why we must be so cautious about it. This “gateway” and “easiest gift” approach to Tongues can create a great deal of pressure to speak in Tongues. With the idea of Tongues as a “common gateway”, we would suggest that the danger of a psychogenic phenomenon is more likely. In addition, as we have written in several sections in these Articles, we believe there is a more precise rendering of Scripture in its teaching on the nature of the gifts. The Church states that we receive the “fullness” of the Holy Spirit as it was with the Apostles at Pentecost when we receive the Sacrament of Conformation. When that being true, and since the gifts come with the Spirit, we must receive whatever gift God has for us at the Sacrament of Confirmation and we thus need to “discover”, rather than to “seek” from a “I wanna” list, what gift or gifts may have been given. There is also an implication suggested in the quote below that Tongues is a fuller way to pray. This too, is problematic: Praying in tongues is “a common gift of prayer by which we can surrender our voice and thoughts to God, what Father Montague describes as a ‘spirit-language’ that gives voice to our inner self before God… [it] can be a gateway to the charismatic dimensions of faith. It gives a person a clear experience of being fully active in prayer, yet touched by the presence of the Holy Spirit.” 64

Purpose of Sigil Gifts

The primary purpose of the Sigil Gifts was to authenticate the ministries of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church. The Scripture indicates this purpose (e.g., Mt 9:6; Jn 14:31; 1 Cor 14:22, et al.), the witness of history affirms it, and the Magisterium confirms it: By the end of the second century, extraordinary and miraculous charisms had largely disappeared from the Christian communities. St. Gregory the Great, who lived in the sixth century, noted this fact and explained it by pointing out that such charismatic signs were necessary in the first days of the faith, but not in later years.(1) When the visible family of faith had become rooted in the world, then the Church itself with its marks of unity, faith, and love became the principal sign of God’s presence.(2)
65________ (1) Cf. St. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia, hom. 29.4 (MG 76.1215-1216). (2) Cf. First Vatican Council, Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (April 24, 1870), ch. 3 (DS 3013-3014)

Danger in Seeking Sigil Gifts

There are three primary reasons for great caution in seeking after the Sigil Gifts of Tongues, Interpretation, Miracles, and miraculous Healing. The first is the presumption that these gifts are to be re-established as a norm in Christian life today when their primary purpose, as discussed above, was as a sign to authenticate the ministries of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Church. We ought not to make presumptions about the workings of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who, in His sovereignty, decides what gifts to grant us and when. While the Sigil gifts may have a use to build-up the Church today, since both the Scripture and the Vatican Council teach us that their purpose was as a sign to those days, we need to be very circumspect. Are we in another era where signs such as these are necessary to authenticate ministry or the Church? To say yes, contradicts the dogmatic teaching of Vatican I as cited above. With such statements from the Church in the past, this issue must be submitted to the scrutiny and discernment of the Magisterium. The second reason is the inherent danger of “seeking after a sign.” Jesus Himself warns us that: “an evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah” (Mt 16:4). We can be so desirous for a sign, so eager to be given a sign, that the human psyche will provide one for us. We may get want we want because we want it so badly that our minds will conjure it up; every fiber of our being may be convinced of it, yet what we are experiencing may not be coming from God but from our own psyche. Such desire and eagerness can also leave us vulnerable to people with fraudulent gifts whose purpose is to exploit us. The third reason to avoid seeking after a sign is that the Evil One can easily counterfeit these particular gifts. Tongues, for example, can be and is imitated by Satan often. Satanists, shamans, occultist, witches, pagans, the insane, and the demon possessed all speak in tongues. The first symptom of demon possession listed in the official Rite of Exorcism is speaking in tongues.66
This does not mean that all those who speak in tongues are possessed. No! It means that the Evil One can and does imitate Tongues and other gifts—or even imitate an “angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14) if need be to hoodwink us into his snare. Thus, we need to be very careful and not seek these gifts, but only accept them if the Lord gives them to us. Even then, we must always “test” the spirit behind the tongues or any of the other sigil gifts. Besides, St. Paul admonishes us to “desire the greater gifts” of which Tongues is not! Colin Donovan summarizes: St. Paul’s experience at Corinth demonstrated rather early in the Church how susceptible these charisms are to exaggeration. … he would even warn the Corinthians that the devil can appear as an angel of light (1 Cor 11:14). Similarly, both St. Peter and St. John (1 Pet 5:8-9; 1 John 4:1) warn us of this danger. St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiæ [ST II-II q177] tells us that the Holy Spirit does not accomplish the charism directly but through the mediation of angels. Since they are within the power of angelic nature, they are also capable of demonic imitation… It is for these reasons that most spiritual writers, especially the mystical doctor St. John of the Cross, warn us not to seek such extraordinary phenomenon… Vatican II made this warning part of its teaching67
on the charismatic gifts.68
Three Apostles (Sts Paul, Peter, and John), the Council Fathers of Vatican II, and two Doctors of the Church (St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross) urge great caution and circumspection concerning the extraordinary gifts. Such cautious circumspection of the finer details within the Renewal founded on reasoned evaluation over empiricism seems rare in the Renewal.

Testing the Gifts

God has commanded us to “test the spirits” (1 Jn 4:1) to see if they are of God. Testing the spirits is essential since these extraordinary gifts are so easily counterfeited by Satan as is evidenced by the numerous use of them, especially of Tongues, among Satanist, witch doctors, occultist, and false prophets.

Thus, anyone who believes they have the gift of Tongues, Interpretation, Miracles, or miraculous Healing, (as well as those who believe they have a private prayer language), should have their “gift” tested according to the Biblical norms (1 Jn 4:2-3) to assure that the “spirit” behind the Gift is indeed the Holy Spirit.69
Candidates for membership in our Order who speak in Tongues, or believe they have any of the other sigil gifts, must have their “gift” tested. The test is to be conducted by a competent third party and never by oneself since with a third party there is less danger in deluding oneself or being fooled by a spirit not of God.

(k) On Tongues as the way to Pray in the Spirit

It is also a misdirected notion that a private prayer language is needed to “pray in the spirit.” Since we know that “tongues” is not a gift that everyone receives, are we to believe that only some of the Faithful are given the privilege of praying in the Spirit? God forbid! We are instructed in Scripture (Eph 6:18) to pray in the Spirit. God would not instruct us to do something that we cannot possible do. The idea that the two are the same thing comes from Pentecostalism with the usual justification for the notion based upon a misinterpretation of Roman 8:26-27: Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. And he who searches the hearts of men knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Even a casual reading of this passage reveals that it does not refer to “tongues.” St. Paul tells us that this experience is one that is “too deep for words.” That phrase is from the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. The New American Bible uses the phrase “inexpressible groanings;” and the Douay-Rheims uses the phrase “unspeakable groanings”—all translations say the same thing—that the experience is without “any words”. Tongues is a language, it is words. Thus, the experience mentioned in this passage is something too deep for our native language or for a prayer language—for any language. Rather, the verse tells us, the Spirit knows our hearts and intercedes for us to the Father without words. It is the Holy Spirit who prays for us. We are not the ones praying in this case, in any language or without language; the Holy Spirit is interceding for us. The Holy Spirit does not need to use vocal cords, or our tongues, to pray for us.

(l) On Tongues as the way to Pray More Perfectly

It is part of the regular script in the Renewal to explain that Tongues allows a person to pray and to praise God more perfectly. This notion is largely based on the misinterpretation of Roman 8:26-27 as discussed above.

The ever more perfect prayer, however, is not Tongues, according to the Church, but that special grace granted by God to those in mystical union with Him (cf. para. nn. 223ff). The experience of Tongues does have, nevertheless, an effect similar to contemplative prayer allowing it to easily be mistaken for higher forms of prayer. The notion of Tongues giving a person a closer access and experience of God is sourced in that Pentecostals do not have a tradition or understanding of contemplative prayer. For them, Tongues became the “contemplative” journey to intimacy with God. Catholics are in no need for Tongues to achieve intimacy with God. We have the fullness of the Faith in the Real Presence of the Most Holy Eucharist and the ancient traditions of true contemplative prayer to which, at some level, all the Faithful may participate. This genuine contemplative prayer, for those called by God, may lead to the highest intimacy with God in this life of mystical union. The Renewal, however, seems to have co-opted the Pentecostalism of seeking closer intimacy with God through Tongues since, as the standard script goes, “it is the easiest gift.” Closer intimacy with God, however, is not an easy way. Genuine contemplation requires great commitment of years of prayer and devotion. There are no short-cuts, although the immature and impatient continually seek an “easy” and “faster” way, such as through Tongues and also through the so-called “centering prayer.”70

In as much as a genuine expression of Tongues gives the speaker an intimacy with God, we share with him in praising God. To seek Tongues, however, as a method of intimacy, particularly as an easy technique, or as a more perfect way, we must reject.

(m) On the Exercise of the Gifts in Orderly Fashion: With all this in mind, when legitimate and God-given spiritual (“charismatic”) gifts are manifested they are to be exhibited with order, decorum, and love — God is not a God of chaos and division (1 Cor 14:26-33, 36,40). The Church states: Anything resembling hysteria, artificiality, theatricality or sensationalism, above all on the part of those who are in charge of such gatherings, must not take place. Those who direct healing services, whether liturgical or non-liturgical, are to strive to maintain a climate of peaceful devotion in the assembly and to exercise the necessary prudence if healings should take place among those present; when the celebration is over, any testimony can be collected with honesty and accuracy, and submitted to the proper ecclesiastical authority.71

(n) On Spiritualizing Normal Experiences

Another common error with many in the charismatic movement, and a cousin to the error of Sensualism, is interpreting nearly everything spiritually. Normal experiences do occur. Even wildly unusual and bizarre experiences can and do fall within the mathematical probabilities of coincidence. Even Sigmund Freud, with all his symbolic imagery, remarked that, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” A common cold is a common cold, not an infestation of the “demon of a cold” as some Pentecostal charismatics suggest. Waking up just in time to run to the basement before a tornado hits the house may be an alarm of the Holy Spirit, but may just as easily be one’s subconscious hearing the sound of the wind. There is a danger in rashly spiritualizing our normal experiences. The danger is that indiscriminate attribution of normal experiences to spiritual causes damages the proper discernment abilities leaving us open and vulnerable for benign misinterpretations at best and evil manipulations and subtleties at worse. A very common spiritualization is to be inspired to quote a Scripture verse when giving a presentation before an audience. The speaker may say something like, “The Holy Spirit just inspired me to read this verse to you.” The inspiration is more likely to be a result of normal human insight than a special phone call from the Holy Spirit. Indeed to attribute all insight to a special revelation from God is to insult God by failing to realize the power He has given to His creation. After all, human intellect, intuition, and wisdom are God’s gifts to us, too. To put this in perspective, which is a parent to be more proud? — a child who quotes a verse in their presentation because daddy suggested it directly to them? or, a child who comes up with the inspiration on his own because daddy did such a good job of raising the child in the faith? We believe the use of our human intellect, intuition, and wisdom informed by the Faith under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church pleases our Father. We should gratefully and joyfully acknowledge this natural gift.

(o) On Avoiding Para-sensory Definitions and Practices of Gifts

One of the most disturbing influences of Pentecostalism is the tendency to define and to practice certain “gifts” in a way that is tantamount to mediumism or other forms of ESP (Clairvoyance, telesthesia, and precognition)
72
. For example, the Gift of Knowledge is often defined and practiced in such a way as to be really clairvoyance or telesthesia and the Gift of Prophecy as to be pre-cognition. The Gift of Knowledge is usually the ability to discover, to know deep and profound knowledge about the faith, and to communicate that knowledge. It is not a clairvoyant or telesthesic ability to know occult (hidden) things about people (such as personal information, hidden illnesses, and secret details). The only exception is in the extremely rare instance where God gives a very holy person, such as St. Padre Pio, the gift of “reading souls.” Outside of this very special and rare gift, it is never necessary to know such hidden things in order to pray for someone—God know our needs and the needs of those for whom we pray. Concerning the gift of “Reading of Souls,” St. Padre Pio did not “perform” his ability to read souls on T.V., before crowds, or to reveal trivial information about people. He used it in the Sacrament of Confession to help the penitent to know himself in order to make a good confession and be healed. It is unlikely to witness genuine “reading of souls” outside the Sacrament of Confession, or perhaps the private setting of Spiritual Direction. Often the charismatic minister will say, “The Spirit is telling me that there is someone in the audience with bone cancer.” One must wonder who the “spirit” is as it is not the style of God to display His graces like a “performance.” The Gift of Prophecy is mostly the supernatural ability to reveal and to preach the Truth of God. Only sometimes might this involve conditional predictions of future events. Many charismatics who claim the Gift of Prophecy, on the other hand, receive regular predictions (pre-cognitions) as special messages to particular individuals. Again, the exercise of this “gift” often has the flavor of mediums and clairvoyants and often reveals trivial information. In general, the common attributes of people exercising mediumistic and clairvoyant abilities hiding under the guise of Spiritual Gifts include, but are not limited to, a “show biz” flavor, or other performance atmosphere, a very individualistic focus apart from any benefit to the community of the People of God, and a typical tendency to reveal information that is either trivial or unnecessary.

Such display of these gifts also tends to call attention to the person with the “gift.” It should be noted that the second primary symptom of possession according to the official Rite of Exorcism is the ability to know hidden things that cannot be known by normal means.73
Let us exercise great caution.

(p) On Avoiding Pride in Spiritual Warfare

The people in the first century Church at Corinth were plagued with immaturity, pride, and exaggeration about the charisms of the Spirit. Their imprudence engendered a canonical book in Holy Scripture (St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians) and a papal admonishment and warning (from Pope Clement I). Similar exaggerations and immaturities are self-evident in the various Pentecostalisms of today as described in these articles. One of the ramifications of these imprudent understandings charismatics have concerning the charism gifts is found most acutely not only in the empiricalism and the improper emphasis on Tongues and sigil gifts, but especially in the practice of Spiritual Warfare. The misunderstandings and prideful practices of gifts such as prophecy, tongues, healings, and word of knowledge have direct relevance to the imprudent practices and beliefs in Spiritual Warfare that is so common in the Renewal. The areas of erroneous teaching in Spiritual Warfare among charismatics are numerous, but include: (1) the notion that demons cannot be in proximity to the Holy Spirit and thus Christians, or at least devout Christians, cannot be demonized; (2) thinking that demons are around every corner (negative spiritualization of normal things). One extreme example is the idea that even a common cold is caused by a “demon of cold” to be exorcized. Less extreme examples include the automatic presumption of personal problems coming from a demonic harassment; (3) an arrogant confidence in our authority over demons. While in the Catholic Renewal the first example of error is rare, and the second error rare in the extremes, but more common with less extreme spiritualizations, this third error is quite common.

A brief answer to these three errors includes: (1) First, the devil and God speaking directly to each other is found in the book of Job. Proximity was apparently not a problem. Secondly, demons, angels, and God are spirits. As spirits, they live outside of the material world of time and space. Thus, there is no such thing as “place” and “proximity” in the way that we understand it. Thirdly, God is omniscient; He is everywhere. This is a dogma of the faith. Since God is everywhere, He is in the “place” where demons are found and there is no place demons can go where God is not. (2) While the first cause of evil and evil effects in the world may be the devil, the particular and proximate cause of a common cold is a virus, not a demon. The immediate and proximate cause of most of our personal problems is ourselves and are own sins and imperfections. It is said that there are three stumbling blocks to mankind’s spiritual growth and friendship with God: the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. We would suggest that the effects of a fallen World (such as viruses, illnesses, disasters) represent perhaps 7% of the sources of our problems and the devil’s direct effects representing perhaps around 3%. The vast majority of our problems (90%), spiritual and otherwise, result from our own weaknesses of the flesh. We cannot lament, “The devil made me do it.” Most of the time, but not all of the time, we do it to ourselves. (3) There is a tendency within the Renewal, taking the lead from the Pentecostals, to hubris when it comes with dealing with demons. Oftentimes, charismatics act like cowboys who think they can ride in on a horse and with a prayer to kick demon hind-ends with impunity. Even the great St. Michael the Archangel did not take such an attitude (i.e., Jude 9) and Jesus admonished his disciples against pride and arrogance (Lk 10:20): Nevertheless, do not rejoice because the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven. In 1985, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued legislation proscribing certain practices in Deliverance prayers and ministries.74

These proscriptions were necessary precisely because of the exaggerations and abuses of charismatic deliverance teams. It is important to note that some people in the Renewal when they learn of this legislation choose to ignore it in favor of the way they wish to do things. Such spirit of disobedience will be noticed by the demons they seek to disturb. Nothing can be more dangerous. Nowhere is a precise and reasoned approach, and obedience to the Magisterium needed, as in Spiritual Warfare. The typical empirical approach and infiltrations of Pentecostalisms of many in the Catholic Renewal has no place in Spiritual Warfare and Deliverance ministries and is dangerous.

238. Discernment of the Gifts in our Order

Thinking or beliefs about spiritual (“charismatic”) gifts that is contrary to the basic principles outlined in these paragraphs leads to pride, envy, strife, and division which is sinful and contrary to our charism. Thus, the manifestation of spiritual (“charismatic”) gifts shall always be under the direction and discernment of the Superior.75

We must always remember that although the Church generally recommends the Charismatic Renewal, such recognition is not an endorsement of errors or imprudence of individual groups or persons.76 In the final discernment, we must remember St. Paul’s ultimate warning in 1 Cor 13:1-3:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 239. In addition to spiritual (“charismatic”) gifts, in considering members for leadership positions, we also look for the personal qualities listed in 1 Tim 3:1-13. Regardless of these qualifications and guidelines, however, decisions made to elect or appoint someone to any position shall be based upon discernment of God’s will for the candidate and for the Order, even if the candidate has certain impediments or otherwise may not seem to qualify.

