Yes! It's true!
You can eat meat today!
Why?
Because it is the Feast of St. Joseph, and that day is a solemnity.
One property of solemnities is that if they fall on Fridays then they override the requirement to abstain from meat.
That means you can have meat today!
Woo-hoo!!! Meat! Wonderful God-created meat!
It's what's for dinner.
And let us not forget the reason that we are able to have meat this day: St. Joseph.
Maybe you'd care to . . .
It’s official.
The Holy See has announced the creation of a new commission, under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and led by retired archbishop Camillo Ruini, to investigate the reported apparitions associated with Medjugorje.
Here’s a translation of the announcement, provided by Catholic News Agency:
Under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, an international commission of investigation on Medjugorje has been constituted. Said Commission, composed of cardinals, bishops and experts will work in a reserved manner, subjecting the results of their studies to the authority of the Dicastery.
And here’s the original in Italian.
Details are sketchy. Fr. Federico Lombardi—the Vatican press spokesman—had little to add, though he indicated,
As the commission carries out their activities, Fr. Lombardi continued, they will decide whether or not to communicate information regarding their findings. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that it will be a “very discreet” project “given the sensitivity of the subject,” he remarked.
Speaking in Italian, he said to expect that investigations will take “a good while” to reach their completion and emphasized that the results of the commission’s activities will be submitted to the CDF, under whose mandate they are operating. The commission will only offer their technical findings to the Congregation, which in turn will “make decisions on the case.”
For now, the composition of the commission is “reserved,” as is the method they will pursue in their investigations, Fr. Lombardi said in closing.
So we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
But at the moment, I have a few questions that I’d be interested in the readers’ reactions to:
1) How long do you think we will have to wait before an announcement is made?
2) Being as objective as possible, what do you think the announcement will say?
3) What will happen to you personally if the announcement is contrary to your present view of Medjugorje?
There are a lot of myths about the life of St. Patrick.
One of them is that he was Protestant.
Or at least that he wasn't Catholic but was instead, I guess, a kind of proto-Protestant.
This kind of thinking is found in some Evangelical circles, where some of those of Irish descent have a desire to claim St. Patrick as one of their own.
This kind of thinking is understandable, based in human emotions.
It's also nonsense, historically.
So if you encounter folks at work–or wherever–denying that St. Patrick was Catholic, you might want to check out a piece I did lo some 13 years ago.
Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna is the promoter of justice for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in handling cases where priests are accused of sexual abuse, which effectively makes him the prosecutor in such cases.
They’ve dealt with 3,000 such cases in the last nine years, mostly from the U.S. and covering a period of decades.
The Italian newspaper Avvenire just published an interview with him, and the Vatican Information Service picked it up and published an English translation.
It’s an interesting read, and an insightful look at how the CDF is and has been handling cases of sexual accusations.
Excerpt:
Question: Monsignor, you have the reputation of being “tough”, yet the Catholic Church is systematically accused of being accommodating towards “paedophile priests”.
Answer: It may be that in the past – perhaps also out of a misdirected desire to protect the good name of the institution – some bishops were, in practice, too indulgent towards this sad phenomenon. And I say in practice because, in principle, the condemnation of this kind of crime has always been firm and unequivocal. Suffice it to recall, to limit ourselves just to last century, the famous Instruction “Crimen sollicitationis” of 1922.
Q: Wasn’t that from 1962?
A: No, the first edition dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.
Q: Norms which, however, recommended secrecy…
A: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right – as everyone does – to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.
Q: Nonetheless, that document is periodically cited to accuse the current Pontiff of having been – when he was prefect of the former Holy Office – objectively responsible for a Holy See policy of covering up the facts…
A: That accusation is false and calumnious. On this subject I would like to highlight a number of facts. Between 1975 and 1985 I do not believe that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the “delicta graviora” were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 “Motu Proprio” did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, “sine acceptione personarum”. Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.
That’s the message that some in the media are rapidly trying to spin.
The Times carried the blaring headline,
Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry
From that we would expect the kind of story that has appeared in the media over and over in recent years: Back when the Pope was still a bishop, one of his priests was a paedophile but rather than bounce him from the ministry, the future pope instead covered up his crimes and allowed him to continue in ministry, perhaps by transferring him to one or more locations.
That’s the narrative we are expected to infer from the headline.
But when you read the story, the details don’t fit.
