Deo gratias!

Seattle Catholic has posted what is purported to be a letter addressed to priests of the Archdiocese of Seattle and Fr. Z has commented on it.

For the sake of argument, I will assume that the letter is genuine.

It may well seem at first glance that the archbishop’s letter is somewhat hostile to the extraordinary form, the motu proprio, or traditional expressions of the Faith. But, let us look at this in the most charitable light we can, and assume that the archbishop is only trying to ensure a smooth implementation of the Holy Father’s directive.

I think such a charitable reading can lead to a positive conclusion about what a priest in the Archdiocese may do as of September 14.

Keep in mind, however, that I am not a canon lawyer, and am merely an interested layman. My analysis, then, may be completely inaccurate, and I therefore invite correction.

Let us look at the actual instructions the archbishop has given, one by one.

First of all, there is no need to analyze the parts which talk about upcoming conferences and other meetings. There are no concrete instructions there, and it would seem that the archbishop is just laying out his future plans.

Now, the meat of the document:

Based on my responsibilities as Archbishop and in the spirit of communio, I am requesting you to observe the following points regarding public celebrations of the 1962 Roman Missal published by Pope John XXIII:

• During this time of reflection and planning, I remind you that the current Archdiocesan pastoral and sacramental policies regarding the 1962 Roman Missal remain in place (See EU 41-42).

At first glance, one might get the impression that the archbishop is claiming that these diocesan norms will remain in effect and unchanged indefinitely. But, with a more careful reading, and remembering in charity that the archbishop is obviously aware that to the extent the existing norms conflict with Summorum Pontificum, they will be superseded, it becomes clear that the “time of reflection and planning” is now until September 14.

• As the moderator and guardian of the liturgical life of our local Church, I will be determining the level of liturgical and linguistic competency required by priests who wish to celebrate this extraordinary form publicly. I also will be consulting the Presbyteral Council, the Archdiocesan Liturgy Commission and others with appropriate expertise to determine the process for evaluating competency.

The archbishop is within his competency to determine, at some level, the competency of priests in publicly offering the Mass, under either form. How extensive that may be, in particular in the case of priests who wish to use the extraordinary form, is a question that will be at issue for some time, and will ultimately probably be determined by the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.”

In the meantime, it is important to note that the archbishop is only speaking here about public masses.

• In answering questions of parishioners, you may wish to note that the 1962 Roman Missal is an extraordinary form and, therefore, should never replace a currently scheduled ordinary celebration of the Eucharist in your parish.

Summorum Pontificum does not speak to this issue directly, but it seems a reasonable request. There may be cases, however, where after consultation with parishioners, it is determined that such a replacement may be a reasonable accommodation of the needs of the parishioners.

• Celebrating three or more Masses on a Sunday requires my permission (See EU 5). This Archdiocesan policy is based on both liturgical norms and canon law (CIC, c. 905 §2). This means that once I have consulted with the Presbyteral Council, I will carefully consider the manner, schedule and location of these extraordinary Masses, especially in light of the Hispanic pastoral plan as well as the many other pressing pastoral needs for the ordinary celebration of the Eucharist in our Archdiocese.

The limitation on trination is, of course, within the archbishop’s competency, and is protective of priests’ own well being, lest they overburden themselves.

The bottom line: It would seem that a priest in the archdiocese could limit himself to two public masses, and then offer a private mass anytime on or after September 14 without running afoul of the archbishop’s guidelines.

Fr. Z has had extensive coverage of the bishops’ reactions to Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

It would appear from a cursory glance at these responses that many, if not most, American bishops are adding additional requirements to the Holy Father’s requirements. The question is: do they have authority to do so? It would appear, in many cases, not, but some will no doubt push the issue.

What it is going to come down to is that one or more priests facing hostile bishops will be punished, and appeals will be made to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” and a ruling will be made. My view is that a bishop has no authority to add any requirements to a directive from the Supreme Pontiff, especially when the Pope has granted certain freedoms to priests and the faithful, and the bishops attempt to restrict, rather than enhance that papal directive.