1 We break from the usual format for codifying provisions and teachings of a Rule of Life, which normally consists of shorter statements and leaving detailed teaching of the subjects to the Formation Master. In this subject of the Charisms of the Holy Spirit, however, because of the vast misunderstandings on this subject, it is our purpose to present a more complete essay and teaching within our Rule itself.

2 Pope John Paul II, (speech given to a group of international leaders of the Charismatic Renewal, 11 December 1979).

3 Léon-Joseph Cardinal Suenens, Renewal and the Powers of Darkness, with a foreword by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983), ix.

4 Church, no. 12.

5 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (March 25, 1993), n. 11.

6 Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (21 November 1964), n. 2; quoted in Directory, n. 11; Eph 4:12

7 Minnesota Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Bishops Speak to the Renewal: A Collection of Letters from U.S. Catholic Bishops on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal (Minneapolis: Catholic Charismatic Renewal Office, 2005). All the quotes from bishops in this paragraph number come from letters from the respective bishop published in this book.

8 Ibid.

9Underlines and bold type in quotes throughout this document indicates our emphasis of points within the quotation.

10 Colin B. Donovan, Charismatic Renewal — General, EWTN Catholic Q&A, Frequently Asked Questions, n.d. [article online]; available from http://www.ewtn.com; Internet

11 Bishop’s Speak to the Renewal.

12 The gifts listed here are the various possible gifts we find suggested by Scripture, Tradition, and the Saints. They are either specifically mentioned as spiritual gifts by St. Paul in Scripture, implied as spiritual gifts (i.e. martyrdom), or inferred based upon the characteristics of spiritual gifts as graces of supernatural ability for the good of the church. Whatever number of gifts that may exist, to qualify as a “Charism (Spiritual) Gift” it must manifest itself in ways that are extraordinary and beyond what the person might be able to do from natural talents or abilities and must also be for the benefit of the Church and her people. God, in His wisdom and economy, may grant “charism” gifts in numerous ways and in numerous areas not listed here. In no way is this list to be considered definitive or exhaustive.

13 The Sacrificial and Consecrating category especially represents gifts of a nature that require a super-grace to overcome the natural human nature. For example, it is not normal human nature to be self-sacrificing, but some people seem to have an extraordinary grace to be able to do so. Such individuals may have a “gift of penance/mortification” or perhaps even the “gift of martyrdom.” It is equally unnatural for human nature to forswear the right to private ownership, or to marriage, or to make independent decisions. Yet, the gifts of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience are given to many people in religious and secular life. It is also unnatural for humans to manifest charity or virtue in a consistent and extraordinary way leading to Heroic Acts of Charity. Neither is it natural for humans to be profoundly silent or alone, yet some are given the charism to do so. Others are given the charism to pray for others in a way that is beyond normal human ability. It takes a supernatural grace to accomplish these gifts.

14
Heroic Acts of Charity are acts by which one offers to God all the merits of a good deed performed during life, or all the suffrages and benefits gained after one’s death for the souls in purgatory. This requires an abandonment of all the spiritual graces and benefits one receives in this life to lessen one’s punishments in purgatory so that one’s graces and benefits can be applied to others. Thus one must resolve firmly to live a life without sin so as to avoid the punishments in purgatory.

15
Catechism, nn. 1805-1829; Peter Kreeft, Back to Virtue (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992). This book is highly recommended.

16 John Paul II, To Men and Women Religious on their Consecration in the Light of the Mystery of the Redemption, Redemptionis Donum , reprinted by St. Paul Editions with permission from L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition (Boston: St. Paul Editions, Daughters of St. Paul, 1984), n. 8.

17 Ps 46:10.

18
Hom. In Cant (also see Catechism, no. 2340): He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.

19 When discussing Spiritual Gifts, especially these more classical gifts, one should take St. Paul’s discussion in full context. Please refer to at least Romans 12:4-8, 9-13; 1 Corinthians 12:4-31; 13:1-3.

20 Tongues are one of the “sigil” gifts. See the discussion of “sigil” gifts in para. 237 (i).

21 In order to qualify as a “spiritual gift,” according to St. Paul, the gift must be manifested and used for the purposes of service, ministry, and building up (edifying) of the Church. A Private Prayer Language does not qualify as a “charism gift” in this Pauline context. If God gives such a gift to a person, it may indeed edify the person to whom the experience is given, but it is a “private” gift and a private benefit. (See endnote #62).

22 The Spiritual Works of Mercy are: 1) counsel the doubtful; 2) Instruct the Ignorant; 3) Admonish the Sinner; 4) Comfort the sorrowful; 5) Forgive injuries; 6) Bear wrongs patiently; 7) Pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporal Works of Mercy are: 1) Feed the hungry; 2) Give drink to the thirsty; 3) Clothe the naked; 4) Shelter the homeless; 5) Visit the sick; 6) Visit the imprisoned; 7) bury the dead.

23 Suenens, x.

24 Donovan, [article online].

25 St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 87, quoted in Stravinskas, Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v., “The Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

26 John 15:5; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14; cf. Romans 8:5-8, 26-27; Luke 24:44-45.

27 Catechism, no. 1831.

28 Father Lawrence G. Lovasik, The Apostolate’s Family Catechism, Abridged One-Volume Edition (Bloomingdale, OH: Apostolate for Family Consecration), q. 137: Q. 137. What are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit? The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and the fear of the Lord. They are the gifts listed in Isaiah 11 which were to characterize the Just Man — the Messiah. These seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are the qualities given to the soul which make the soul responsive to the grace of God. They help us to practice virtue. Just as charity (the most perfect of virtues) embraces all the other virtues, wisdom is the most perfect of gifts, since it embodies all the other gifts.

1. The gift of wisdom strengthens our faith, fortifies our hope, perfects our charity, and promotes our practice of virtue to the highest degree. Wisdom enlightens our minds to discern and relish things divine, so that the appreciation of earthly joys loses its savor, while the Cross of Christ yields a divine sweetness.

2. Understanding, as a gift of the Holy Spirit, helps us to grasp the meaning of the truths of our holy religion. By faith we know them, but by understanding we learn to appreciate and relish them. Understanding enables us to penetrate the inner meaning of revealed truths, and through them, to quicken us to the newness of life.

3. The gift of counsel endows our souls with supernatural prudence, enabling them to judge promptly and rightly what must be done, especially in difficult circumstances. Counsel applies the principles, furnished by knowledge and understanding, to the innumerable concrete cases which confront us in the course of our daily duty. Counsel is supernatural common sense — a priceless treasure in the quest of salvation.

4. By the gift of fortitude, our souls are strengthened against natural fear, and are supported in the performance of duty. Fortitude imparts to our wills an impulse and energy which moves them to undertake without hesitancy the most arduous tasks, to face dangers, to trample underfoot worldly considerations, and to endure without complaints the crosses of daily life.

5. The gift of knowledge enables our souls to evaluate created things for their true worth, that is, in their relationship to God. Knowledge unmasks the pretense of creatures, reveals their shallowness, and points out their only true purpose as instruments in the service of God. It shows us the loving care God has for us even in adversity, and it directs us to glorify Him in every circumstance of life. Guided by the light of knowledge, we put first things first, and prize the friendship of God beyond all else.

6. The gift of piety begets in our hearts a childlike affection for God as our most loving Father. It inspires us to love and respect, for His sake, persons and things consecrated to Him, as well as those who are vested with His authority, i.e., the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the Church and its visible head, the Pope, our parents and superiors, and our country with its rulers. He who is filled with the gift of piety finds the practice of his religion, not a burdensome duty, but a delightful service. 7. The gift of the fear of the Lord fills us with a sovereign respect for God, and makes us dread nothing so much as offending Him by sin. It is a fear that rises, not from the thought of hell, but from sentiments of reverence and childlike submission to our heavenly Father. It is the fear that is the beginning of wisdom, because it detaches us from worldly pleasures that can separate us from God.

29 1 Corinthians 12:8-11.

30 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to Bishops on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation (15 October 1989), nn. 22-25. The fuller context of the cited material follows: 22. Finally, the Christian who prays can, if God so wishes, come to a particular experience of “union.” The Sacraments especially Baptism and the Eucharist, are the objective beginning of the union of the Christian with God. Upon this foundation, the person who prays can be called, by a special grace of the Spirit, to that specific type of union with God which in Christian terms is called “mystical.” 23. Without doubt, a Christian needs certain periods of retreat into solitude to be recollected and, in God’s presence, rediscover his path. Nevertheless, given his character as a creature, and as a creature who knows that only in grace is he secure, his method of getting closer to God is not based on any “technique” in the strict sense of the word. That would contradict the spirit of childhood called for by the Gospel. Genuine Christian mysticism has nothing to do with technique: it is always a gift of God, and the one who benefits from it knows himself to be unworthy. 24. There are certain “mystical graces,” conferred on the founders of ecclesial institutes to benefit their foundation, and on other saints, too, which characterize their personal experience of prayer and which cannot, as such, be the object of imitation and aspiration for other members of the faithful, even those who belong to the same institutes and those who seek an ever more perfect way of prayer. There can be different levels and different ways of sharing in a founder’s experience of prayer, without everything having to be exactly the same. Besides, the prayer experience that is given a privileged position in all genuinely ecclesial institutes, ancient and modern, is always in the last analysis something personal. And it is to the individual person that God gives his graces for prayer. 25. With regard to mysticism, one has to distinguish between “the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the charisms” granted by God in a totally gratuitous way. The former are something which every Christian can quicken in himself by his zeal for the life of faith, hope and charity; and thus, by means of a serious ascetical struggle, he can reach a certain experience of God and of the contents of the faith. As for charisms, St. Paul says that these are, above all, for the benefit of the Church, of the other members of the Mystical Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:17). With this in mind, it should be remembered that charisms are not the same things as extraordinary (“mystical”) gifts (cf. Rom 12:3-21), and that the distinction between the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” and “charisms” can be flexible. It is certain that a charism which bears fruit for the Church, cannot, in the context of the New Testament, be exercised without a certain degree of personal perfection, and that, on the other hand, every “living” Christian has a specific task (and in this sense a “charism”) “for the building up of the body of Christ” (cf. Eph 4:15-16), (29) in communion with the hierarchy whose job it is “not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good” (LG, n. 12).

31 Ibid., endnote 29.

32 Intuition and hypersensitivity account for much of the phenomena that people mistake for supernatural gifts or extrasensory perception (ESP). For example, a counselor may perceive the true problem of a client without the client revealing it. Some may mistake this for the Gift of Knowledge or even ESP. In actuality, the perception of the counselor may be sourced in twenty-five years experience of observing client behavior. The counselor has simply recognized the behavioral cue either through cognitive or by subconscious recognition. Human intuition, thus, is often a practiced wisdom of human experience. In similar manner many instances attributed to ESP is purely human perception. Some people, for example, have a unique and acute ability to observe subtle body language and nuances of tones of voice that reveal things about a person that others may not notice. This observational ability tends to be subconscious thereby the misinterpretation that it may be of supernatural or extrasensory origin.

33 Fr. Gabriele Amorth, An Exorcist Tells His Story (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 157-163; idem, An Exorcist: More Stories , 161.

34 Amorth, An Exorcist, 159-160.

35 Father La Grua, La preghiera di guarigione (n.p., n.d.); quoted in Amorth, An Exorcist, 160. Prana Therapy or healing, also called “bioplasma” is being researched by science, but as yet has not been sanctioned it. Father La Grua, in the complete quote referenced here states: If healings occur through an energy that the healer transfers to the sick person, either through a psychic charge or through a different store of energy, they have nothing to do with charismatic healings. Additionally, there may be the danger of evil infiltration. That is why we need extreme prudence. Father Amorth reports, at the same reference as above, that a Venetian exorcist, Father Pellegrino Ernetti told him that the validity of Prana healings is probably “two for every thousand.”

36 Seeking preternatural gifts or developing such gifts places us in great danger of acquiring occult powers from the Evil One even though that may not have been our intent. We dangerously open a door that should not be opened. Our Father knows this and thus sternly warns us against such “mediumistic” powers (Deut 18:11; Lev 20:27). Some of the legitimate charism gifts are similar to the preternatural gifts — tongues, interpretation, miracles, healings, and some aspects of the word of knowledge, word of wisdom, and prophecy. If we try to “seek” these gifts, we may find them, but not the gifts we were hoping for. This is why St. John of the Cross and Vatican II warned against such “seeking” (see para 237 (i) “Danger in Seeking Sigil Gifts” for more discussion on this).

37 Amorth, An Exorcist, 162.

38
Catechism, nn. 798-801: This section of the Catechism dealing with spiritual gifts is very important to the present discussion and is therefore reproduced here (one should also be referred to other references listed in the Catechism concerning these paragraphs); 798 The Holy Spirit is “the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body.” He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity: by God’s Word “which is able to build you up”; by Baptism, through which he forms Christ’s Body; by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ’s members; by “the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts”; by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called “charisms”), by which he makes the faithful “fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church. 799 Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world. 800 Charisms are to be accepted with gratitude by the person who receives them and by all members of the Church as well. They are a wonderfully rich grace for the apostolic vitality and for the holiness of the entire Body of Christ, provided they really are genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit and are used in full conformity with authentic promptings of this same Spirit, that is, in keeping with charity, the true measure of all charisms. 801 It is in this sense that discernment of charisms is always necessary. No charism is exempt from being referred and submitted to the Church’s shepherds. “Their office [is] not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good,” so that all the diverse and complementary charisms work together “for the common good.”

39 Although God may, in His sovereignty, give charism gifts to whom and when He pleases, by virtue of the fullness of the indwelling Holy Spirit conferred in the Sacrament of Confirmation (the real “baptism in the Holy Spirit”) we are gifted from that point even if we have not realized it. Our task then, we would suggest, is not to “seek” the gifts we want to have, but to “discover” the gifts we have already been given by God’s grace and glory, who alone knows best what gift or gifts we should have. As Colin B. Donovan remarks in his article on the Charismatic Renewal: when we “seek”, we run the risk of “seeking the gifts of the Giver and not the Giver of the gift” (see endnote #40 below). It much safer, as well as more humble, approach, it seems to us, is to ask, “Father, whatever gifts you have given me, or want me to have, help me to know Your Holy Spirit in my life and to fan into flame those gifts.” (also see para 237 (i) entitled, “Danger in Seeking Sigil Gifts”).

40 Donovan, [article online]: An authentic charism would not pull one away from the Church. If a Catholic leaves, seeking an emotional boost he no longer finds in the Church, he is seeking the gifts of the Giver and not the Giver of he gifts. Participation in the life of the Church should lead any Catholic (Charismatic, traditional, or ordinary) into a deeper relationship with the Eucharist, the Blessed Mother and the Pope. If it does not, something is spiritually wrong with that particular individual or with the guidance he is receiving within his group. Since a charism does not give the person any special infallibility or sanctity, given the extraordinary character of such gifts it is especially necessary for individuals possessing them to guard the purity of their faith, lest pride, self-seeking or emotionalism lead them astray, and they others. The reality that some have left the Church for Pentecostalism, or sought to create it within, points to the dangers. 41 Matthew Bunson, ed., Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac, 2000 ed. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1999), s.v., “Charismatic Renewal”, 303.

42 Acts 2:4; Ephesians 5:18.

43 J. Byrne, ed., Threshold of God’s Promise: A Handbook for those seeking the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Notre Dame, IN: True House, 1970). The Introduction of this book offers explanation of the nature of “baptism in the Spirit”: For some, there has been a failure to make a total act of self-surrender — a personal act of faith — to Jesus. For others who seem to have made this full commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savor, there is a hollowness, a lack of life or power. In many ways these Catholics resemble the disciples before Pentecost. They believe in Jesus, have witnessed the resurrection and Ascension — but are timid and afraid. And in the chapter, Waiting for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not magic, nor is it an isolated religious experience. It is a direct consequence of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus who was the anointed One of God. Preparation of the baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be understood unless it is seen as a powerful deepening of a personal relationship with Jesus. To pray for the baptism in the Holy Spirit is to join with the local community and the whole body of Christ in asking Jesus to release His power in our lives. In order to make such a prayer, we must acknowledge Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. James D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Holy Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970), 226. Dunn reiterates that “baptism in the Spirit” is not an additional act of sacramental grace: According to Luke and Paul, baptism in the Spirit was not something subsequent to or distinct from becoming a Christian… The gift of the Spirit may not be separated in any way from conversion…

44 See the James Dunn quote in endnote #43 above.

45 The three examples of the Sacrament of Confirmation began first in Jerusalem with Pentecost itself recorded in Acts 2:1-42; the in Samaria in Acts 8:14-17 has a sign of believers untied with the Jerusalem Church, and finally the sign that the Holy Spirit was given even to the uncircumcised (Gentiles) in Acts 10:44-48. This completed the Revelation of what God intended—for His grace to be bestowed upon all who would believe.

46 Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Prayers for Healing (14 Sep. 2000), art. 5 §2.

47 Holy See, Instruction, On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of The Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry Of Priest (15 August 1997), art. 9 §1.

48 John Paul II, Discourse at the Symposium on “The Participation of the Lay Faithful in the Priestly Ministry” (11 May 1994), n. 3, l.c.; quoted Collaboration, “Conclusion.”

49
Collaboration, art. 6 §2.

50 1 Corinthians 12:7ff.