For a start, it wasn’t one of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s priests. He was the cardinal archbishop of Munich, but the priest was from the diocese of Essen.
And Cardinal Ratzinger did not, contrary to some reports, send the priest for therapy—or return him to ministry.
He allowed the priest to stay in a rectory so that he could receive treatment in Munich.
According to Phil Lawler,
There is no evidence that the Pope was aware the accused priest was an accused pedophile; he was evidently informed only that the priest had been guilty of sexual improprieties.
So what we have, apparently, is a situation in which the bishop of Essen (or someone) came to Cardinal Ratzinger and said, “There’s a priest from the diocese of Essen who has committed sexual improprieties and needs to receive counselling. Can you put him up in a rectory while he is given psychological therapy in Munich?”
And Ratzinger said yes.
How sinister is that?
This wasn’t his priest. Whether the priest would return to ministry after counselling wasn’t his decision. All he’s doing is allowing the man to have a room in a local rectory while he undergoes therapy.
And what if it turns out he did know that the sexual improprieties involved children?
At that time (1980) it was commonly thought that paedophiles could be cured through psychological counselling.
Even the British religion reporter Ruth Gledhill, writes:
What is often forgotten is how little was known of paedophilia. It was believed it could be cured, and that penitence was tantamount to recovery.
So, the narrative of a bishop secretively transferring his priests—who he knows are incurable, repeat offenders—from parish to parish does not apply.
However, at some point, Lawler notes,
the vicar general of the Munich archdiocese made the decision to let the accused priest help out at a parish. That vicar general, Msgr. Gerhard Gruber, says that he made that decision on his own, without consulting the cardinal. The future Pope never knew about it, he testifies. Several years later, long after Cardinal Ratzinger had moved to a new assignment at the Vatican, the priest was again accused of sexual abuse.
That time the priest was convicted and punished according to German law.
But we still don’t have a set of facts that supports the pope-as-paedophile-enabler narrative that the Times wants to suggest.
Even Ruth Gledhill (employed by the Times) acknowledges:
The latest scandal coming out of Germany is not enough to threaten the Pope or the Church. But on top of a succession of damaging revelations it can only increase the damage being done to its moral authority on the world stage. The killer fact that could bring down the Pope or Church probably does not even exist.
The Pope is pretty unassailable. He is not elected, he is a monarch, and the centralisation that has taken place under the last two Popes has cemented that power. Pope Benedict XVI has also indicated in his three encyclicals the depths of his own integrity and intellectual rigour.
Setting aside Gledhill’s failure to note basic facts of the subject she reports on (the pope is elected; remember that conclave thingie in 2005? how we got Pope Benedict? presumably she means that he doesn’t have to face re-election), I think she’s right.
Based on what we know today, there isn’t enough “there” there.
What do you think?
I sense a tremor in the Force.
Only have time for a quick post tonight, as I just got back from calling at my Friday night square dance club, Alpine Squares.
So here we go: Today I ran across a story that intrigued me–about the Alps (pictured) . . . and Pope Benedict.
Every year, you see, Pope Benedict takes a summer break and up to now he has spent the first two weeks of it in the Alps (something that John Paul II also did).
Then he goes to Castel Gandolfo for further rest and study.
But this year he has cancelled the alpine part of his break (notice the alpine theme here? Alpine Squares? Alpine part of his vacation? Get it?) and will be going directly to Castel Gandolfo.
So Catholic News Agency reports:
The announcement conveyed the Holy Father’s appreciation for various invitations that have been offered to him to escape to “alpine locations” this year and his gratitude to the bishops who have extended them.
For this year, the Vatican statement says, the Pope “prefers to begin right away the summer period of rest and study without the commitment of ‘ulterior’ transfers.”
So the Holy Father this year is isn’t wanting to entangle himself with “ulterior” [Latin, further, more remote] transfers, but does he have an ulterior [Latin, further, more remote] motive?
That’s where I sense the tremor in the Force.
You see, the pope often uses his summer break to play the piano, read, and–most importantly–write.
That’s when he’s been working on encyclicals, his book on Jesus (which is now done, the second part to be coming out soon), etc.
So maybe he’s cancelling the alpine part of his break to get straight to writing at Castel Gandolfo.
I wonder what he’ll be writing.
Maybe his obvious next encyclical on the virtue of faith (he having already produced ones on charity and hope)?
Hard to say.
Always in motion, the future is. (Nice Latin word order, there.)