I would further guess that PCED will come down on the side of the priests who wish to exercise their freedom to offer Mass under the extraordinary form, provided they are following the guidelines given by the Holy Father.

The particular bishops in question must know this; so, why are they pushing the issue? I do not have the answer…I wonder what others think.

It’s bad enough that the people in Darfur are being murdered in the genocide directed from Khartoum. Now Amnesty International is jumping in to help the genocidal killers by helping to commit abortions there:

Amnesty International will defy Vatican pressure on abortion

In June Cardinal Renato Martino (bio - news), the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, scolded Amnesty International for a “pro-abortion about-turn,” and encouraged Catholic donors to reconsider their support for the group. Episcopal conferences in several countries, including the US, soon joined in a campaign to reverse Amnesty’s policy change.

Representatives of Amnesty International, however, held firmly to their position that legal abortion is an appropriate remedy for a “pandemic of violence against women.” In Darfur particularly, the organization argues, access to abortion is essential because mass rapes have become a part of the brutal warfare there.

No Catholic should give money to Amnesty International.

As many of you know, the Diocese of Birmingham is the home to the EWTN television network. Bishop Foley, who had been assigned to that see, retired, and the see was essentially vacant for some time. Finally, a bishop has been appointed, and the appointment would seem to be a strong message from the Holy Father:

Vatican chooses bishop for Catholic Diocese of Birmingham

The Catholic Diocese of Birmingham will introduce South Carolina Bishop Robert J. Baker as its new bishop-elect this morning in a press conference at 10:30 a.m. at the St. Paul’s Cathedral Life Center.

Pope Benedict XVI has chosen Baker, 63, to fill the job in Alabama, where the diocese includes EWTN, the global Catholic satellite network founded by Mother Angelica.

Baker, a native of Ohio, has close ties to EWTN. He recently was co-author of the book, “When Did We See You, Lord?” with EWTN personality the Rev. Benedict J. Groeschel.

Bishop Foley and EWTN did not always see eye-to-eye. In fact, the bishop had forbidden EWTN from televising even ad orientem masses according to the 1970 Missal.

Bishop Baker is considered friendly to EWTN, and seems to be more friendly to Tradition. One of the things I immediately remembered when I heard of this appointment is his strong pro-life stance during the Terri Schiavo situation.

Please pray for Bishop Baker; I’m sure he could use our prayers as he takes on this new responsibility.

SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM

I will post some thoughts on it, as soon as I can digest it.

Now, this is an encouraging sign. Cardinal George has issued a statement regarding Fr. Michael Pfelger’s comments at an anti-gun rally:

On Saturday, May 26, 2007, during an anti-gun rally at a Riverdale gun shop, Fr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina parish, reportedly made aggressive and inappropriate statements threatening the store’s owner.

If the comments reported are accurate, and a threat was made, it is up to the civil authorities to investigate the matter and determine what if any action should be taken against Fr. Pfleger.

Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., Archbishop of Chicago, stated, “publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest. It is first of all up to the civil authorities to determine what threat might have been contained in the remarks attributed to Fr. Michael Pfleger. With that determination, the sponsors of the anti-gun rally and the Archdiocese can better decide how to respond.”

This would seem to be a pretty normal reaction to a priest making such irresponsible statements. Yet, the Sun-Times reports that several of the priests of the archdiocese are “baffled by the cardinal’s statement.”

It seems to me that they ought instead to be baffled by Fr. Pfleger’s statements, particularly the statement that he didn’t know “snuff” was slang for “kill.”

First of all, hi, all! I haven’t posted for a while, because, well, I just haven’t really had a lot of spare time, and this motu proprio thing is dragging on…

Anyhow, I saw this story, and haven’t seen much Catholic blogging on it:

Gun Advocate Wants Priest’s ‘Snuff’ Comments Investigated

(CNSNews.com) - A gun rights advocate wants the Justice Department to investigate a Catholic priest who during a weekend anti-gun rally threatened to “snuff out” a Chicago gun store owner.