51 See endnote #40.

52 Empiricism is a word derived from the Greek meaning, “experience.” It is a theory that all our mental understandings are a product of purely sensory experience.

53 Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc, 1997), s.v. “Empericism”; “Sensualism.”

54 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, trans. & ed. Timothy McDermott (Allen, TX: Thomas More Publishing, Christian Classics, 1989), 547 (Summa: IIIa, 60 no. 4).

55 First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, 2; quoted in Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, tran. Patrick Lynch and ed. (English ed.) James Canon Bastible (St. Louis, MO: B Herder Book Co., n.d.), 1, 1, §1, 1; Denzinger, 1806; cf. 1785, 1391. The Latin original of this declaration quoted in Ott: Si quis dixerit, Deum unum et vetrum, creatorem et Dominum nostrum per ea, quae facta sent, naturali rationis humanae lumine certo cognosci non posse God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. Ott’s explanation: The definition of the Vatican stresses the following points: a) The object of our knowing is the one true God, our Creator and Lord, therefore an “extramundane,” personal God. b) The subjective principle of knowledge is natural reason in the condition of the fallen nature. c) The means of knowledge are the created things. d) The knowledge is from its nature and manner a knowledge of certitude. e) Such knowledge of God is possible, but it is not the only way of knowing Him.

56 See para. 212 to review the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) from the Foreword of the book, Renewal & the Powers of Darkness.

57 Father Peter B. Coughlin, Understanding the Charismatic Gifts (Hamilton, ON: C.C.S.O. Bread of Life Renewal Centre, 1998, book handed out in a “Life in the Spirit” Seminar in Watertown, South Dakota in May 2006), 75:

Sometimes people are concerned with the origin of the gift and are afraid the Tongues may be false (originating from their own spirit). It should be generally presumed, in this case, that it is by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not one’s own spirit, since one would know if they were “making it up.” This is a most remarkable statement for a person to make. The ability for human beings to delude themselves is quite high. Phenomena like “tongues” can easily be a psychogenic experience. For a priest, let alone the top charismatic priest in Canada to give this advice is extremely troublesome and alarming. Father Coughlin repeats his alarming advice on page 74: The biggest block to praying in Tongues initially is “head knowledge,” in that a person is responding to the Lord from their head (intellect) rather then from their heart… (they) don’t understand the why of Tongues, which is a yielding of control of the tongue over to the Lord. The good Father’s advice seems to be saying that we are to turn off our intellect (that faculty God has given us to guide us and to help us discern truth from error through the virtue of Reason), so that control of our “tongue” may be given over to the Lord. Nowhere in Scripture or Tradition are we advised to suspend our intellect with its faculty of reason in order to “yield control” over to the Lord. Such advice is reflective of the Gnostic heresy called Pseudognosticism. A footnote in the document cited below in Endnote #58 defines pseudognosticism as a notion that “considered matter as something impure and degraded which enveloped the soul in an ignorance from which prayer had to free it, thereby raising it to true superior knowledge and so to a pure state. Of course, not everyone was capable of this, only those who were truly spiritual; for simple believers, faith and observance of the commandments of Christ were sufficient.” Rhetoric in the Catholic Renewal that “tongues” allows one to pray “more perfectly” seems to reflect this pseudognostic notion.

SPECIAL NOTE: This book is decidedly not to be recommended in our view as it contains many spiritually dangerous ideas. We also do not recommend Dove Publications of Pecos, New Mexico as their literature contains much Pentecostalism, though from the particular brochures we reviewed Father Coughlin’s book is far more problematic.

58 Christian Meditation, nn. 8-11, 18-19. The good Father’s advice also describes a similar practice in Eastern Meditation whereby one suspends the intellect and yields oneself to the “spirit.” The Letter to Bishops states in a section called, “Erroneous Ways of Praying’: 8. Even in the first centuries of the Church some incorrect forms of prayer crept in. Some New Testament texts (cf. 1 Jn 4:3; 1 Tim 1:3-7 and 4:3-4) already give hints of their existence. Subsequently, two fundamental deviations came to be identified: Pseudognosticism and Messalianism, both of concern to the Fathers of the Church. There is much to be learned from that experience of primitive Christianity and the reaction of the Fathers which can help in tackling the current problem. In combating the errors of “pseudognosticism” the Fathers affirmed that matter is created by God and as such is not evil. Moreover, they maintained that grace, which always has the Holy Spirit as its source is not a good proper to the soul, but must be sought from God as a gift. Consequently, the illumination or superior knowledge of the Spirit (“gnosis”) does not make Christian faith something superfluous. Finally, for the Fathers, the authentic sign of a superior knowledge, the fruit of prayer, is always Christian love. 9. If the perfection of Christian prayer cannot be evaluated using the sublimity of gnostic knowledge as a basis, neither can it be judged by referring to the experience of the divine, as “Messalianism” proposed.

These false fourth-century charismatics identified the grace of the Holy Spirit with the psychological experience of his presence in the soul. In opposing them, the Fathers insisted on the fact that the soul’s union with God in prayer is realized in a mysterious way, and in particular through the sacraments of the Church. Moreover, it can even be achieved through experiences of affliction or desolation. Contrary to the view of the Messalians, these are not necessarily a sign that the Spirit has abandoned a soul. Rather, as masters of spirituality have always clearly acknowledged, they may be an authentic participation in the state of abandonment experienced on the cross by our Lord, who always remains the model and mediator of prayer. Both of these forms of error continue to be a “temptation for man the sinner.” They incite him to try and overcome the distance separating creature from Creator, as though there ought not to be such a distance; to consider the way of Christ on earth, by which he wishes to lead us to the Father, as something now surpassed; to bring down to the level of natural psychology what has been regarded as pure grace, considering it instead as “superior knowledge” or as “experience.” 10. Such erroneous forms, having reappeared in history from time to time on the fringes of the Church’s prayer, seem once more to impress many Christians, appealing to them as a kind of remedy, be it psychological or spiritual, or as a quick way of finding God. Similar techniques were subsequently identified and dismissed by St. Teresa of Avila who perceptively observed that “the very care taken not to think about anything will arouse the mind to think a great deal,” and that the separation of the mystery of Christ from Christian meditation is always a form of “betrayal” (see: St. Teresa of Jesus. Vida 12, 5 and 22, 1-5). 11. However, these forms of error, wherever they arise, “can be diagnosed” very simply. The meditation of the Christian in prayer seeks to grasp the depths of the divine in the salvific works of God in Christ, the Incarnate Word, and in the gift of his Spirit. These divine depths are always revealed to him through the human-earthly dimension. Similar methods of meditation, on the other hand, including those which have their starting-point in the words and deeds of Jesus, try as far as possible to put aside everything that is worldly, sense perceptible or conceptually limited. It is thus an attempt to ascend to or immerse oneself in the sphere of the divine, which, as such, is neither terrestrial, sense-perceptible nor capable of conceptualization. This tendency, already present in the religious sentiments of the later Greek period (especially in “Neoplatonism”), is found deep in the religious inspiration of many peoples, no sooner than they become aware of the precarious character of their representations of the divine and of their attempts to draw close to it. The passions (empirical faculty) are neither good nor evil in themselves, but they must be guided by reason, as already mentioned, and must be guarded from their natural tendency toward selfishness. The emptying of the mind (turning off the intellect) in prayer refers to this emptying of selfishness, not a denial of created things, of which the intellect is a major gift. Paragraphs 18-19 of the Letter to Bishops speaks of this: 18. The seeking of God through prayer has to be preceded and accompanied by an ascetical struggle and a purification from one’s own sins and errors, since Jesus has said that only “the pure of heart shall see God” (Mt 5:8). The Gospel aims above all at a moral purification from the lack of truth and love and, on a deeper level, from all the selfish instincts which impede man from recognizing and accepting the will of God in its purity. The passions are not negative in themselves (as the Stoics and Neoplatonists thought), but their tendency is to selfishness. It is from this that the Christian has to free himself in order to arrive at that state of positive freedom which in classical Christian times was called “apatheia,” in the Middle Ages “Impassibilitas” and in the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises “indiferencia.” This is impossible without a radical self-denial, as can also be seen in St. Paul who openly uses the word “mortification” (of sinful tendencies). Only this self-denial renders man free to carry out the will of God and to share in the freedom of the Holy Spirit. 19. Therefore, one has to interpret correctly the teaching of those masters who recommend “emptying” the spirit of all sensible representations and of every concept, while remaining lovingly attentive to God. In this way, the person praying creates an empty space which can then be filled by the richness of God. However, the emptiness which God requires is that of the renunciation of personal selfishness, not necessarily that of the renunciation of those created things (i.e., the intellect) which he has given us and among which he has placed us.

59 1 Corinthians 12:7: word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophesy, discernment, tongues, interpretation of tongues.

60 Coughlin, 3.

61 e.g., Coughlin, 71: “Yet everyone who wants it could yield to the gift (of tongues), since it is present in everyone who believes and is filled with, or baptized, in the Holy Spirit” and “The spirit indwells with every gift…”

62 In addition to the text of endnote #21, it is also important to emphasize and repeat the point made in the main text that God may not give this “gift” of a Private Prayer Language to everyone. Not having such a “gift” does not depreciate the level of one’s spirituality, maturity, or grace in any way. However, Father Coughlin seems to disagree and to assert, rather, that those filled with the Spirit will have this and every other gift. See endnote #61 above.

63 Coughlin, 5.

64 “Charisms and the New Life in the Spirit Seminars,” Pentecost Today, July/August/September 2001, 12; quoted in Therese Boucher, A Prayer Journal for Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Locust Grove, VA: National Service Committee, Chariscenter USA, endnote 11.

65 Bishop Donald W. Wuerl, Ronald Lawler, and Thomas Comerford Lawler, eds., The Teaching of Christ: A Catechism for Adults (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1995), 143.

66 Congregation of Sacred Rites, Philip T. Weller, trans., The Roman Ritua (25 January 1952), with additions from have been published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis and in Ephemerides Liturgicae and in the Instruction (26 September 1964), complete ed. (n.p.: Bruce Company, 1964), Part XIII, chap. 1, no 3: Signs of possession may be the following: ability to speak with some facility in a strange tongue or to understand it when spoken by another; the faculty of divulging future and hidden events.

67 Church, no. 12; English translation, Father Austin Flannery, Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, vol. 1, New Revised Edition 1992 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992), 363-364: It is not only through the sacraments and the ministrations of the Church that the Holy Spirit makes holy the People, leads them and enriches them with his virtues. Allotting his gifts according as he wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11), he also distributes special graces among the faithful of every rank.

By these gifts he makes them fit and ready to undertake the various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church, as it is written. “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for profit” (1 Cor 12:7). Whether these charisms be very remarkable or more simple and widely diffused, they are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation since they are fitting and useful for the needs of the Church. Extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly desired, nor is it from them that the fruits of apostolic labor are to be presumptuously expected. Those who have charge over the Church should judge the genuineness and proper use of these gifts, through their office not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to what is good. (cf. 1 Thess 5:12, 19-21) The Council Fathers of Vatican II specifically admonish us that we are not to “rashly seek” after the extraordinary gifts. Other translations of the document do not include the word, “rashly”, but state, “Extraordinary gifts are not to be sought after…”

68 Colin B. Donovan, [article online].

69 There are two accounts from priests that illustrate the need for discernment and testing. The first is an experience of Father Anthony, a Carmelite priest who attended a charismatic meeting. At the meeting, one or two people stood up and spoke in “tongues” while another interpreted. Father Anthony then stood up and spoke in tongues. The “interpreter” interpreted Father Anthony’s tongues. At this point father Anthony knew that the interpreter had a false gift. He stood up and informed her that her gift was false, that her interpretation was in error. In fact, Father Anthony has recited the Lord’s Prayer in the Polish language. The experience of another priest is chilling. The Father was at a charismatic meeting where a woman was praising God in Tongues. After the meeting, the Father approached the woman. He asked her if she knew what she was saying when she was speaking in tongues. She replied that she was praising Jesus. The Father informed her that she happened to be speaking his native language and that she was not praising God, but was cursing God. These two true stories should give anyone who speaks in tongues great pause no matter how wonderful they think their tongues speaking has been for them. We can never underestimate the power of self-delusion, nor the power of the evil one to fool us.

70 “Centering prayer,” we would suggest is an attempt to rob God. It seeks to attain the levels of intimacy with God that are really reserved to the gifts of the higher forms of contemplation and to mystical union. It seeks to acquire the mystical gifts that God only gives to a few. It says, in essence, “God, you did not give me the gift of mystical union, so I will steal it through the techniques of “Centering Prayer.” The Letter to the Bishops on Some Aspects of Christian Mediation (n. 23) reminds us: Without doubt, a Christian needs certain periods of retreat into solitude to be recollected and, in God’s presence, rediscover his path. Nevertheless, given his character as a creature, and as a creature who knows that only in grace is he secure, his method of getting closer to God is not based on any “technique” in the strict sense of the word. That would contradict the spirit of childhood called for by the Gospel. Genuine Christian mysticism has nothing to do with technique: it is always a gift of God, and the one who benefits from it knows himself to be unworthy.

71
Prayers for Healing, art. 5 §3 and art. 9.

72
Clairvoyance is the acute intuitive insight or perception of things that cannot be known by normal means. Telesthesia is a form of clairvoyance that response to distant stimuli by extrasensory means (such as perceiving a person’s illness). Pre-cognition is another form of clairvoyance that predicts future events. All of these abilities are forms of “divination” (foretelling future events or revealing hidden knowledge through supernatural means). God is to the point—He condemns divination (e.g., Deut 18:10).

73 See endnote #66.

74 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, [Letter to Bishops], On The Current Norms Governing Exorcisms, Inde Ab Aliquot Annis, (29 September 1985), trans. Father Gabriele Amorth, Prot. no. 291/70; AAS 77 (1985): 1169-70; EnchVat 9, nn. 1663-67; quoted in An Exorcist, 189-190.

75 Donovan, [article online]: There is yet another dimension of the discernment which needs to be considered. Since charisms are given to build up the Church, there is no necessary connection with personal sanctity. Saints, sinners and even unbelievers have manifested these gifts. The pagan prophet Balaam was given the Divine spirit of prophecy in order to authenticate Israel as the People of God (Num 22). Thus the moral state of the recipient (good or bad) does not by itself indicate a true or false charism. When actually under the constraint of the Spirit of God, however, the true charismatic could not say or do anything contrary to that Spirit. No one could claim, for instance, that the Spirit of God led him to get drunk or do anything sinful, although he might at other times do such things.

76 Ibid.: For this reason to say that the Charismatic Renewal is approved by the Church is not a blanket approval of every alleged charismatic gift or every charismatic group or individual within the Church. The discernment of the Holy Spirit’s action is an ongoing necessity within the Church and within the Charismatic Renewal.

See

VASSULA RYDEN-BRO IGNATIUS MARY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/VASSULA_RYDEN-BRO_IGNATIUS_MARY.doc

SPIRITUAL WARFARE-BRO IGNATIUS MARY

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/SPIRITUAL_WARFARE-BRO_IGNATIUS_MARY.doc

↧

Is it correct for a lay person to “lay hands” on another?

July 30, 2013, 6:07 pm

≫ Next: Blessings

≪ Previous: Charism gifts building up the Church – BRO IGNATIUS MARY

JULY 26, 2013

Is it correct for a lay person to “lay hands” on another?

Charism gifts building up the Church

http://www.saint-mike.org/warfare/library/wp-content/docs/spiritualgifts.pdf
EXTRACT

(Excerpt from the Rule of St. Michael) 2004, Order of the Legion of St. Michael

237. Misdirected and False Teachings […]

Pentecostals do not believe in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Thus when they read the passages in the book of Acts about laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit, they misinterpreted it to be some additional post-conversion act that must be performed. That is not true. The gift of the Spirit may not be separated in any way from conversion…44
There are no instances in the New Testament of the “laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit” outside of the Sacraments.

Confusion between such free non-liturgical prayer meetings and liturgical celebrations properly so-called is to be carefully avoided. for example, makes this point: Another example is found in the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest: In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil. 47
Pope John Paul II reminds us that: …the particular gift of each of the Church’s members must be wisely and carefully acknowledged, safeguarded, promoted, discerned and coordinated, without confusing roles functions or theological and canonical status. 48
Also in the Collaboration Instruction: Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion … To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.
49

Finally, in a letter sent to us from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Monsignor Mario Marini, Undersecretary, writes:

Prot. N. 1116/00/L Rome,

24 June 2000

While a certain degree of prudent reserve in this matter is indeed advisable, it is clear that the exclusion of traditional devotions employing the use of blessed oil, and in which there is no likelihood of confusion with the sacramental of Anointing of the Sick by a priest, is not the intention of this Instruction. Excluded instead would be any use by a layperson of oil, which even if not the Oil of the Sick blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday, would be interpreted as replacing the sacramental Anointing by a priest, or which would in any way be seen as equivalent to it, or which would be employed as a means of attaining for laypersons a new role previously reserved to clergy.

Thanking you for your interest and with every prayerful good wishes for a blessed Easter Season, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini, Undersecretary

47 Holy See, Instruction, On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of The Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry Of Priest (15 August 1997), art. 9 §1.

48 John Paul II, Discourse at the Symposium on “The Participation of the Lay Faithful in the Priestly Ministry” (11 May 1994), n. 3, l.c.; quoted Collaboration, “Conclusion.”