Your thoughts?
Archbishop Chaput deserves another round of kudos for a stand he has taken regarding a school in his archdiocese.
Basically, he backed the school up when it refused to allow two children of lesbian “parents” to renew their enrollment.
This should cause no controversy whatsoever, but of course it has.
I’m not surprised at the controversy, because a few years ago I blogged about a similar case in Orange County, California. The amount of blowback was a bit startling, given my readership. That led to a follow-up post, and then another follow-up post as we sorted through the arguments.
A key issue that was raised at the time—and that, indeed, kicked off the discussion—was the question of where Catholic schools should draw the line regarding what is acceptable in parental behavior.
And—no surprise—that argument is being trotted out now.
You see, an awful lot of parents of kids in Catholic school aren’t morally perfect, and if children were to be excluded on the mere grounds that their parents are sinners then enrollment would be quite low indeed.
And this is true. If a Catholic school applied that kind of test in determining enrollment then it would thwart its principal mission, which is providing a Catholic education to students to help them be more holy and closer to God.
So, “Your child can’t enroll because you’re a sinner” is a nonstarter as a principle of enrollment.
But does it follow from this that a parents’ actions should have no bearing on the enrollment of their children? Couldn’t certain actions of the parents cause such a problem that it would fundamentally interfere with the school’s mission?
Suppose that the parents insisted that their child attend the school naked (and suppose that civil law allowed this, for purposes of the thought experiment).
This fundamental rejection of the school’s dress code would cause such severe problems that the school would be entirely warranted in saying, “I’m sorry, but your child cannot come to school if you’re going to insist on nakedness.”
That’s an extreme, but it’s not hard to see how having a child in class whose “parents” are of the same gender could interfere with the mission of the school:
1) It will impede the ability of teachers to be frank about the nature of marriage due to the problems that will ensue with a child in this situation in the classroom.
2) The child will also become a proselytizer for homosexual “marriage” and/or be tormented relentlessly by other children.
3) The other children will be scandalized (in both the proper and the colloquial senses) by knowledge of the child’s situation.
4) All of the above will be exacerbated to the extent that the “parents” have any presence at or try to play any role in the life of the school.
So . . . bad idea.
It’s not the fact that the “parents” are sinners that makes it rational for the school to deny their children entrance. It is the fact that the nature of their public relationship is such that either the school would have to refrain from teaching the fullness of Christian doctrine regarding the nature of matrimony or tremendous problems would arise with a child in this situation in the student body.
At least that’s how I see it.
How do you?
Regular readers know that one of my commitments for Lent is to blog something every day (except Sundays). Well, last week I wasn't able to do that because . . . I forgot.
I had company over, and by the time the evening ended it was getting late, and I realized the next morning that blogging had slipped my mind.
Since Lenten resolutions of this sort are free-will commitments and don't bind under pain of sin, I could just say, "Oh, well," and move on.
But I thought I'd make it up anyway by doing a double-post today.
Herewith are some videos that you might find amusing. I like the lighthearted way that Dave Carroll treats the issue. The lightheartedness is even more on display in Songs 2 and 3.
The whole affair also gave his career a nice boost–a way of taking lemons and making lemonade.
Basically, here's what happened: United Airlines baggage handlers recklessly damaged his $3,500 Taylor guitar and then the company refused to pay for repairs. After exhausting his options with United, he told them he would write three songs and put them on YouTube. Reportedly, he was told, "Good luck with that one, pal."
The first has eight million views, one million of which happened in the first week of release. He was quickly contacted by United with an offer of compensation in hopes of his pulling the video. Reportedly, he replied, "Good luck with that one, pal."
He did say that he wasn't interested in compensation any longer and suggested that they donate the money to the charity of their choosing. They did. It went to the Thelonious Monk Jazz School.
So what's the Catholic Answers connection to this?
It turns out that Catholic Answers is housed in the same business complex in El Cajon, California as Taylor Guitars. Some of the guys from work play basketball at lunch with the guys from Taylor, so we're neighbors, and neighborly.
That made the videos a topic of discussion at work when Song 3 was released recently.
I'm not sure what stereotypical Mariachi singers, stereotypical Germans, and stereotypical hillbillies have to do with anything, but . . . enjoy!
A WORD FROM TAYLOR GUITARS (video)
There are new reports that the Holy See is preparing a commission to investigate the reported Marian phenomena at Medjugorje.