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, Rev. Michael Pfleger said Saturday in comments aimed at Chuck’s Gun Shop owner John Riggio, “we’re going to find out and snuff you out.”

Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina’s Church in Chicago, told the crowd “we’re going to snuff out John Riggio, we’re going to snuff out legislators that are voting … against our gun laws and we’re coming for you because we are not going to sit idly.”

Now, readers of this and of other blogs are quite familiar with Fr. Pfleger and his antics. So, in one sense, this is nothing new. But, in another sense, for a priest to seemingly advocate the murder of a law-abiding citizen…well, it’s shocking, even coming from such a priest as Fr. Pfleger.

If that wasn’t enough, though…it has been compounded by this statement from Fr. Pfleger’s “spokesman” (since when do parish priests have spokesmen…aren’t they supposed to be doing the speaking?):

Vince Clark, a spokesman for Pfleger, told Cybercast News Service Wednesday that the pastor wasn’t aware of the violent connotation of “snuff” and didn’t mean to threaten bodily harm. (Listen to Pfleger’s comments)

“I’ve never heard that compared before with the word murder,” Clark said. “He [Pfleger] was never aware of that. If that was the case he would never have used that language.”

Clark said Pfleger’s use of the word “was meaning ‘to expose’ but to do no bodily harm.” He said the backlash from gun rights advocates is “uncalled for, but they’re going to take the angle that they desire.”

Now, come on…first of all, is there anyone who is not familiar with the common meaning of the word “snuff?” Secondly, Fr. said that he and others were going to “snuff out” the gun shop owner, so the lame denial makes no sense. He also added that the crowd should drag the man out “like a rat” from his store.

But the worst is yet to come…

James Accurso, a spokesman for the Chicago Archdiocese, said he was not aware of the rally or Pfleger’s participation in it until after it took place Saturday.

He told Cybercast News Service that the church had no plans to take disciplinary action against Pfleger.

“If the reports are accurate and he did make a threat - and we’re not certain of that - we feel this should be handled by the civil authorities,” Accurso said.

This priest’s antics have gone on for far too long, and the archdiocese needs at long last to act. But it looks like they are too intimidated by Fr. Pfleger and his political friends.

Please, Cardinal George, do something about this priest. This latest outrage is way over the line.

AP is now reporting it, too:

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI has decided to loosen restrictions on use of the old Latin Mass, making a major concession to ultraconservatives who split with the Vatican to protest liberalizing reforms, a Vatican official said Wednesday.Pope Benedict XVI has decided to loosen restrictions on use of the old Latin Mass, making a major concession to ultraconservatives who split with the Vatican to protest liberalizing reforms, a Vatican official said Wednesday.

The pope’s intent is to “help overcome the schism and help bring (the ultraconservatives) back to the Church,” said the official, who asked that his name not be used because the papal document has not yet been released.

The Times of London reports:

Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times.

I hestitate to believe the story, having been disappointed many times before, but let us pray it is true.

The Holy Father met with Muslims from over twenty countries today. He told those assembled that Christians and Muslims must reject violence:

“Christians and Muslims must learn to work together … in order to guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence,” the 79-year-old Pope said at the meeting in a frescoed hall of the papal summer palace.

Will it quell the unrest generated by dishonest interpretations of his initial lecture? Probably not, but I don’t think that’s really the point. The point of all this has been, just as the Holy Father said initially, to begin a dialogue, or more accurately, to begin to lay the groundwork for a dialogue between Western Civilization and the Islamic world.