49
Collaboration, art. 6 §2.

An extract from the Konkani Catholics blog, January 4-6, 2008

Austine Crasta, moderator

Laypeople’s Use of Oil

http://www.zenit.org/article-26570?l=english

ROME, July 28, 2009 (Zenit.org) Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara…
Q:
There are chaplains who minister at a local Catholic hospital and one of them likes to use “oil” when she prays with the patients (Catholics and non-Catholics). I feel that this causes confusion. One of the chaplains attended a recent convention of chaplains and was told by a presenter that this practice is allowed as long as they tell the patients that they are not receiving the sacrament of the sick. I seem to recall that years ago the Vatican came out with a document on the use of oil by laypersons. Could you please comment? — A.S., Bridgeport, New York
A: The document you refer to is probably the 1997 instruction “On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest.” This is an unusual document insofar as it was formally issued by the Congregation for Clergy but was co-signed by no fewer than eight Vatican congregations and councils, including that of the Doctrine of the Faith. This gives the document a certain weight with respect to its authority.
The document first presents the theological principles behind its decisions before giving a series of practical considerations on aspects of lay ministry in the Church. Then, having laid the groundwork, it enunciates in 13 articles practical provisions and norms that outline the possibilities and limits of the collaboration of the lay faithful in priestly ministry.
The first article, on the “Need for an Appropriate Terminology,” attempts to clarify the multiple uses of the expression “ministry.” This responds to an intuition of Pope John Paul II who, “In his address to participants at the Symposium on ‘Collaboration of the Lay Faithful with the Priestly Ministry’ …, emphasized the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings which have accrued to the term ‘ministry’ in theological and canonical language.”
The document accepts that the term “ministry” is applicable to the laity in some cases:
“§3. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated ‘extraordinary ministers’ when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230, §3 and in Canons 943 and 1112.

Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc.
“Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes — mentioned in Canon 230, §2 — does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful.”
However: “It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as ‘pastor,’ ‘chaplain,’ ‘coordinator,’ ‘moderator’ or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.”
Another article, No. 9, is on “The Apostolate to the Sick.” Regarding our reader’s question on the use of oil in a non-sacramental way, the article is very clear:
“§1. […] The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil.
“§2. With regard to the administration of this sacrament, ecclesiastical legislation reiterates the theologically certain doctrine and the age old usage of the Church which regards the priest as its only valid minister. This norm is completely coherent with the theological mystery signified and realized by means of priestly service.
“It must also be affirmed that the reservation of the ministry of Anointing to the priest is related to the connection of this sacrament to the forgiveness of sin and the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. No other person may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the sacrament since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament.”
To many it might appear that this document is excessively restrictive in its dispositions. Yet by providing clear guidelines and demarcations of proper competences based on solid theological reasons, it actually facilitates fruitful collaboration between priests and laity in a true spirit of charity and service to Christ, the Church and to souls.

Confirmation and the laity’s role

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=832, Catholic Online

ROME, March 30, 2004 (Zenit.org) Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara…

Q: Could you please comment on the following which occurred at an Easter Vigil Mass in my parish at which a number of RCIA candidates were confirmed. At the confirmation the priest asked everyone in the congregation to outstretch their right arm toward the persons being confirmed as we said the “Prayer of Confirming.” The words of the prayer were, in summary, “All powerful God … send your Holy Spirit upon (names) to be their helper and guide … fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence. We ask this through Christ Our Lord.” After this prayer the priest performed the anointing with chrism on the candidates’ foreheads. The outstretching of arms by the congregation made it seem that the laity had some role in conferring the sacrament of confirmation. My understanding of confirmation is that the role is normally the bishop’s (or a priest in his place) to emphasize the transmission of the Holy Spirit by apostolic lineage going back to Pentecost. — D.N., Victoria, Australia

A: There are two elements to be taken into account the laying on of hands and the proclamation of the prayer over the candidates.

During the sacrament of confirmation there is a double laying on of hands. The rite you describe pertains to the first moment, which does not form part of the essential rite of the sacrament. But as Pope Paul VI wrote when he reformed the rite of confirmation (see “Ad Pascendum,” Aug. 15, 1971), the first rite should be held in high esteem as it contributes to the integral perfection of the confirmation ritual and gives a better understanding of the sacrament.

What the Church wishes to show is the transmission of the Holy Spirit, by apostolic genealogy going back to Pentecost, through the symbolism of consecrated hands being laid on the head of the confirmands.

In conformity with this principle the rubrics for this first laying on of hands states that when that when the bishop and priest(s) are both celebrating the Mass where confirmation occurs, they lay hands upon all candidates (i.e. extend their hands over the whole group of confirmands). However, the bishop alone says the prayer: “All-powerful God … send your Spirit upon them. … We ask this through Christ our Lord.”

The practice of laying on of hands is certainly subject to many symbolic meanings. In some cases, such as the sacrament of holy orders and the second imposition with the anointing of confirmation, it is an essential part of the rite without which the sacrament itself would not exist.

In other sacraments such as the anointing of the sick, it forms part of the auxiliary rites performed by the ordained minister.

In other cases it is a sacramental, such as when the priest extends his hands over a person or object in order to impart a solemn blessing.

It may also be used by lay people, such as when parents bless their children. In recent times it has often been used in prayer groups such as the Charismatic Renewal.

Given the symbolic polyvalence of the gesture it is necessary to determine its meaning and importance within the context of each specific rite.

In the rite of confirmation it clearly symbolizes the power of efficaciously invoking the Holy Spirit so as to achieve the effect of the sacrament. This power properly and fully belongs to the bishop.

Priests also possess this power in a latent manner and may exercise it whenever the bishop or general Church law delegates them to do so.

This is why only the bishop and concelebrating priests should extend their hands at this moment. But only the bishop says the prayer, since he actually administers the essential rite of the sacrament.

Even in a very large confirmation, where the bishop is assisted by priests who also administer the sacrament, only the bishop recites the prayer, as the priests receive their authority to administer the sacrament through the bishop.

When a priest confirms alone, as is commonly the case during adult initiation at the Easter Vigil, then all concelebrating priests extend their hands. But only the priest who confirms says the prayer.

Thus in the case of the sacrament of confirmation it is inappropriate for the entire assembly to either extend their hands or to say the prayer, as this gesture would symbolically indicate the possession of a spiritual power which they do not possess as it requires the sacrament of orders.

It is also hard to see exactly what is meant by this change, because the other elements of the rite seem to be respected; it does not appear that it symbolizes that the community is the source of the sacrament.

It might have been introduced as a nice way of having everybody involved, without much thought given to the consequences for the meaning of the rite itself. Modifying the rites in the way described despoils them of the wealth of meaning that they embody.

The reception of this sacrament through the ministry of the bishop — and in general the need for a minister for any sacrament — is a necessary element in showing that the grace of our sanctification is primarily God’s gift to us through the Church and does not spring from ourselves nor from the community. This does not mean that the community has no role in the sacraments. On receiving confirmation, a Christian enters, in a way, into the fullness of the common priesthood of the baptized through which Catholics receive the power and capacity to participate in the Church’s liturgy and to place their own personal sacrifices alongside that of Christ in the Eucharistic celebration.

However the common priesthood may only be exercised in communion with the ministerial priesthood and can never substitute it in its essential tasks.

This communion and the interplay between the two priesthoods are highlighted by the very rite of confirmation now under discussion, although it entails repeating one or two aspects already mentioned.

Before beginning the prayer of confirmation, the bishop, with the priests who will assist him on either side, says a prayer which invites all present to pray to the Father to send the Holy Spirit.

All then pray silently for a brief moment. This silent prayer is the exercise of the whole body of the faithful and thus for the faithful an exercise of their common priesthood.

After all have prayed, the bishop and priests extend their hands over the candidates while the bishop says or sings alone the following prayer which is redolent of similar priestly prayers of consecration such as the prayers of ordination:

All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by water and the Holy Spirit you freed your sons and daughters from sin and gave them new life.

Send your Holy Spirit upon them to be their helper and guide.

Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence.

Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

To this prayer all give their assent by responding “Amen” in an analogous way to the final amen of the Eucharistic Prayer.

In this way the organization of the rite makes clear that the prayer of the whole assembly is called upon during confirmation although the administration of the sacrament is reserved to the bishop or priest in virtue of the ministerial and hierarchical structure willed by Christ for his Church.

Traditionalists are wary and critical of the laying of hands on one another in charismatic circles:

When did the laying on of hands become Catholic?

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=2393555.0

Who did laying on of hands to Paul?

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=109968

The Catholic Answers Forum, September 18, 2006

Interesting discussion… The brief answer is i) Ananias, Acts 9:17 and ii) The elders at Antioch Acts 13:2, 3.

St. Jerome wrote:

As Sergius Paulus Proconsul of Cyprus was the first to believe on his preaching, he took his name from him because he had subdued him to faith in Christ, and having been joined by Barnabas, after traversing many cities, he returned to Jerusalem and was ordained apostle to the Gentiles by Peter, James and John. -Lives of Illustrious Men Chapter 5

Laity and laying on of hands

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=684800

The Catholic Answers Forum, June 13, 2012

Q: Do the hands of lay people have any special powers?
Last night I was praying with my wife and she got upset when I wouldn’t put my hand on her belly to pray over the baby in her womb (I would have but it would have been an awkward position for my arm). I told her it didn’t matter where I put my hands and the argument went on. Who is right?

There is another discussion here:

Laying on of hands

http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/laying-on-of-hands

Check out these:

The laying on of hands

http://laviecatholique.blogspot.in/2009/04/laying-on-of-hands.html

April 9, 2009

The Sacrament of Confirmation
– The Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC 1285 to 1321

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a2.htm

Imposition of hands

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia

A symbolical ceremony by which one intends to communicate to another some favour, quality or excellence (principally of a spiritual kind), or to depute another to some office. The rite has had a profane or secular as well as a sacred usage. It is extremely ancient, having come down from patriarchal times. Jacob bequeathed a blessing and inheritance to his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh by placing his hands upon them (Genesis 48:14) and Moses on Josue the hegemony of the Hebrew people in the same manner (Numbers 27:18, 23). In the New Testament
Our Lord employed this rite to restore life to the daughter of Jairus (Matthew 9:18) and to give health to the sick (Luke 6:19). The religious aspect of this ceremony first appeared in the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the office of priesthood. Before immolating animals in sacrifice the priests, according to the Mosaic ritual, laid hands upon the heads of the victims (Exodus 29; Leviticus 8:9); and in the expressive dismissal of the scapegoat the officiant laid his hands on the animal’s head and prayed that the sins of the people might descend thereon and be expiated in the wilderness (Leviticus 16:21). The Apostles imposed hands on the newly baptized, that they might receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost in confirmation (Acts 8:17, 19; 19:6); on those to be promoted to holy orders (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6; Matthew 13); and on others to bestow some supernatural gift or corporal benefit (Acts, passim). In fact this rite was so constantly employed that the “imposition of hands” came to designate an essential Catholic doctrine (Hebrews 6:2).

To understand clearly the extent to which the imposition of hands is employed in the Church at present it will be necessary to view it in its sacramental or theological as well as in its ceremonial or liturgical aspect. In confirmation, the imposition of hands constitutes the essential matter of the sacrament, not however that which precedes the anointing, but that which takes place at the actual application of the chrism (S.C. de Prop. Fide, 6 Aug., 1840). In the sacrament of Holy orders it enters either wholly or in part, into the substance of the rite by which most of the higher grades are conferred. Thus in the ordination of deacons according to the Latin rite it is at least partial matter of the sacrament; in conferring the priesthood there is a threefold imposition, viz.: (a) when the ordaining prelate followed by the priests, lays hands on the head of the candidate nil dicens; (b) when he and the priests extend hands during the prayer, “Oremus, fratres carissimi”, and (c) when he imposes hands at giving power to forgive sins, saying “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. The first and second of these impositions combined constitute in the Latin Church partial matter of the sacrament, the traditio instrumentorum being required for the adequate or complete matter. The Greeks, however, rely on the imposition alone as the substance of the sacramental rite. In the consecration of bishops the imposition of hands alone pertains to the essence (see CONFIRMATION; ORDERS).

The ceremonial usage is much more extensive. (1) In baptism the priest signs the forehead and breast with the sign of the cross, lays hands on the head during the prayer, “preces nostras”, and again after the exorcism, beseeching God to send down the light of truth into the purified soul (cf. Rom. Rit.). Tertullian mentions imposition being used in conferring baptism in his own day (de Bap., VI, VII, &c.). (2) In penance the minister merely raises his hand at the giving of absolution. The ancient ordines (cf. Martene, “De antiqua ecclesiæ disciplina”, passim), record this custom. (3) In extreme unction there is no imposition of hands enjoined by the rubrics, although in the prayer immediately before the anointing the words “per impositionem manuum nostrarum” occur. Possibly the imposition is contained in the unctions as it is in the administration of confirmation. (4) Apart from the sacraments the rite is also employed in almost all the various blessings of persons and things. Abbots and virgins are thus blessed (cf. Roman Pontifical and Ritual). (5) In the reconciliation of public penitents and the reception of schismatics, heretics, and apostates into the Church, hands were formerly, and still are, imposed (cf. Duchesne, “Christian Worship”, pp. 328, 435, St. Cyprian, De Lapsis 16). (6) Those obsessed by evil spirits are similarly exorcized (cf. Roman Ritual, Titus, x, cl). (7) The rubrics of the missal direct the celebrant to hold his hands extended during most of the prayers. At the pre-consecration prayer, “Hanc igitur oblationem”, he also holds his hands over the oblata. This action seems borrowed from the old Levitical practice, already noticed, of laying hands on the victims to be sacrificed, but curiously it has not been proved to be very old. Le Brun (Explication de la Messe, iv, 6) says he did not find the rubric in any missal older than the fifteenth century. Pius V made it de præcepto (cf. Gihr, “la Messe”, II, 345). The significance of the act is expressive, symbolizing as it does the laying of sin upon the elements of bread and wine which, being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, become thus our emissary or scapegoat, and finally the “victim of our peace” with God. Nothing can better show the relationship that has always existed between prayer and the ceremony that is being considered, than this expressive sentence from St. Augustine, “Quid aliud est manuum impositio, quam oratio super hominem?” (De Bap., III, xvi, 21).

Laying on of hands

https://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=314688&Pg=Forum4&Pgnu=1&recnu=15

March 18, 2002

Q: What can you tell me about the idea of laying on of hands? Is it biblical? Can Catholic lay people do it to other lay people? What does it mean? Is it Catholic in tradition or does it come from more from a Pentecostal or Evangelical type tradition? –Brian Vogrinc

A: The laying on of hands is a sign used in a number of the sacraments, most particularly in ordination. It has been used in this manner since the first century and signifies the invoking of God’s blessing on the person on whom hands are laid.

Catholic lay people cannot administer any of the sacraments that involve the laying on of hands, therefore they cannot do it sacramentally. Some Catholics do lay hands on others while praying for healing, though this is not a sacrament and must not be confused with one. The latter practice has been especially popularized through the Pentecostal movement. -James Akin, Catholic apologist

Laying on of hands: Widespread practice can be both a ‘danger’ or a gift of the Holy Spirit

http://www.spiritdaily.net/layingonhands.htm

We are of two minds when it comes to the “laying on of hands.”

On the one hand (not to play on words), there are the many claims of healing and deliverance. Through the years — through the centuries — countless have benefited from prayer that is said while a healer or simply another person rests one or both hands onto the afflicted person, allowing for the flow of the Holy Spirit. “When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied,” we have in Acts 19:4-6.

Clearly, the laying on of hands is biblical.

But then, in Scripture, we also have: “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others,” intones 1 Timothy 5:22. “Keep yourself pure.”

Therein is the rub and the reason we always urge prayer and fasting (without haste) before allowing anyone, including a priest, to lay on hands. The reason is simple: if the person laying on the hands has a dark spirit (“sin”), there is a chance that spirit can be transferred. This is called “imparting” a spirit. Fasting seals a person against the enemy — and purifies. Meanwhile, we see that Jesus also healed by praying from a distance.

“Laying hands on a person in prayer is not just a picturesque religious ritual,” a foremost deliverance expert named Derek Prince once warned in a terrific, insightful book called They Shall Expel Demons. “It can be a powerful spiritual experience, a temporary interaction between two spirits through which supernatural power is released. Normally the power flows from the one laying on hands to the one on whom hands are laid, but at times it can flow the other way.

“The power may do either good or evil. It may emanate from the Holy Spirit or from a demon, depending on the one from whom it flows. For this reason Paul established certain safeguards. [Here he quotes the passage from 1 Timothy above]. In other words, be careful with whom you allow your spirit to interact!

“The laying on of hands should be done reverently and prayerfully. Any person participating should make sure he or she is not thereby, in Paul’s words, sharing in another’s sins. It is a mistake to lay hands indiscriminately on one another. The following brief testimony illustrates the danger:

“‘In 1971 I was attending a charismatic meeting, and the speaker asked people to stand if they wanted prayer for healing. I had a bad cold, so I stood. He then instructed people seated nearby to lay their hands on us and pray for our healing. Four or five prayed for me.”

‘When I awoke the next morning, my cold was better — but my fingers were all curled up and stiff and hurting. Immediately I thought, Someone with arthritis laid hands on me last night! I renounced the spirit of arthritis, and within five minutes all the symptoms were gone.

“‘I was a very young believer, less than one year old, and I have been so grateful to God for teaching me then to be careful who lays hands on me.’”

We see the need for caution at the same time we must not be paranoid. These things we discern only through extensive prayer, and protect against by fasting.