We’ll see.
There have been such reports before. Three years ago, for example, it was reported that . . .
Cardinal Vinko Puljic of Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, announced a commission would be formed to review the alleged Marian apparitions at Medjugorje and pastoral provisions for the thousands of pilgrims who visit the town each year.
“The commission members have not been named yet,” Cardinal Puljic told Catholic News Service in a July 24 telephone interview. “I am awaiting suggestions from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” on theologians to appoint.
“But this commission will be under the (Bosnian) bishops’ conference” as is the usual practice with alleged apparitions, he said.
The cardinal said he did not expect the commission to be established until sometime in September because of the summer holidays.
Such an announcement would seem to have a high degree of reliability, but as far as I know, nothing came of it. (I could be wrong on this point and would love to find out the details if so.)
Assuming the plan was to do something back then, what might have held it up?
Well, last year there were reports that the CDF was preparing a new document for the evaluation of apparitions. But the sourcing was very thin. On the other hand, Medjugorje is such a massive phenomenon that before re-examining it the Holy See might want to re-look at the criteria for judging apparitions, which (so far as we know) were last dealt with in a 1978 document.
So if they got the document done then it might explain why, last October, Cardinal Puljic told Reuters that they were awaiting some kind of action from the Holy See on Medjugorge:
We are now awaiting a new directive on this issue,” said Puljic, the Sarajevo archbishop who survived the city’s long wartime siege in the 1990s. “I don’t think we must wait for a long time, I think it will be this year, but that is not clear… I am going to Rome in November and we must discuss this.”
Then, when he did go to Rome the next month, he apparently denied the existence of a new document or that the would be a commission created by the Holy See to investigate Medjugorje. Also
Nevertheless, he reiterated, “for the moment, everything is under the jurisdiction of the local bishops.”
“Still, at any given moment, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could establish an International Commission in order to study the case of Medjugorje,” the cardinal remarked.
So we fast forward two months to January 2010 and Cardinal Schonborn, after his controversial visit to Medjugorje (for which he apologized to the local bishop for not following protocol), is talking as if there is a commission:
KATH.NET: In the past few days, you visited Pope Benedict XVI. Did you tell him about your positive experiences of Medjugorje? Did he express any opinion about it?
Cardinal Schönborn: It’s not customary to talk about audiences. But I can naturally say this much: that Medjugorje was a topic in Rome during those days, due to the public awareness of my pilgrimage. I reported about my impressions in Rome. And I am very confident that the Commission, which the Holy Father is setting up to examine the events of Medjugorje, is very good and will work very conscious of its responsibility, and that the result will certainly be good. And I am confident that it will proceed with great prudence and great sensitivity to a phenomenon that has attracted about 30 million pilgrims and brings very many good fruits, but certainly also some open questions.
Jump ahead another two months, to now, and the Italian paper Panorama is reporting:
Benedict XVI wants a clear understanding about the apparitions of the Madonna of Medjugorje. That’s why he has decided to form a commission of inquiry, led by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, associated with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
And then it’s reported that Bishop Ratko Peric of the diocese of Mostar, where Medjugorje is located, has been called to Rome, possibly about Medjugorje.
Maybe more about this commission will be known in the coming days because Dr. Ratko Peri?, the bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and apostolic administrator of Trebinsko-Mrkan has been invited to Rome.
Well . . . we’ll have to see, won’t we?
We’ve seen this kind of reporting before, and thus far it hasn’t materialized . . . but maybe it will.
If so, should we expect—as Cardinal Schonborn seems to—that the results of such a commission would be positive toward the reported phenomena?
I wouldn’t be quick to assume that. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be quick to assume the opposite.
Rather than pre-judging the matter based on what one’s own personal opinion of the phenomena is, I think people on both sides of the issue should be prepared for a judgment—if one comes—that is contrary to their opinion.
Your thoughts?
. . . they always picture holograms as free-standing, 3-D projections? (Frequently blurry, with lines running through them, like on a badly adjusted, low-def TV set? I'm thinking of you, George Lucas.)
Actually, real-world holograms tend to be flat (e.g., printed on a flat surface, like your credit card), but you see the 3-D effect if you stare into them.
The other kind, the kind you see in sci-fi, is known as a volumetric display.
We only have the beginnings of that technology now.
In sci-fi, volumetric displays are often portrayed as insubstantial projections, presumably of laser light.
But there are other alternatives. . .