I think one of the best write-ups of all this, which I unfortunately didn’t have time to post on, was Sandro Magister’s piece:

Why Benedict XVI Did not Want to Fall Silent or Backpedal

But realism isn’t everything for Benedict XVI. The dialogue with Islam that he wants to create is not made of fearful silences and ceremonial embraces. It is not made of mortifications which, in the Muslim camp, are interpreted as acts of submission. The citation he made in Regensburg, from the “Dialogues with a Mohammedan” written at the end of the fourteenth century by the Christian participant in the dialogue, the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos, was deliberate choice. A war was on. Constantinople was under siege, and in a half century, in 1453, it would fall under the dominion of the Ottoman Empire. But the learned Christian emperor brought his Persian counterpart to the terrain of truth, reason, law, and violence, to what marks the real difference between the Christian faith and Islam, to the key questions upon which war or peace between the two civilizations depends.

I think Magister is exactly right to state that the choice of quotation was quite deliberate. It was not, as some Catholic bloggers have opined, a “gaffe.”

Sydney Archbishop Cardinal Pell has weighed in on the controversy regarding Pope Benedict’s comments regarding Islam:

Pope protests ’show violence’ in Islam

“The violent reactions in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict’s main fears,” Cardinal Pell said in a statement.

“They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence.

We could use more like Cardinal Pell.

The Italian nun who was murdered most likely by radical Islamists raging against the Holy Father for citing an obscure Byzantine emperor’s rather negative opinion of Islam, as she lay dying, with her last breath, forgave her murderers:

Sister Leonella, 65, muttered the words ‘I forgive, I forgive’ in Italian after being targeted by gunmen in an apparent execution-style killing, Father Maloba Wesonga told The Associated Press at the nun’s memorial mass in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, on Monday.

It is hard to imagine being able to truly live in imitation of Christ as this wonderful nun did.

From the Hartford Courant (via the Denver Post), a story about the Abbey of Regina Laudis, in Bethlehem, Conn., and the nuns who chant every day there:

Defending old-time Mass music

Understanding God is hard work, the argument goes, and similarly, music in church should challenge us. A sermon that says only what people want to hear would lack moral authority. The same goes for music.

“There’s a sense of mystery and religious atmosphere that seems to be lost in the new days,” says Scott Turkington, the choirmaster at St. John the Evangelist Roman Catholic Church in Stamford. “The fact is that the older music is better. Ask any serious musician, and he’ll agree with that.”

One sentence in the article is a bit puzzling: “The new music helped fill pews, but it left church conservatives and formally trained musicians reeling.”

Helped fill pews?!? Huh? Someone hasn’t been paying attention.

Sorry, all…I have been so busy with other things, I haven’t had time to post here.

Anyhow, on to this issue, on which I have a few thoughts.

Catholics are understandably concerned about the war in the Middle East. The Vatican (through Secretary of State Cardinal Sodano) issued a statement last week about the conflict.

It is hard to read this:

“As in the past, the Holy See also condemns both the terrorist attacks on the one side and the military reprisals on the other,” he continued.” He argued that Israel’s right to self-defense “does not exempt it from respecting the norms of international law, especially as regards the protection of civilian populations.”

and not get the impression that there is a degree of moral equivalence being made.

Now, I am not a blind apologist for Israel, but it seems to me that at least in this particular conflict, they have acted about as fairly as one might realistically hope for a nation to act.

At least the Vatican mentioned the ongoing missile attacks on Israel. Many commentators curiously omit the fact that after Israel had withdrawn from Gaza and Southern Lebanon, they were rewarded with rocket and missile attacks.

It is at least notable, I think, that to the degree that civilians in Lebanon are affected, that does not really appear to be the intention of Israel; she is not targeting civilians (one may argue with the tactic of destroying certain types of infrastructure, like bridges and runways, but there is at least an arguably military reason for this).

On the other side, Hezbollah is quite openly targeting civilians, but I do not hear much in the way of denunciations of this tactic, at least not to the degree that Israel is criticized.

While it is true that Israel should conduct this war with proportionality, I think the time has come for proportionality in the criticism of the parties in this conflict.