See The Laying on of Hands – Derek Prince Ministries

Laying on of hands

http://saint-mike.org/swbbs/viewtopic.php?t=133

St. Michael Spiritual Warfare Depository Archive, May 17, 2010

Q: Well is laying on of hands good or bad? I have been to many Charismatic groups where they do this, but I will only let someone that I know and is right with the Lord to do this?

A: You are looking for trouble when you have someone lay hands on you. It is an open door to possession. The same goes with massage. If you consider how many people to a massage therapist and how many of them are carrying some kind of demonic “baggage” it can get transferred. So, the answer is NO, do NOT let someone lay hands on you. The only one who should lay hands on you is an ordained Catholic priest. PERIOD. –Ellen Marie

A: Well Ellen is wrong again on certain points not because I say so, but because the Vatican says so.
There is a grain of truth in what Ellen says. The Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest states at article 6 §2:

Every effort must be made to avoid even the appearance of confusion… To avoid any confusion between sacramental liturgical acts presided over by a priest or deacon, and other acts which the non-ordained faithful may lead, it is always necessary to use clearly distinct ceremonials, especially for the latter.

This Instruction, however, does not prohibit such things as laying on of hands or the administering of oil in conjunction with laying on hands. I personally wrote a letter to the Vatican to clarify this.

In Summary, what follows is what the Vatican told me about the use of Holy Oil:

A) Sacramental Oil (blessed by the Bishop on Holy Thursday) cannot ever be used.

B) Blessed oil, like that you get at shrine MAY BE USED, but

1. Prudent reserve must be exercised.

2. The situation of its use MUST NOT be one in which there is ANY confusion that what is happening is the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick.

3. The use of a blessed oil by the laity MUST NOT replace the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

4. The use of blessed oil by the laity cannot be used in such a way as to be EQUIVALENT to the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

5. The use of the blessed oil cannot be used in such a way as to create a new role for the laity which is really reserved to clergy.

6. The intention of the person using the oil must not be to violate items 2-5 above.

7. The person using the oil must express WITH CLARITY why he is not in violation of items 2-5 above.

8. The people observing or participating with the person using the oil must fully UNDERSTAND what is happening is not in violation of items 2-5 above.

9. The practice of using blessed oil by the laity is governed specifically (in addition to these general principles) by the local Pastor and ultimately the diocesan Bishop.

Laity cannot use oil in such a way that is equivalent to the Sacrament of Anointing of Sick even though they are not intending to do the Sacrament. This probably prohibits many charismatic groups from using oil in the way they do.
Laity cannot use oil in such a way that they essentially co-opt a role that really belongs to clergy. This too will prohibit the way typical charismatics use oil.
What is also important to see here, is that even if all criteria is met to allow a layman to use oil, if there is misunderstanding on the part of on-lookers, then it is not to be done. All involved must be properly catechized.
The situations in which oil and laying on of hands can be used are in situations in which there is some sort of paterfamilias relationship. This would include laying hands on your children, your spouse, or others family members. A paterfamilias relationship also may exist between a Spiritual Director and a directee or a Counselor and counselee (even the Spiritual Director or Counselor is not a priest). Even in these paterfamilias relationships, however, the non-priest can never use this privilege as a replacement for the Sacrament of Anointing which must be administered by a priest.
In other words, we cannot do these actions in such a way that too closely resembles that which is reserved to a priest. As long as we are cautious about that and those prayed over, and those on-looking are properly catechized about this, laying on hands can be done by laity.
The use of Holy Oil must not be the Sacramental oil blessed by the Bishop. If we use oil it must be oil that blessed in the normal way by a priest like that of Holy Water. Thus, oil given a normal blessing can be used by the laity in a similar way as Holy Water. Holy Water represents a washing clean factor, and is a reminder of our baptism and our baptismal promises. Blessed Oil represents a healing factor, and is a reminder of our confirmation and the fullness of the Holy Spirit indwelling us, and our promises to live a Godly life.
If we understand the differences between Sacramental Oil and regular blessed oil, and understand the differences between the Sacrament of Anointing and what laity might do with its limitations, then we can be okay in the practice.
We must always remember that the Particular Sacramental Power of Healing is reserved to clergy.

Ellen also has a grain of truth concerning the possibility of becoming demonized when laying hands on someone. We have had clients who became demonized after having hands laid upon them. There is a phenomenon called transference. A demon can transfer from one person to another through laying on hands. This is why one should not lay hands on a person too quickly and a person should not allow someone to lay hands on them too quickly.
Certainly we should never lay hands on anyone without their permission. But, if we have the permission of the person being prayed for, and have the right preparations and discernment, and doing the act with the proper circumspection, avoiding doing anything that too closely resembles the acts reserved to priests, then lay on hands may be done. Only the leader of the prayer team, however, should be laying on hands, not the whole team. –Bro. Ignatius Mary

Isn’t Energy Healing and Laying on of Hands the Same Thing?

http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=13036

By Susan Brinkmann, March 14, 2012

MM asks: “There must be some element of truth in the practice of energy healers who use their hands to heal. Aren’t their methods similar to what Christians refer to as the ‘laying on of hands’?”

Great question, MM, and now that you ask it, I’m actually a little surprised that it took two years for someone to pose it.

The only similarity between the methods used by energy healers and Christians who lay on hands is that they both use their hands – and this is as far as it goes.

The Catechism clearly states that the use of the hands in Christian healing is as a “sign,” not as an energy channel. “Jesus heals the sick and blesses little children by laying hands on them. In his name the apostles will do the same,” the Catechism teaches. “Even more pointedly, it is by the Apostles’ imposition of hands that the Holy Spirit is given. The Letter to the Hebrews lists the imposition of hands among the ‘fundamental elements’ of its teaching. The Church has kept this sign of the all-powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit in its sacramental epiclesis.”

In other words, the use of the hands in the Christian form is a symbol while in energy healing the hands have an actual function as a channel.

But that doesn’t stop proponents of energy medicine from luring Christians into their practices by drawing attention to this similarity. Some even go so far as to suggest that Jesus was an energy healer because of how He used His hands during healings. William Lee Rand, founder of the pro-Reiki International Center for Reiki Training actually suggested that because Jesus sometimes laid hands on people while healing them, He may have been using Reiki.
“There are many similarities between the laying on of hands healing Jesus did and the practice of Reiki,” Rand writes.

Naturally, he goes on to list only those episodes in the Gospel where Jesus used His hands to heal, leaving out all other methods such as the casting out of demons and healing by command. By deliberately “cherry picking” Scripture in this way, the result is a myopic and distorted view of the nature and purpose of the healing power of Jesus.
“Jesus was not channeling a universal energy, but was acting with the power of God,” writes New Age expert Marcia Montenegro.

“As Acts 10:38 says, ‘God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.’ The power of God was not coming through a technique or secret teaching, but from the Person of Jesus Christ. When Jesus conferred this power specifically to and only on His disciples, He ‘gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness,” (Matthew 10:1, Mark 3:13-15, Luke 9:1). It is His authority over illness that Christ gave the disciples, not a secret teaching or technique.”

Perhaps the biggest difference between energy healers and the Christian laying on of hands is the fact that energy healers claim to be manipulating an alleged energy force. When Christians pray over one another, we’re not trying to manipulate God’s power. We’re simply using our hands as a sign of intercession. Whether or not God wants to heal the person is left totally up to Him.

Energy healers have a whole different mindset. This is their power that they supposedly learn how to use through classes or attunement ceremonies such as those required for Reiki masters. True biblical healing is never based on a belief in one’s own power, but is based solely on the power of God.

You should also beware of those who say Christians can participate in these practices simply by believing that the energy comes from God. This can be a very dangerous delusion, particularly in the case of techniques such as Reiki, which employ occult entities known as spirit guides.

Even if energy healers are Christians (sadly, there are many of them out there), they can’t say their energy comes from God because God never revealed Himself to us as an energy force. He’s a personal God who once identified Himself to Moses as “I am” not “It is.”

Whether the healer believes it or not, the energy he or she is using during an energy healing session is a putative energy form (that has no scientific basis) which is believed to permeate the universe. The healer can call this energy anything they want, but it doesn’t change the nature of it. It’s still a putative energy form. Just by calling it God doesn’t make it God. That would be like calling a dog a cat and expecting the dog to now be a cat. The energy is what it is and if the healer doesn’t understand this, then they don’t understand either energy medicine or basic Christian theology. (This blog gives a more in-depth explanation for why God cannot be called an energy force.)

The bottom line is that energy healers are to be avoided by Christians. They are not only practicing a bogus science that won’t help you anyway, but many of them also dabble in other New Age modalities, some of which – such as Reiki – are effected through occult agencies.

↧

Blessings

July 30, 2013, 6:10 pm

≫ Next: What’s happened to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal?

≪ Previous: Is it correct for a lay person to “lay hands” on another?

APRIL 2011/SEPTEMBER 2012/JULY 2013

Blessings

Note: Whenever I use bold type or underline, the emphasis is mine and not the emphasis of the source that I am quoting unless indicated otherwise.

My question is as follows: Why do Catholics have things such as holy medals blessed by a priest? What is a blessing? (No name with question)

“Bless: to hallow or consecrate by religious rite; to invoke divine care for; to protect, preserve.”

“Blessing means placing a thing or person under the care of God. A liturgical blessing is one that uses a prescribed formula or ceremony, and is given by a (Catholic) priest. The simplest blessings are made with the Sign of the Cross, and sometimes are accompanied by the sprinkling of holy water. By the visible signs and formula of words of blessings, God’s benediction is invoked on persons, places, or things.”

“Benediction: From the Latin word benedicere, benediction is the general term for any kind of blessing.”

“The Lord said to Abraham: I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you. I will make your name great so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you.”

“But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”

“Bless those who persecute [you], bless and do not curse them.“

“Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing.”

“Whether God blessed the people himself or through the ministry of those who acted in His name, His blessing was always a promise of divine help, a proclamation of His favor, a reassurance of His faithfulness to the covenant He had made with His people. When, in turn, others uttered blessings, they were offering praise to the one whose goodness and mercy they were proclaiming. Whoever blesses others in God’s name invokes the divine help upon individuals or upon an assembled people. Blessings therefore refer first and foremost to God, whose majesty and goodness they extol, and since they indicate the communication of God’s favor, they also involve human beings, whom He governs and in His providence protects. Further, blessings apply to other created things through which, in their abundance and variety, God blesses human beings.”

“Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a ‘blessing‘, and to ‘bless‘. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).” “Every blessing praises God and prays for His gifts.”

So, Catholics have things such as religious medals blessed to invoke God’s protection on the person who uses the medal and to praise God

This report prepared on January 22, 2005 by Ronald Smith, 11701 Maplewood Road, Chardon, Ohio 44024-8482, E-mail: hfministry@roadrunner.com. Readers may copy and distribute this report as desired, without restrictions in number, as long as the content is not altered and is copied in its entirety.

michaelprabhu@vsnl.net
www.ephesians-511.net

THE FOLLOWING THREE EXTRACTS UNDERSCORE WHAT RON SMITH WRITES:

THE PRIESTHOOD

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Priesthood/Priesthood_001.htm

Conference transcription from a retreat that Father Hardon gave to the Handmaids of the Precious Blood

By Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998 EXTRACT

Finally, beyond the ordained ministerial priesthood, which is unique and possessed only by those who receive the sacrament of orders, there is a true although subordinate sense in which all the baptized faithful belong to the priesthood of Christ. We begin to share in the priesthood of the Savior when we are baptized into the priesthood of Christ. This sacramental character which we receive at Baptism is deepened by the sacrament of Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. It is because of this sharing in Christ’s priesthood that the faithful are able to receive any of the other sacraments; without this one no other sacrament can be received. It is because of this share in Christ’s priesthood that they are enabled to offer with the priest at the altar the body and blood of the Son of God to His heavenly Father, which is why it is said, “Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”

THE PATERNAL ORDER OF PRIESTS

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0647.html

By
Scott Hahn EXTRACT

If this comes as news today, it’s only because so many of us have unwittingly become religious empiricists. Since a sacramental character is invisible, we may be tempted think of it as less real, less permanent, merely propositional. But because it is sacramental, it is more real, more permanent, and much more than propositional.
This demands of us a deep faith, an act of faith sustained over a lifetime. St. Thomas Aquinas said: “We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch. The believer’s act of faith does not terminate in the propositions, but in the realities which they express” (Catechism, no. 170). We do not put our faith in theories or abstractions, but in realities.

Monsignor Nwachukwu’s Address on Priestly Life – “A Sad Celibate Is a Bad Celibate”
http://www.zenit.org/article-28631?l=english

By Monsignor Fortunatus Nwachukwu, head of protocol for the Holy See’s Secretariat of State

ROME, MARCH 14, 2010 EXTRACT

For the Christian, birth is not just physical. The more important birth is not necessarily the physical one, but also the sacramental birth or rebirth in Christ, through the Holy Spirit…
In fact, the notion of rebirth is so fundamental that the New Testaments tends to view the entire life of a Christian in two parts, before and after the encounter with Christ (1 Pet. 1,23; Titus 3, ; 2 Cor 5,17; Eph 2,1-2; 1 Cor 2,14; Rev. 1,8; Rom 8,9b). In the life of the Church, this rebirth is realized through the sacraments, which are “efficacious signs of grace … by which divine life is dispensed to us” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1131). Renewal of the rebirth is also realized through the sacramentals, instituted by the Church “for the sanctification of certain ministries…, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1668).

Both in sacraments and in sacramentals, the principle of rebirth is the Holy Spirit. For the Christian, the Mystery of the Incarnation divides human history into two, before and after Christ. In the same way, the encounter with Jesus Christ, the “Alpha and Omega” (Rev 1,8), divides the life of the Christian into a “before and after”, respectively beginning with a physical birth and a spiritual rebirth in Christ.

Blessing or Consecrating Third Class Relics

Note: In this report I may occasionally use bold print, Italics, or word underlining for emphasis. This will be my personal emphasis and not that of the source that I am quoting.

Dear Ron: Are third class relics treated as if they were consecrated such that if they were exposed to certain kinds of sacrilege they would need to be re-consecrated by a priest? Rick Harrison

No. I read what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 has to say regarding relics. It does not mention the need for relics to be either consecrated or blessed. It says that relics have historically been venerated (not worshipped) because of what they are in their own right.

“Blessing: Ritual in which the right hand is raised and usually the Sign of the Cross is made over the person or thing, invoking God’s favor or intervention upon the one blessed.”1

“Consecration: The setting aside of a person or an object exclusively for God and His service. Many such prayers over people or objects that were called ‘consecrations’ formerly are now called blessings (e.g., altars and churches), although virgins are still consecrated.”2

“Consecration: In general, an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies.”3

“Whether God blessed the people Himself or through the ministry of those who acted in His name, His blessing was always a promise of divine help, a proclamation of His favor, a reassurance of His faithfulness to the covenant He had made with His people.”4
“Blessings refer first and foremost to God, whose majesty and goodness they extol, and, since they indicate the communication of God’s favor, they also involve human beings, whom He governs and in His providence protects. Further, blessings apply to other created things through which, in their abundance and variety, God blesses human beings.”5

“Blessings are signs that have God’s word as their basis and that are celebrated from motives of faith. Blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession. Blessing formularies have, from age-old tradition, centered above all on glorifying God for His gifts, on imploring favors from Him, and on restraining the power of evil in this world.”6

“At times the Church also invokes blessings on objects and places connected with human occupations or activities and those related to the liturgy or to piety and popular devotions. But such blessings are invoked always with a view to the people who use the objects to be blessed and frequent the places to be blessed.”7

“The celebration of a blessing, then, prepares us to receive the chief effect of the sacraments and makes holy the various situations of human life.”8

Primarily the two books used by the clergy to give official blessings of the Church are the Book of Blessings frequently quoted within this report and The Sacramentary.9

Neither of these books mentions anything specifically regarding blessing relics of any class.

Since I could not find a specific Church teaching or reference to the blessings of relics of any class, I contacted out diocesan Chancellor. She replied, “The third class relic may be blessed for the solace of the user. Its merit is that of a representation of the saint. I know of no other reference to verify my opinion.”10

“The Church distinguishes consecration from blessing, both in regards to persons and to things. Hence the Roman Pontifical treats of the consecration of a bishop and of the blessing of an abbot, of the blessing of a corner-stone and the consecration of a church or altar. In both, the persons or things pass from a common, or profane, order to a new state, and become the subjects or the instruments of Divine protection. At a consecration the ceremonies are more solemn and elaborate than a blessing. The ordinary minister of a consecration is a bishop, whilst the ordinary minister of a blessing is a priest. At every consecration the holy oils are used; at a blessing customarily only holy water. The new state to which consecration elevates persons or things is permanent, and the rite can never be repeated, which is not the case at a blessing; the grace attached to consecration are more numerous and efficacious than those attached to a blessing; the profanation of a consecrated person or thing carries with it a new species of sin, namely sacrilege, which the profanation of a blessed person or thing does not always do.”11

“Blessings are sacramentals and, as such, produce the following specific effects: (2) freedom from power of evil spirits.”12

So, in answer to the original question, there is no doctrine that says a relic needs to be blessed under any circumstance. However, if a relic has a sacrilege committed against it, I would recommend that you take it to a priest, explain what happened and ask him to bless the relic. I say this because of the power of a blessing against evil spirits explained above. When I was actively involved in deliverance ministry and teaching about the occult, I learned that through evil acts evil spirits could attach themselves to objects and unknowingly be brought into homes or other places. “Sacrilege: Violent, disrespectful treatment of persons, places, and objects dedicated to God.”13

If you need further information, please contact me.

This report prepared on November 15, 2010 by Ronald Smith, 11701 Maplewood Road, Chardon, Ohio 44024-8482, E-mail: hfministry@roadrunner.com.

ENDNOTES

1 Catholic Dictionary, ISBN. 978-0-87973-390-2, (1993, 2002), Editor – Rev. Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph. D, S.T.D., Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, IN., P. 139

2 Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia – Revised Edition, ISBN. 0-87973-669-0, (1998), Rev. Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., – Editor, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, IN. P. 270

3 The Catholic Encyclopedia – Vol. IV, (1908), Robert Appleton Co., New York, NY., P. 276

4 Book of Blessings – Abridged Edition, ISBN. 0-8146-2089-2, (1992), approved by the Vatican, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN., Paragraph 6, P. XXII

5 Book of Blessings – Abridged Edition, ISBN. 0-8146-2089-2, (1992), approved by the Vatican, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN., Paragraph 7, P. XXIII

6 Book of Blessings – Abridged Edition, ISBN. 0-8146-2089-2, (1992), approved by the Vatican, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN., Paragraphs 10-11, P. XXIV

7 Book of Blessings – Abridged Edition, ISBN. 0-8146-2089-2, (1992), approved by the Vatican, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN., Paragraph 12, P. XXV

8 Book of Blessings – Abridged Edition, ISBN. 0-8146-2089-2, (1992), approved by the Vatican, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN., Paragraph 14, P. XXVI

9 The Sacramentary, (1985), Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, NY.

10 E-mail from Cleveland, Ohio Diocese Chancellor, (10/22/2010), Chancellor – Sr. Therese Guerin Sullivan, SP, JCL, 1 page

11 The Catholic Encyclopedia – Vol. IV, (1908), Robert Appleton Co., New York, NY., P. 277

12 The Catholic Encyclopedia – Vol. II, (1907), Robert Appleton Co., New York, NY., P. 601

13 Catholic Dictionary, ISBN. 978-0-87973-390-2, (1993, 2002), Editor – Rev. Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph. D, S.T.D., Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, IN., P. 675

Praying for Healing – The Challenge
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/dombenedict/book-healing/healing-2.htm

By Benedict Heron OSB EXTRACT

Sacramentals

At the end of this chapter on the sacraments it seems appropriate to write briefly on sacramentals, especially one of them. It is in the Catholic tradition to use sacramentals such as holy water, holy medals, holy statues, holy pictures, icons, beads, scapulars, blessed salt, and blessed oil. It can be good to make use of sacramentals for healing and protection insofar as they are found helpful. However, it is important to remember that it is Jesus who heals and protects, not the holy water, the medals, or other sacramentals. It is also important to avoid any suggestion of magic or superstition: people are healed because Jesus wants to heal them, not because they possess a particular statue or a holy medal.

There is one sacramental which I want particularly to mention, since many Catholics are finding it helpful in connection with healing. There is in the Roman Ritual a blessing for olive oil (or other vegetable oil) which lay people can use for healing or other suitable purposes. The oil has to be blessed by a priest, but lay people can apply it to themselves or others. It can be good to anoint the sick part of the body with this oil as far as that is possible. And the anointing can be repeated as often as seems appropriate, for example, daily. I know of one case in which a man was healed of terminal cancer after being extensively anointed with this blessed oil. I know of another case in which an elderly woman regularly received relief from pain after the anointing.

Yesterday a man told me that when he cannot sleep, he anoints himself with oil and sleep invariably follows quickly. Indeed, not infrequently we receive reports of good things happening after people have been anointed with this oil.
This blessed oil is sometimes referred to as the Oil of Gladness, to distinguish it from that used in the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. Members of healing teams and others anointing people with this oil should, when necessary, clearly explain that it is not the Sacrament of the Sick.

Needless to say, the use of the blessed oil, like everything else in the healing ministry of prayer, is subject to any diocesan or other regulations which may have been made by the competent authority in the Church.
Since very few priests possess a copy of the complete Roman Ritual, it will be useful to give here the text of this ancient blessing of oil:

Blessing of Oil, for use by Laity
Our help is in the name of the Lord,
Response: Who made heaven and earth.
(Exorcism)
God’s creature, oil, I cast out the demon from you by God the Father Almighty, who made heaven and earth and sea and all that they contain.
Let the adversary’s power, the devil’s legions, and all Satan’s attacks and machinations be dispelled and driven afar from this creature oil.
Let it bring health in body and mind to all who use it, in the name of God + the Father Almighty, and our Lord Jesus Christ + his Son, and the Holy Spirit + the Advocate, as well as in the love of the same Jesus Christ
our Lord, who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire. Response: Amen.
Lord, heed my prayer, Response: And let my cry be heard by you.
The Lord be with you. Response: And also with you.
Let us pray. Lord God Almighty, before whom the hosts of angels stand in awe and whose heavenly service we acknowledge, may it please you to regard favourably and bless and hallow this creature oil, which by your power has been pressed from the juice of olives. You have ordained it for anointing the sick, so that, when they are made well, they may give thanks to you, the living and true God. 4.

Grant we pray, that those who use this oil, which we are blessing + in your name, may be delivered from all suffering, all infirmity, and all wiles of the enemy Let it be a means of averting any kind of adversity from man, made in your image and redeemed by the precious blood of your Son, so that he may never again suffer the sting of the ancient serpent, through Christ our Lord. Response: Amen.
(The oil is sprinkled with holy water)

This Blessing is taken from the Roman Ritual, translated by Philip Weller (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1964, page 573).

MORE ON BLESSED OILS

Mixing Blessed and Unblessed Oils

http://www.zenit.org/article-18786?l=english

ROME, January 30, 2007. By Fr. Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q:
If a priest is running out of the holy oil for anointing the sick blessed by the bishop at the Holy Thursday Chrism Mass, may he mix other unblessed oil with the remaining oil? C.B., Detroit, Michigan
A: The proper matter for this sacrament is olive oil or, if olive oil is unavailable, some other oil made from plants.
The general norm is that the holy oils to be used should those blessed by the bishop. This oil is blessed for the whole year at the Chrism Mass. The Roman ritual of anointing (no. 22) encourages the minister of anointing to “make sure that the oil remains fit for use and should replenish it from time to time, either yearly when the bishop blesses the oil on Holy Thursday or more frequently if necessary.”
Canon 847 of the Code of Canon Law further enjoins priests to obtain recently consecrated or blessed oils from his own bishop and not to use old oils except in case of necessity.
If a parish is running short, then the priest could inquire at the cathedral, as many dioceses keep a reserve supply during the year. One may also ask at another parish, especially one that has no hospitals, if it can spare some oil. When a priest has no blessed oil and a grave need occurs, Canon 999 provides him with a solution so that nobody might be deprived of the grace of this sacrament. It states that any priest may bless the oil in a case of necessity but only in the actual celebration of the sacrament. Although the canon restricts the priest’s blessing of the oil to cases of necessity it does not determine the degree of the necessity and the priest may judge it in each case. If this is done, the ritual explains that any oil blessed by the priest and left over after the celebration of the sacrament, should be absorbed in cotton or cotton wool and burned. Because of the priest’s faculty of blessing the holy oils in case of need, the questions about using or mixing in unblessed oils should no longer be an issue. Previously, the general opinion was that the use of unblessed oil or oil blessed by an unauthorized priest was of doubtful validity. The Holy See had responded negatively to propositions favoring these opinions, but it did so in terms that did not entirely settle the question from the dogmatic point of view. The debate remained open among theologians regarding the possibility of using a different holy oil blessed by the bishop (either the chrism or the oil of catechumens) for the sacrament of the sick. Also unsettled was the question of whether mixing blessed and unblessed oil invalidated the sacramental matter. Many theologians approved of the first opinion: that different holy oils could be used. Fewer theologians, however, proposed the possibility of mixing blessed and unblessed oils. The questions were never definitively resolved and, as we mentioned, have been superseded by the new discipline allowing the priest to bless the oils. No matter what the theological opinions might have been, all were in agreement that priests administrating this sacrament should follow exactly the Church’s liturgical norms and not risk any danger of invalidity. This advice remains valid today.

FOR MORE ON SACRAMENTALS, SEE SEPARATE ARTICLES “BLESSED SALT“, “THE SIGN OF THE CROSS“, “HOLY WATER” AND “SCAPULARS“. ALSO LOOK UP “INCENSE“.

A MARIAN SACRAMENTAL – THE SCAPULAR

The Brown Scapular: a “Silent Devotion”

http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 16, 2008 (Zenit.org) By Discalced Carmelite Father Kieran Kavanaugh EXTRACT

Devotion to Mary expressed by wearing the brown scapular seems to be resilient and resists the attempts made in various periods of history to diminish its value. The faithful keep coming back to it. From the official teaching of the Church, we can gather that the scapular of Carmel is one of the most highly recommended Marian devotions. This is true through the centuries, and into our own times with popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
One of the early Carmelites in his enthusiasm went so far as to call the scapular a “sacrament.” Actually the category into which the scapular fits is that of a sacramental.
Sacramentals are sacred signs. The scapular is not a natural sign in the sense that smoke is the sign of fire. Smoke is intrinsically connected with fire. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, the saying goes.
The scapular is what is called a conventional sign. In the case of a conventional sign, the meaning is assigned to the object from outside. Thus a wedding ring is a sign or pledge of mutual love and enduring fidelity between two spouses. In this kind of sign, which is a conventional sign, there has to be an intervention from outside that establishes the connection between the object and what it represents. 5.

In the case of sacramentals, it is the Church that determines the connection.
Sacramentals also signify effects obtained through the intercession of the Church, especially spiritual graces. The sacramentals — as holy pictures or icons, statues, medals, holy water, blessed palm and the scapular — are means that dispose one to receive the chief effect of the sacraments themselves, and this is closer union with Jesus.
St. Teresa of Avila for example speaks in her life about holy water and the power she experienced that this sacramental has against the devil. She mentions as well how this power comes not through the object in itself but through the prayer through the prayer of the Church.
Along with the sacraments, sacramentals sanctify almost every aspect of human life with divine grace. The passion, death, and resurrection of Christ is the source of the power of the sacramentals as it is
of the sacraments themselves.
Such everyday things as water and words, oil and anointing, cloth and beeswax, paintings and songs are ingredients of the sacraments and sacramentals. The Son of God became the Son of Mary. What could be more down-to-earth, more human, indeed more unpretentious, plain, and simple?

Church position
With regard to the scapular as a conventional and sacred sign, the Church has intervened at various times in history to clarify its meaning, defend it, and confirm the privileges.

From these Church documents there emerges with sufficient clarity the nature and meaning of the Carmelite scapular.
1. The scapular is a Marian habit or garment. It is both a sign and pledge. A sign of belonging to Mary; a pledge of her motherly protection, not only in this life but after death.
2. As a sign, it is a conventional sign signifying three elements strictly joined: first, belonging to a religious family particularly devoted to Mary, especially dear to Mary, the Carmelite Order; second, consecration to Mary, devotion to and trust in her Immaculate Heart; third an incitement to become like Mary by imitating her virtues, above all her humility, chastity, and spirit of prayer.
This is the Church’s officially established connection between the sign and that which is signified by the sign.
No mention is made of the vision of St. Simon Stock or of that of Pope John XXII in relation to the Sabbatine privilege, which promises that one will be released from Purgatory on the first Saturday after death.
Nonetheless, the Carmelites have also been authorized to freely preach to the faithful that they can piously believe in the powerful intercession, merits, and suffrages of the Blessed Virgin, that she will help them even after their death, especially on Saturday, which is the day of the week particularly dedicated to Mary, if they have died in the grace of God and devoutly worn the scapular. But no mention is made of the “first” Saturday after their death.
Even the Sabbatine privilege, then, is not so unconnected with the rest of our Catholic faith and practice. The Second Vatican Council has also insisted on Mary’s solicitude toward those who seek her protection. “From the earliest times the Blessed Virgin is honored under the title of Mother of God, under whose protection the faithful take refuge together in prayer in all their perils and needs (“Lumen Gentium,” No. 66).
If some day an historian were to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no grounds to the Marian apparition to St. Simon Stock or the scapular promise, the scapular devotion would still maintain its value. The Church’s esteem of it as a sacramental, her appreciation of its meaning and of the good that has come about through its pious use on the part of the faithful is all that is needed.

THE SIGN OF THE CROSS IS YET ANOTHER SACRAMENTAL

SIGN OF GRACE, SIGN OF GLORY – Six reasons why we make the Sign of the Cross

http://figgie4ever.livejournal.com/

By Bert Ghezzi, author of books including “The Sign of the Cross: Recovering the Power of the Ancient Prayer”

Catholics often make the Sign of the Cross casually, just as a nice gesture for beginning and ending their prayers. But when we learn to take this act seriously, signing ourselves frequently with faith and reverence, remarkable results can take place. We find ourselves doing measurably better in our Christian life: praying with more passion, resisting our bad inclinations more effectively, and relating to others more kindly.
The Sign of the Cross, after all, is not merely a pious gesture. It is a powerful prayer, a sacramental of the Church.
Scripture, the Church Fathers and saints, and Catholic teaching offer six perspectives on the Sign of the Cross that reveal why making it opens us to life-transforming graces. Once we grasp them, we can make the gesture with more faith and experience its great blessings.

Six Reasons to Make the Sign
1. A MINI-CREED. The Sign of the Cross is a profession of faith in God as He has revealed himself. It serves as an abbreviated form of the Apostles’ Creed.
Touching our forehead, breast and shoulders (and in some cultures, our lips as well), we declare our belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are announcing our faith in what God has done — the creation of all things, the redemption of humanity from sin and death, and the establishment of the Church, which offers new life to all. 6. When we sign ourselves we are making ourselves aware of God’s presence and opening ourselves to His action in our lives. That much alone would be enough to transform us spiritually, wouldn’t it? But there is much, much more.
2. A RENEWAL OF BAPTISM. First-century Christians began making the Sign of the Cross as a reminder and renewal of what happened to them when they were baptized. It still works the same way for us. When we sign ourselves we are declaring that in baptism we died sacramentally with Christ on the cross and rose to a new life with Him (see Rom 6:3-4 and Gal 2:20). We are asking the Lord to renew in us those baptismal graces.
We are also acknowledging that baptism joined us to the Body of Christ and equipped us for our role of collaborating with the Lord in His work of rescuing all people from sin and death.
3. A MARK OF DISCIPLESHIP. At baptism the Lord claimed us as His own by marking us with the Sign of the Cross. Now, when we sign ourselves, we are affirming our loyalty to Him. By tracing the cross on our bodies, we are denying that we belong to ourselves and declaring that we belong to Him alone (see Lk 9:23).
The Church Fathers used the same word for the Sign of the Cross that the ancient world employed to indicate ownership. The same word named a shepherd’s brand on his sheep, a general’s tattoo on his soldiers, a householder’s mark on his servants, and the Lord’s mark on His disciples.
Signing ourselves recognizes that we are Christ’s sheep and can count on His care; His soldiers, commissioned to work with Him in advancing His kingdom on earth; and His servants, dedicated to doing whatever He tells us.
4. AN ACCEPTANCE OF SUFFERING. Jesus promised us that suffering would be a normal part of a disciple’s life (see Lk 9:23-24). So when we mark our bodies with the sign, we are embracing whatever pain comes as a consequence of our faith in Christ. Making the sign is our taking up the cross and following Him (Lk 9:23).
At the same time, however, it comforts us with the realization that Jesus, who endured the Crucifixion for us, now joins us in our suffering and supports us. Signing ourselves also announces another significant truth: with St. Paul, we are celebrating that our afflictions as members of the body of Christ contribute to the Lord’s saving work of perfecting the Church in holiness (see Col 1:24).
5. A TWO-EDGED MOVE AGAINST THE DEVIL. When the devil watched Jesus die on the cross, he mistakenly believed he had won a great victory. Instead, the Lord surprised him with an ignominious defeat (see 1 Cor 2:8). From the first Easter morning through the present, the Sign of the Cross makes the devil cower and flee.
On one level, then, making the sign is a defensive move, declaring our inviolability to the devil’s influence. But, more importantly, the sign is also an offensive weapon, helping us reclaim with Christ all that Satan lost at the cross. It announces our cooperation with Jesus in the indomitable advance of the kingdom of God against the kingdom of darkness.
6. A VICTORY OVER THE FLESH. In the New Testament, the word flesh sums up all the evil inclinations of our old nature that persist in us even after we die with Christ in baptism (see Gal 5:16-22). Making the Sign of the Cross expresses our decision to crucify these desires of the flesh and to live by the Spirit.
Like tossing off a dirty shirt or blouse, making the sign indicates our stripping ourselves of our evil inclinations and clothing ourselves with the behaviors of Christ (see Col 3:5-15).
The Church Fathers taught that the Sign of the Cross diffused the force of powerful temptations such as anger and lust. So, no matter how strongly we are tempted, we can use the Sign of the Cross to activate our freedom in Christ and conquer even our besetting sins.
Apply These Truths Now. Right now, you can imprint in your heart these six truths about the Sign of the Cross by making it six times, each time applying one of the perspectives.
First, sign yourself professing your faith in God.
Second, mark yourself remembering that you died with Christ in baptism.
Third, make the sign to declare that you belong to Christ as His disciple and will obey Him.
Fourth, sign yourself to embrace whatever suffering comes and to celebrate your suffering with Christ for the Church.
Fifth, make the Sign of the Cross as a defense against the devil and as an offensive advance of God’s kingdom against him.
Finally, make the sign to crucify your flesh and to put on Christ and His behaviors.
Go through these six signings often in your morning prayer — and watch the grace flow through this ancient sacramental in the days to come.