From The Wanderer’s Brian Mershon, via RenewAmerica:

Bishop Fernando Rifan says traditionalists must show perfect communion with Pope, tradition

Q. What would a “universal indult,” “the freeing of the Classical Roman rite,” or “reaffirmation of Quo Primum” mean for Catholics worldwide?

A. A universal indult for the Old Form of the Roman rite, conceded by the Holy Father, I think would benefit Catholics worldwide.

But it would not be a real reaffirmation of the bull Quo Primum. It would be a concession of this Pope, who has the power over the liturgy of the Church. But it is dependent exclusively upon the Pope to judge about the benefit to the Church.

Q. One of the two preconditions the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) have requested since 2001 was a public affirmation that the Classical Roman liturgy has never been abrogated. If this first step is eventually granted, what do you predict will happen next?

A. I think that it is very true that this affirmation of the cardinals that the Classical Roman liturgy has never been abrogated. The continuation of this usage, allowed by the Holy See, is a proof. But this universal indult has nothing to do with this precondition of the Society of St. Pius X; it will be a realization of the personal will of the Holy Father, independent of this good request.

It has taken four years, but it’s finally happened:

U.S. bishops approve new Mass translation

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops voted 173-29 at its biannual meeting Thursday for a new translation after a debate over several small changes in wording. Bishops had long been divided over the English version, both because of the timing of the change and the phrasing of some passages, but in the end the translation got more than the 168 votes it needed to move forward.

Check out this little nugget:

Before the meeting, the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University and a Jesuit priest, said the new Mass would “cause chaos and real problems and the people who are going to be at the brunt end of it are the poor priests in the parishes.”

Fr. Reese, late of the America gig, now wrings his hands over relatively minor corrections to the liturgical texts. Was he so concerned in 1970, I wonder?

Now, on to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of Sacraments for approval…

John Allen of National Catholic Reporter reports today that Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, has been restricted in his ministry but not laicized.

Vatican sources stressed that the action against Maciel should not be read as an indictment of the Legionaries of Christ or its lay branch, Regnum Christi.

A spokesman for the Legionaries, asked to comment on the development, replied in an e-mail, “We have nothing to say. We don’t know anything about this.”

According to sources who spoke to NCR, the congregation’s investigation was closed sometime toward the end of 2005. In the early months of 2006, the cardinal members of the congregation in Rome were invited to review the documentation. The decision to impose restrictions was then reached sometime before Easter.

The Wanderer has published a lengthly interview with St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, in which he discusses many liturgical issues, including the 1962 Missal:

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos says indult includes all 1962 sacraments (via Renew America

OK..this is a bit off my usual topic areas, but, I reserve the right to blog on other things now and then.

As you may or may not know, regulators, particularly in California, have made things especially tough on diesel automobile manufacturers recently. They have all but banned diesels in five states, and the regulations continue to tighten.

Now, some of these regulations make sense, and with the new Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) being rolled out this year, it will be relatively easy to deal with particulate matter (the black smoke you see in diesel exhaust).

The final nut to crack is Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Daimler-Chrysler has come up with a group of solutions that they are calling BLUETEC, which involve DeNOx catalysts and urea injection. These are fairly expensive, and could spell the end of the affordable diesel automobile.

I have just become aware, however, of a very interesting study:

http://www.osti.gov/fcvt/deer2003/lawsonpresentation.pdf

This study looked at the relationship between NOx emissions and ambient ozone levels. The conclusion? That reducing NOx emissions, at least in urban areas, actually increases ambient ozone levels.

How’s that again? Yes, reducing NOx emissions, at least in urban areas, actually increases ambient ozone levels.

That means the California Air Resources Board (CARB), in mandating new lower NOx emissions in diesel automobiles and light trucks, is actually going to cause more smog.

These, as well as federal, and European emissions standards, need to be revisited ASAP.

By doing so, especially in the U.S., we can save fuel, reduce CO2 and VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions, and provide an easy path to alternative fuels like biodiesel.