THE CHURCH AS A SACRAMENTAL

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
EXTRACT

A Church is an assembly of the faithful, hierarchically ordered, both in the entire world – the Catholic Church, or in a certain territory – a particular Church. To be a sacrament (a sign) of the Mystical Body of Christ in the world, a Church must have both a head and members (Col. 1:18). The sacramental sign of Christ the Head is the sacred hierarchy – the bishops, priests and deacons (Eph. 2:19-22). More specifically, it is the local bishop, with his priests and deacons gathered around and assisting him in his office of teaching, sanctifying and governing (Mt. 28:19-20; Titus 1:4-9). The sacramental sign of the Mystical Body is the Christian faithful. 7.

Thus the Church of Christ is fully present sacramentally (by way of a sign) wherever there is a sign of Christ the Head, a bishop and those who assist him, and a sign of Christ’s Body, Christian faithful. Each diocese is therefore a particular Church.
The Church of Christ is also present sacramentally in ritual Churches that represent an ecclesiastical tradition of celebrating the sacraments. They are generally organized under a Patriarch, who together with the bishops and other clergy of that ritual Church represent Christ the Head to the people of that tradition. In some cases a Rite is completely coincident with a Church. For example, the Maronite Church with its Patriarch has a Rite not found in any other Church. In other cases, such as the Byzantine Rite, several Churches use the same or a very similar liturgical Rite. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite, but this Rite is also found in other Catholic Churches, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches not in union with Rome.
Finally, the Church of Christ is sacramentally present in the Universal or Catholic Church spread over the world. It is identified by the sign of Christ our Rock, the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18). To be Catholic particular Churches and rites must be in communion with this Head, just as the other apostles, and the Churches they founded, were in communion with Peter (Gal. 1:18). Through this communion with Peter and his successors the Church becomes a universal sacrament of salvation in all times and places, even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).

THE BIBLE AS A SACRAMENTAL

THESE ARE THE SACRAMENTS

http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT

By Bishop Fulton J. Sheen EXTRACT

The Bible Is a Sacramental
Coming closer to the meaning of sacrament, the Bible is a sacramental in the sense that it has a foreground and a back-ground. In the foreground are the actors, the cult, the temple, the wars, the sufferings, and the glories of men. In the background, however, is the all-pervading presence of God as the Chief Actor, Who subjects nations to judgment according to their obedience or disobedience to the moral law, and Who uses incidents or historical facts as types, or symbols, of something else that will happen.

For example, take the brazen serpent in the desert. When the Jewish people were bitten by poisonous serpents, God commanded Moses to make a brazen serpent, and to hang it over the crotch of a tree; all who would look upon that serpent of brass would be healed of the serpent’s sting. This apparently was a rather ridiculous remedy for poison and not everyone looked on it. If one could divine or guess their reason, it would probably be because they concentrated on only one side of the symbol; namely, the lifeless, shiny, brass thing hanging on a tree. But it proved to be a symbol of faith: God used that material thing as a symbol of trust or faith in Him.
The symbolism goes still further. The Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ, Who reveals the full mystery of the brazen serpent. Our Lord told Nicodemus that the brass serpent was lifted up in the desert, so that He would have to be lifted up on a Cross. The meaning now became clear: the brass serpent in the desert looked like the serpent that bit the people; but though it seemed to be the same, it was actually without any poison. Our Blessed Lord now says that He is like that brazen serpent. He, too, would be lifted up on the crotch of a tree, a Cross. He would look as if He Himself was filled with the poison of sin, for His Body would bear the marks, and the stings, and the piercing of sin; and yet as the brass serpent was without poison so He would be without sin. As those who looked upon that brass serpent in the desert in faith were healed of the bite of the serpent, so all who would look upon Him on His Cross bearing the sins and poisons of the world would also be healed of the poison of the serpent, Satan.
The word “sacrament” in Greek means “mystery,” and Christ has been called by St. Paul “the mystery hidden from the ages.” In Him is something divine, something human; something eternal, something temporal; something invisible, something visible. The mystery of Bethlehem was the Son of God taking upon Himself a human nature to unite human nature and divine nature in one Person. He Who, in the language of Scripture, could stop the turning about of the Arcturus, had the prophecy of His birthplace determined, however unconsciously, by a Caesar ordering an imperial census. He Who clothed the fields with grass, Himself was clothed with swaddling bands. He from Whose hands came planets and worlds had tiny arms that were not quite long enough to touch the huge heads of the cattle. He Who trod the everlasting hills was too weak to walk. The Eternal Word was dumb. The Bird that built the nest of the world was hatched therein.
The human nature of Our Blessed Lord had no power to sanctify of and by itself; that is to say, apart from its union with divinity. But because of that union, the humanity of Christ became the efficient cause of our justification and sanctification and will be until the end of the world. Herein is hidden a hint of the sacraments. The humanity of Christ was the bearer of divine life and the means of making men holy; the sacraments were also to become the effective signs of the sanctification purchased by His death. As Our Blessed Lord was the sensible sign of God, so the sacraments were to become the sensible signs of the grace which Our Lord had won for us.
If men were angels or pure spirits, there would have been no need of Christ using human natures or material things for the communication of the divine; but because man is composed of matter and spirit, body and soul, man functions best when he sees the material as the revealer of the spiritual. 8.

From the very beginning of man’s life, his mother’s fondling is not merely to leave an impress upon his infant body, but rather to communicate the sublimely beautiful and invisible love of the mother. It is not the material thing which a man values, but rather what is signified by the material thing. As Thomas a Kempis said, “regard not so much the gift of the lover as the love of the giver.” We tear price tags from gifts so that there will be no material relationship existing between the love that gave the thing and the thing itself. If man had no soul or spiritual destiny, then communism would satisfy. If man were only a biological organism, then he would be content to eat and to sleep and to die like a cow.

What is a Sacramental?

http://www.slideshare.net/pcuadra/what-is-a-sacramental

What is a sacramental?

A. A sacramental is a sign instituted (created) by the Church’s intercession (prayer on behalf of others).

B. T o help us in our spiritual life.

What is the purpose of Sacramentals?

A. Sacramentals are sacred signs that bring us closer to God’s grace.

B. They help us develop an attitude of prayer, faith, holiness, and devotion.

What can sacramentals do?

Through the intercession of the Church and their correct use (devotion), Sacramentals can:

A. Drive away evil spirits,

B. Remit venial sin

C. Prepare us for grace (God’s very life).

What could be a sacramental?

A. Sacramentals can be material things like rosaries, crosses, holy water.

B. Sacramentals can be actions such as: genuflection, sign of the cross, prayers, blessings.

Sacramentals

Anything blessed by a priest can become a sacramental.

Catholics are encouraged to bless, to set aside objects for the glory of God.

We bless meals, Bibles, cars, houses, etc. We are encouraged to receive blessings and to bless others.

Types of sacramentals

Exorcism

Holy Water

Rosaries

Candles

Icons

Holy images

Holy vessels

Incense

Relics

Blessed Palms

Bibles

Scapulars

Medals

Crosses

Bells

Some sacramentals remind us of the sacraments. Holy water reminds us of baptism.

Ashes remind us of reconciliation, penance

What is a sacramental?

http://catholicism.about.com/od/baltimorecatechism/f/Question_292_BC.htm

From The Baltimore Catechism

Question: What is a sacramental?

Answer: A sacramental is anything set apart or blessed by the Church to excite good thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin.

This is Question 292 of the Baltimore Catechism, a work in the public domain.

Sacramentals

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm

In instituting the sacraments Christ did not determine the matter and form down to the slightest detail, leaving this task to the Church, which should determine what rites were suitable in the administration of the sacraments. These rites are indicated by the word Sacramentalia, the object of which is to manifest the respect due to the sacrament and to secure the sanctification of the faithful. They belong to widely different categories, e.g.: substance, in the mingling of water with Eucharistic wine; quantity, in the triple baptismal effusion; quality, in the condition of unleavened bread; relation, in the capacity of the minister; time and place, in feast-days and churches; habit, in the liturgical vestments; posture, in genuflection, prostrations; action, in chanting etc. So many external conditions connect the sacramentals with the virtue of religion, their object being indicated by the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15), that it is asserted that apart from their ancient origin and traditional maintenance ceremonies, blessings, lights, incense, etc. enhance the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice and arouse the piety of the faithful. Moreover the sacramentals help to distinguish the members of the Church from heretics, who have done away with the sacramentals or use them arbitrarily with little intelligence.

Sacramental rites are dependent on the Church which established them, and which therefore has the right to maintain, develop, modify, or abrogate them. The ceremonial regulation of the sacraments in Apostolic times is sufficiently proved by the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians with regard to the Eucharist:

“Cetera autem, cum venero, disponam” [the rest I will set in order when I come (1 Corinthians 11:34)], which St. Augustine, on what ground we know not, supposes to refer to the obligation of the Eucharistic fast (Ep. liv, “Ad Januarium”, c. 6, n. 8, in P.L., XXXIII, 203). The Fathers of the Church enumerate ceremonies and rites, some of which were instituted by the Apostles, others by the early Christians (cf. Justin Martyr, “Apol. I”, n. 61, 65 in P.G., VI, 419, 427; Tertullian, “De baptismo”, vii in P.L., I, 1206; St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit 67). The Catholic
Church, which is the heiress of the Apostles, has always used and maintained against heretics this power over sacramentals. To her and to her alone belongs the right to determine the matter, form, and minister of the sacramentals. The Church, that is, the supreme authority represented by its visible head, alone legislates in this matter, because the bishops no longer have in practice the power to modify of abolish by a particular legislation what is imposed on the universal Church. What concerns the administration of the sacraments is contained in detail in the Roman Ritual and the Episcopal Ceremoniale.

Apart from the ceremonies relating to the administration of the sacraments the Church has instituted others for the purpose of private devotion. To distinguish between them, the latter are named sacramentals because of the resemblance between their rites and those of the sacraments properly so-called. In ancient times the term sacrament alone was used, but numerous confusions resulted and the similarity of rites and terms led many Christians to regard both as sacraments. After Peter Lombard the use and definition of the word “sacramental” had a fixed character and was exclusively applicable to those rites presenting an external resemblance to the sacraments but not applicable to the sensible signs of Divine institution. St. Thomas Aquinas makes use of the terms sacra and sacramentalia (Summa I-II, Q. cviii, a. 2 ad 2um; III, Q. lxv, a. 1 ad 8um), which the theologians of a later period adopted, so that at present sacramentalia is exclusively reserved for those rites which are practiced apart from the administration of the seven sacraments, for which the word ceremonies is used.

The number of the sacramentals may not be limited; nevertheless, the attempt has been made to determine their general principles or rather applications in the verse: “Orans, tinctus, edens, confessus, dans, benedicens”.

Orans indicates public prayer, whether liturgical or private;
tinctus, the use of holy water and the unctions in use at various consecrations;
edens, the eating of blessed foods;
confessus, the general avowal of faults which is made in the Confiteor recited at Mass, at Communion, in the Divine Office;
dans, alms;
benedicens, papal and episcopal blessings etc., blessings of candles, ashes, palms etc.

Another distinction classifies sacramentals according to whether they are acts, e.g. the Confiteor mentioned above, or things, such as medals, holy water etc. The sacramentals do not produce sanctifying grace
ex opere operato, by virtue of the rite or substance employed, and this constitutes their essential difference from the sacraments. The Church is unable to increase or reduce the number of sacraments as they were instituted by Christ, but the sacramentals do not possess this dignity and privilege. Theologians do not agree as to whether the sacramentals may confer any other grace ex opere operantis through the action of the one who uses them, but the negative opinion is more generally followed, for as the Church cannot confer sanctifying grace nor institute signs thereof, neither can she institute efficacious signs of the other graces which God alone can give. Moreover, as experience teaches, the sacramentals do not infallibly produce their effect. Finally in the euchologic formulas of the sacramentals the Church makes use, not of affirmative, but of deprecatory expressions, which shows that she looks directly to Divine mercy for the effect.

Besides the efficacy which the sacramentals possess in common with other good
works they have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the opus operantis, all external good
works could be called sacramentals. The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Christians in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby we implore God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to it is for reasons known to His Wisdom. God is aware of the measure in which He should bestow His gifts. All the sacramentals have not the same effect; this depends on the prayer of the Church which does not make use of the same urgency nor have recourse to the same Divine sources of merit. Some sacramentals derive no special efficacy from the prayer of the Church; such are those which are employed in worship, without a blessing, or even with a blessing which does not specify any particular fruit. This is the case with the blessing of vessels meant to contain the holy oils: “Give ear to our prayers, most merciful Father, and deign to bless and sanctify these purified vessels prepared for the use of the sacred ministry of Thy Church”. On the other hand, some sacramentals, among them one of those most frequently used, holy water, are the object of a benediction which details their particular effects.

One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and a general pardon of faults committed. This means remission of venial sins, for the sacraments alone, with perfect contrition, possess the efficacy to remit mortal sins and to release from the penalties attached to them. St. Thomas is explicit on this point: “The episcopal blessing, the aspersion of holy water, every sacramental unction, prayer in a dedicated church, and the like, effect the remission of venial sins, implicitly or explicitly” (Summa III, Q. lxxxvii, a. 3, ad 1um). Finally the sacramentals may be employed to obtain temporal favours, since the Church herself blesses objects made use of in every-day life, e.g. the blessing of a house on which is called down the abundance of heavenly dew and the rich fruitfulness of the earth; so likewise in the benediction of the fields, in which God is asked to pour down His blessings on the harvests, so that the wants of the needy may be supplied by the fertile earth.

Ecclesiastical approbation.
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

From the Konkani Catholics blog, January 4-6, 2008

http://davidmacd.com/catholic/how_did_this_site_get_built.htm

David MacDonald is a convert into Catholicism and he’s a singer; his website www.catholicbridge.com.
The site does provide a wealth of information for Evangelicals on their various doubts and questions on the Catholic faith. The answers are simple and easy to understand and have the additional force of his testimony and music background.
Here is the section on “Sacramentals” (and I hope our readers know what “Sacramentals” – not Sacraments – are). This is how he explains it:
QUOTE: Many Evangelicals have a problem with the Catholic idea that a material item can conduct spiritual power. Despite this criticism, many Evangelicals freely use the idea of Sacraments and Sacramentals in their ministry (though they don’t call it such). For example:
-blessing people (especially the laying on of hands)
-praying over a house that it might be free of any negative spiritual powers
-anointing people with holy oil during a healing service
-saying Grace (i.e., “Bless this food to our use and us to thy Service, for Christ Sake Amen”)
-There is a great Kirk Franklin (Evangelical) song off the Revolution album that says:
“There’s healing in the water, down by the riverside”
The Evangelist Billy Graham in his last trip to Ottawa, said “after we leave this hockey arena, even the steel beams will have absorbed our prayers and will affect everyone who comes into this building for secular events.” These are all examples of Evangelicals practicing what a Catholic would call a Sacramental. UNQUOTE
If I did know the Church’s teachings on Sacramentals well enough, I would possibly risk deriving at least one – if not all – of the following conclusions (and more) after reading the above:
1. Some objects possess miraculous power.
2. Anyone can perform an exorcism.
3. Billy Graham must be very “powerful”. 11.
I know this sounds funny but this is where we need to know what the Church teaches us about Sacramentals.
The all-important point which is missing in the whole explanation is that A SACRAMENTAL IS INSTITUTED BY THE CHURCH (unlike a Sacrament which is instituted by Christ). Evangelicals need to know that Catholics don’t believe in any or every object, gesture, words/prayer, action, time or place in being sacramentals, but only those deriving from the Church’s authority.
Secondly, unlike Sacraments, the efficacy of Sacramentals depends not on the rite itself, but on the influence of prayerful petition; that of the person who uses them and of the Church in approving their practice. In other words, Sacramentals merely signify effects which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. Therefore they ALWAYS include a prayer and often a sign like laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water.
Therefore they are not and should not be treated as something magical, material objects which possess preternatural powers that can be invoked without reference to the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ which is the true source of the power
of Sacramentals.
These important distinctions can obscure the proper meaning of Sacramentals. But with this understanding we can now correct the 3 misleading conclusions listed above.
1. Sacramentals do not by themselves confer the grace of the Holy Spirit but prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.
2. An exorcism is a Sacramental and therefore is subject to Church authority and legislation. According to the Church law in force, a solemn exorcism can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop.
3. A sacramental is instituted and recognized as such by the Church, not by an individual. Further they draw their power from the Paschal mystery and the effect and obtain effects through the intercession of the Church.
Austine, moderator

WHAT IS A BLESSING?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WHATBLES.HTM

By Father William P. Saunders

Q: Could you please explain what a “blessing” is?—A reader in Ashburn

A: Blessings come under the category of sacramentals. A sacramental is a special prayer, action or object which, through the prayers of the Church, prepares a person to receive grace and to better cooperate with it. One example is when we make the Sign of the Cross using holy water when entering a church. That pious action and the holy water itself, which together remind us of our baptism, awaken us to the presence of God and dispose us to receiving God’s grace. Unlike a sacrament, a sacramental does not itself confer the grace of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, like a sacrament, a sacramental helps the faithful to sanctify each moment of life and to live in the paschal mystery of our Lord.

Among the sacramentals, blessings would be foremost. In the decree publishing the “Book of Blessings”, Cardinal Mayer, then prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, wrote, “The celebration of blessings holds a privileged place among all the sacramentals created by the Church for the pastoral benefit of the people of God. As a liturgical action the celebration leads the faithful to praise God and prepares them for the principle effect of the sacraments.

By celebrating a blessing, the faithful can also sanctify various situations and events in their lives.”

Blessings are signs to the faithful of the spiritual benefits achieved through the Church’s intercession.

Throughout sacred Scripture, we find how God issued various blessings. In the account of creation, God blessed all the living creatures and especially Adam and Eve, telling them to be fertile, to multiply and to full the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:22, 28). After the flood, God blessed Noah and his sons (Genesis 9:1ff).

The Patriarchs administered blessings, particularly to the eldest son, signifying a bestowing of God’s benevolence, peace and protection. In a similar vein, the Lord spoke to Moses and commanded the following blessing for all the Israelites: “The Lord bless you and keep you! The Lord let His face shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord Look upon you kindly and give you peace!” (Numbers 6:22-27).

The people also blessed God, praising His goodness shown through creation as illustrated in the beautiful hymn of praise in the Book of Daniel (3:52-90). The Preface for Eucharistic Prayer IV captures well this understanding of a blessing: “Father in Heaven…source of life and goodness, you have created all things, to fill your creatures with every blessing and lead all men to the joyful vision of your light.”

For us Christians, blessings have taken on an even greater meaning through Christ who perfectly revealed to us the goodness and love of God. St. Paul wrote, “Praised be the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has bestowed on us in Christ every spiritual blessing.”

Jesus blessed those He encountered: the little children (Mk 10:13-16) and the Apostles at the ascension (Lk 24:50-53). He blessed objects: the loaves used to feed the 5,000 (Mk 6:34ff) and the bread of the Last Supper (Mt 26:26-30).

Since Christ entrusted His saving ministry to the Church, it has instituted various blessings for people as well as objects to prompt the faithful to implore God’s protection, divine assistance, mercy, faithfulness and favor. 12.

Who can do a blessing? The Catechism states, “Every baptized person is called to be a ‘blessing’ and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more its administration is reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priest, deacons)” (No. 1669).

Priests are the ordinary ministers of blessings, asking God’s help for those people being blessed or dedicating something to a sacred service; the priest’s blessing is imparted with the weight of the Church and therefore has great value in the eyes of God.

The blessing of a layperson upon another, such as a parent blessing a child, is an act of good will whereby the person implores God’s aid for the person; the value of this blessing in the eyes of God depends upon the person’s individual sincerity and sanctity.

Blessings are categorized into two types: invocative and constitutive. In an invocative blessing, the minister implores the divine favor of God to grant some spiritual or temporal good without any change of condition, such as when a parent blessed a child. This blessing is also a recognition of God’s goodness in bestowing this “blessing” upon us, such as when we offer a blessing for our food at meal time. In blessing objects or places, a view is also taken toward those who will use the objects or visit the places.

A constitutive blessing, invoked by a bishop, priest or deacon, signifies the permanent sanctification and dedication of a person or thing for some sacred purpose. Here the person or object takes on a sacred character and would not be returned to non-sacred or profane use. For example, when religious Sisters or Brothers profess final vows, they are blessed, indicating a permanent change in their lives. Or, when a chalice is blessed, it becomes a sacred vessel dedicated solely to sacred usage.

In all, in bestowing His own blessing, God declares His goodness. We in turn bless God by praising Him, thanking Him for all of His benefits and offering to Him our service, adoration and worship. When we invoke God’s blessing, we implore His divine benevolence, trusting that He will respond to our needs.

Fr. Saunders is president of Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.

This article appeared in the March 2, 1995 issue of “The Arlington Catholic Herald.” Courtesy of the “Arlington Catholic Herald” diocesan newspaper of the Arlington (VA) diocese. For subscription information, call 1-800-377-0511 or write 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 607 Arlington, VA 22203.

Blessings without a Stole

http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur173.htm From (Zenit.org) ZE07051529

ROME, May 15, 2007 By Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q:
I was told that a priest’s blessing over a person or object, given without wearing his stole, is one given by himself as a man, whereas a blessing given while wearing his stole has more power in that it comes with the power and protection of the charisms given him as a Vicar of Christ. Is this true? Should we ask them to wear their stole when they give a blessing? When children approach our pastor for a blessing with their arms crossed over their chest during Communion, he taps them on the head with the back of his hand and says: “God bless you.” Is the back of the hand appropriate? Is this a blessing? Isn’t he retaining the blessing rather? — E.S., Ontario
A: Certain liturgical blessings, such as the blessing of holy water, naturally demand the use of a stole due to fidelity to the rite. In such cases both the proper vesture and the correct liturgical formulas should be used without cutting corners out of expediency. The use of the stole for other blessings is an eloquent symbol of the priestly condition and ministry and is thus to be commended whenever practical. The use of the stole, however, is not required for the validity of these sacramentals. Nor can it be said that a priest’s blessing is “more powerful” when he wears the liturgical garb, since his ability to impart these blessings derives from his ordination and not from any external vesture.
The Holy Father frequently imparts the apostolic blessing without a stole during the weekly recitation of the Angelus. Priests are also frequently called upon to bless people or objects of devotion on the spur of the moment with no possibility of donning a stole. In all such cases the effects of the blessing is the same regardless of vesture.
With respect to the second question, I believe that the priest’s gesture probably stems from respect toward the Eucharist and toward the communicants. Since he touches the hosts with his fingers he probably wishes to avoid using them to touch the children. This is probably the priest’s personal decision and does not correspond to any particular liturgical norms. It is highly doubtful that he desires to retain the blessing, and his words are enough to convey his intention.
Even where this blessing of non-communicants has been specifically approved (and some dioceses specifically discourage or forbid it), the question of the proper gestures is as yet unclear. For motives of respect toward the Eucharist I would suggest that it is preferable to impart this blessing without touching the person being blessed. Follow-up:
Blessings Without a Stole, May 29, 2007, from (Zenit.org) ZE07052920
In line with our column on blessings without a stole (May 15), several readers have asked a similar question: “Is it proper for lay extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to give a ‘blessing’ to young children or people who cannot (or choose not to) receive the Eucharist?” 13.

There are many ways of distinguishing kinds of blessings and sacramentals. One such distinction is between constituent and invocative sacramental.
The effect of a constituent sacramental is to transform the person or object being blessed in such a way that it is separated from profane use. Examples would include the blessing of an abbot and the blessing of holy water. Practically all of these blessings are reserved to an ordained minister and sometimes are the exclusive preserve of the bishop. Invocative blessings call down God’s blessing and protection upon a person or thing without sacralizing them in any way. Some of these blessings are reserved to the ordained, such as the blessing of the assembly at the end of a liturgical celebration.
Some blessings may also be imparted by lay people by delegation or by reason of some special liturgical ministry, above all when an ordained minister is absent or impeded (see general introduction to the Shorter Book of Blessings, No. 18). In these cases lay people use the appropriate formulas designated for lay ministers. This latter situation is probably the case of the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who ask that God’s blessing may come upon those who for some good reason approach the altar but do not receive Communion. Finally, some simple blessings may be given by lay people in virtue of their office, for example, parents on behalf of their children.

Instruction INCULTURATION AND THE ROMAN LITURGY Varietates Legitimae

Fourth Instruction for the Right Application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy (Nos. 37-40) Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 29, 1994.

Source:
http://www.adoremus.org/VarietatesLegitimae.html

59. The blessing of persons, places or things touches the everyday life of the faithful and answers their immediate needs. They offer many possibilities for adaptation, for maintaining local customs and admitting popular usages. [131] Episcopal conferences will be able to employ the foreseen dispositions and be attentive to the needs of the country.

NOTES

131. Cf. ibid., 79; De Benedictionibus, Praenotanda Generalia, 39; Ordo Professionis Religiosae, Praenotanda, 12-15.

Vatican demands end to anointings with “oil of gladness”

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=736

October 13, 2008 – In a sharply worded message to the head of the South African bishops’ conference, the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for an end to the widespread practice of anointing people with the “oil of gladness” in unauthorized Catholic rituals. Archbishop Albert Ranjith, the secretary of the Vatican Congregation, pointed out in a letter to Cardinal Wilfrid Napier that “there are only three blessed oils used in the Roman Ritual, namely, the Oil of Catechumens, the Oil of the Sick, and the Sacred Chrism. The use of any other oil or any other ‘anointing’ than those found in the approved liturgical books must be considered proscribed and subject to ecclesiastical penalties.” He asked the South African prelate to report back to Rome on actions taken to end the abuse.

Oils of gladness ain’t oils: Vatican says

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9463

October 15, 2008 The Congregation for Divine Worship has written to the South African Bishops Conference calling for an end to the practice of anointing people with the “oil of gladness”.

Catholic Culture reports that in a sharply worded message to SACBC head, Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, Archbishop Albert Ranjith, the secretary of the Vatican Congregation, pointed out that “there are only three blessed oils used in the Roman Ritual, namely, the Oil of Catechumens, the Oil of the Sick, and the Sacred Chrism.”

“The use of any other oil or any other ‘anointing’ than those found in the approved liturgical books must be considered proscribed and subject to ecclesiastical penalties, “Archbishop Ranjith wrote.

He asked the South African prelate to report back to Rome on actions taken to end the abuse.

14.

Congregation for Divine Worship Letter

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Storage of the Holy Oils

http://www.zenit.org/article-14170?l=english

ROME, October 4, 2005 (Zenit.org) Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Q:
Can an altar be used to house and display the vessels containing the holy oils blessed during the Chrism Mass, i.e., in the same fashion as a reliquary is sometimes housed behind a metal grille within an altar (like those of St. Pius X and Blessed John XXIII in the Vatican basilica)? J.T., Clifton, England
A: Official norms regarding the storage of the holy oils are somewhat scant. The Rite of the Blessing of Oils and Consecrating the Chrism 27-28 indicates that in the sacristy after the Chrism Mass the bishop may instruct the presbyters about the reverent use and safe custody of the holy oils.
There is a growing practice in the Church of visibly displaying the holy oils. These are usually stored, locked, in a niche in the sanctuary wall called an ambry or aumbry. 15.
Apart from the presbytery the ambry is often located near the baptismal font and this is most appropriate in churches with a distinct baptistery. The ambry may also sometimes be placed within the sacristy.
The oils are usually kept in silver or pewter vessels, albeit these often have glass interiors for the sake of practicality. Each vessel should also have some inscription indicating the contents such as CHR (Chrism), CAT (Catechumens) or O.I. (“oleum infirmorum”).
The visible display of the holy oils, by means of a grille of a transparent door, does not seem to present a particular problem and in some cases serves to avoid exchanging an ambry for a tabernacle. If the door is opaque it should usually have an indication either near or upon it saying “Holy oils.”
The use of an altar as an ambry in the manner described in your question would detract from the centrality of the altar. I do not consider it appropriate.
There is also no precedent for such a practice in the tradition of the Church as she has usually only placed the relics of the saints beneath the altar.
It might be acceptable, however, to locate an ambry above an old side altar no longer used for celebrating the Eucharist. But placing it below would likely lead to having the oils confused with relics.
Stretching the issue, one could even adduce a certain historical precedent in the fact that, in some ancient churches, when the tabernacle was almost universally transferred to the high altar after the 16th century, the former wall tabernacle was used to store the holy oils.
Apart from the holy oils stored in the ambry, priests may also keep smaller stocks on hand of the oil for anointing the sick.

More on Holy Oils

http://www.zenit.org/article-14299?l=english

ROME, October 18, 2005 (Zenit.org) – Pursuant to our replies regarding the public display of the holy oils (October 4) several questions turned upon their proper use outside of the sacraments themselves.
Several readers asked if holy oils may be used in blessings in lieu of holy water or for other paraliturgical acts, for example, in retreats or commissioning ceremonies in which teachers or catechists are anointed.
The question is difficult to respond to from the viewpoint of official documents as, in all probability; it probably had never entered into anybody’s head that such things would occur.
Apart from the use of holy oils for the sacraments, the sacred chrism is also used by the bishop in solemnly dedicating a church and an altar. Apart from these, the official rituals of the Church do not foresee other uses for the holy oils.
One official document refers to the incorrect use of anointing by lay people. In the Instruction “On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest” (1997), Article 9 states: “The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil.”
This document certainly only refers to a very specific case but it encapsulates an important principle: that of not creating confusion regarding the sacramental signs.
Some sacramental signs have but one meaning and are never repeated even for devotional purposes. For example, baptism’s unrepeatable nature precludes the repetition of the rite although a person could devoutly renew his baptismal promises on his anniversary.
Other signs, such as the laying on of hands, have more than one meaning and may be used in several contexts. It can mean consecration and the gift of the Holy Spirit in the rites of ordination and confirmation, forgiveness in the sacrament of reconciliation, and healing in the sacrament of anointing as well as within the extra-sacramental context of some recent spiritual currents such as the charismatic renewal.
The case of anointing is closer to the first case (baptism) than the second. Although there might be no explicit prohibition, liturgical law usually presupposes a certain degree of common sense. And the use of holy oil, or any other oil, for extra-sacramental anointing can only lead to inappropriate confusion with the sacramental rites as such.
It also ignores the fact that the Church already has a rich source of rituals and prayers in the Book of Blessings which can easily be used or adapted for practically every situation in which these oils have been adopted.
This does not mean that oil may never be used in any other Catholic rituals. In some places, on the occasion of a particular feast in honor of Mary or a saint, it is customary to celebrate a rite of blessings of food or drink (including oil).
The Book of Blessings admonishes pastors to ensure that the faithful have a correct understanding of the true meaning of such blessings so as to avoid superstitions.

16.

Laypeople’s Use of Oil

http://www.zenit.org/article-26570?l=english

ROME, July 28, 2009 (Zenit.org) – Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara…
Q:
There are chaplains who minister at a local Catholic hospital and one of them likes to use “oil” when she prays with the patients (Catholics and non-Catholics). I feel that this causes confusion. One of the chaplains attended a recent convention of chaplains and was told by a presenter that this practice is allowed as long as they tell the patients that they are not receiving the sacrament of the sick. I seem to recall that years ago the Vatican came out with a document on the use of oil by laypersons. Could you please comment? — A.S., Bridgeport, New York
A: The document you refer to is probably the 1997 instruction “On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest.” This is an unusual document insofar as it was formally issued by the Congregation for Clergy but was co-signed by no fewer than eight Vatican congregations and councils, including that of the Doctrine of the Faith. This gives the document a certain weight with respect to its authority.
The document first presents the theological principles behind its decisions before giving a series of practical considerations on aspects of lay ministry in the Church. Then, having laid the groundwork, it enunciates in 13 articles practical provisions and norms that outline the possibilities and limits of the collaboration of the lay faithful in priestly ministry.
The first article, on the “Need for an Appropriate Terminology,” attempts to clarify the multiple uses of the expression “ministry.” This responds to an intuition of Pope John Paul II who, “In his address to participants at the Symposium on ‘Collaboration of the Lay Faithful with the Priestly Ministry’ …, emphasized the need to clarify and distinguish the various meanings which have accrued to the term ‘ministry’ in theological and canonical language.”
The document accepts that the term “ministry” is applicable to the laity in some cases:
“§3. The non-ordained faithful may be generically designated ‘extraordinary ministers’ when deputed by competent authority to discharge, solely by way of supply, those offices mentioned in Canon 230, §3 and in Canons 943 and 1112. Naturally, the concrete term may be applied to those to whom functions are canonically entrusted e.g. catechists, acolytes, lectors etc.
“Temporary deputation for liturgical purposes — mentioned in Canon 230, §2 — does not confer any special or permanent title on the non-ordained faithful.”
However: “It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as ‘pastor,’ ‘chaplain,’ ‘coordinator,’ ‘moderator’ or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.”
Another article, No. 9, is on “The Apostolate to the Sick.” Regarding our reader’s question on the use of oil in a non-sacramental way, the article is very clear:
“§1. […] The non-ordained faithful particularly assist the sick by being with them in difficult moments, encouraging them to receive the Sacraments of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, by helping them to have the disposition to make a good individual confession as well as to prepare them to receive the Anointing of the Sick. In using sacramentals, the non-ordained faithful should ensure that these are in no way regarded as sacraments whose administration is proper and exclusive to the Bishop and to the priest. Since they are not priests, in no instance may the non-ordained perform anointings either with the Oil of the Sick or any other oil.
“§2. With regard to the administration of this sacrament, ecclesiastical legislation reiterates the theologically certain doctrine and the age old usage of the Church which regards the priest as its only valid minister. This norm is completely coherent with the theological mystery signified and realized by means of priestly service.
“It must also be affirmed that the reservation of the ministry of Anointing to the priest is related to the connection of this sacrament to the forgiveness of sin and the worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. No other person may act as ordinary or extraordinary minister of the sacrament since such constitutes simulation of the sacrament.”
To many it might appear that this document is excessively restrictive in its dispositions. Yet by providing clear guidelines and demarcations of proper competences based on solid theological reasons, it actually facilitates fruitful collaboration between priests and laity in a true spirit of charity and service to Christ, the Church and to souls.

Charism gifts building up the Church

http://www.saint-mike.org/warfare/library/wp-content/docs/spiritualgifts.pdf
EXTRACT

(Excerpt from the Rule of St. Michael) 2004, Order of the Legion of St. Michael

237. Misdirected and False Teachings […]

Pentecostals do not believe in the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Thus when they read the passages in the book of Acts about laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit, they misinterpreted it to be some additional post-conversion act that must be performed. That is not true. The gift of the Spirit may not be separated in any way from conversion…44 There are no instances in the New Testament of the “laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit” outside of the Sacraments.