Sen. Durbin barred from receiving Holy Communion—Aleteia

The excellent Bishop Paprocki is not an uncertain trumpet, as may be seen in this year-ago statement:

I agree completely with His Eminence, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, who called the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “appalling.”

Fourteen Catholic senators voted against the bill that would have prohibited abortions starting at 20 weeks after fertilization, including Sen. Richard Durbin, whose residence is in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois. In April 2004, Sen. Durbin’s pastor, then Msgr. Kevin Vann (now Bishop Kevin Vann of Orange, CA), said that he would be reticent [ouch: reluctant] to give Sen. Durbin Holy Communion because his pro-abortion position put him outside of communion or unity with the Church’s teachings on life. My predecessor, now Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, said that he would support that decision. I have continued that position.

Canon 915 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states that those “who obstinately persist in mani­fest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In our 2004 Statement on Catholics in Political Life, the USCCB said, “Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.” Because his voting record in support of abortion over many years constitutes “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” the determination continues that Sen. Durbin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of this sin. This provision is intended not to punish, but to bring about a change of heart. Sen. Durbin was once pro-life. I sincerely pray that he will repent and return to being pro-life.

Of special interest in view of last night’s calling out of recent legislation in New York and (proposed) in Virginia.

With bishops like Chicagoan Paprocki, now of Springfield, some truth might be told in the matter, which is sometimes the best that bishops can achieve or the best we can ask, as it is the least at any time.

Chicago’s own Paprocki, now bishop of Springfield, supported U.S. bishops’ independent action at November meeting

Did not notice this at the time, but we might take special note of it even now:

Last week, several Roman Catholic bishops, including Paprocki, urged colleagues at their national meeting [in November] to take some sort of action on the clergy sex abuse crisis despite a Vatican order to delay voting on key proposals.

Paprocki suggested a nonbinding vote to convey a sense of the bishops’ aspirations regarding anti-abuse efforts.

“We are not branch managers of the Vatican,” he said. “Our people are crying out for some action.”

Smart guy, good guy.

Shake . . . rattle and roll? Nope. Shake hand with all your neighbors, and kiss the colleens all? Nope. Shake and say . . .

Signing peace

Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground

. . . “THE PEACE OF CHRIST BE WITH YOU”? YES! — a 2006 cogitation.

It happens at mass after the Our Father, during which you may have held hands in a show of solidarity or watched others do so. It’s SHAKE TIME.

I liken it to violating a library’s silence by interrupting someone, extorting his or her response.

My friend Jake (not his real name) intends to pull his phone out and threaten to call 9-1-1 the next time he is approached while trying in his admittedly clumsy way to commune with the Almighty. An empty threat, yes.

A Catholic New World reader put it to Question Corner priest, John Dietzen:

I’ve had my arthritic fingers crushed. I’ve had parishioners blow their nose and then offer their hand to me. . . . I’m tempted to isolate myself in back [of church]. . . . [T]his . . …

View original post 376 more words

Catholic mass “changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand” — Cardinals who objected

Cardinals blew whistle . . .

Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground

Something of a replay here, from earlier posts — a coordination if you will, with more from the dissident Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani.

The supposed betrayal came to light officially, on April 4, 1969, when Pope Paul VI announced adoption of the Novus Ordo, “New Order,” of the mass.

Four and a half months later, on September 25, 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani and a colleague blew a whistle on it with an “intervention” accompanied by a cover letter which warned that the Novus Ordo “represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated” in the 16th-century Council of Trent.

Among other points made or stated, was that Catholics in general had “never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand.”

(Catholics as a whole were not complaining, nor…

View original post 312 more words

An important first question for any aspiring politician — THE SHINBONE STAR

It was just another weekend of racism in America. People on both sides of the political aisle called on Ralph Northam, governor of Virginia, to resign his position after he apologized for a picture in his medical school annual that showed a man in blackface standing next to a man in Klan robes. The governor […]

via An important first question for any aspiring politician — THE SHINBONE STAR

Ad Orientem As A First Step Toward Spiritual Renewal – Crisis Magazine

Clericalism the problem? Well . . .

Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground

Pick and choose the best arguments for the mass facing in same direction as people.

This one popped out:

Mass offered with the priest facing the people, versus populum, presents another problem, one that Francis has spent his entire pontificate denouncing—clericalism. In the words of Cardinal Ratzinger, by turning the priest toward the people, “an unprecedented clericalization came on the scene. Now the priest—the “presider,” as they now prefer to call him—becomes the real point of reference for the whole liturgy. Everything depends on him… Less and less is God in the picture.”

Precisely. He’s the focus of attention, the performer, the man of the hour. Not good.

View original post

The mass as drama . . .

Very good on describing the ideal . . .

Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground

The mass is a show. Of what? Of God’s great mystery reenacted, his dealing with men, women, and children) as we know it through Scripture and Tradition. It’s been a long, hard slog through the ages, starting with Abraham. Neither peep show nor lecture but something symbolic and much more .

Consider it as drama. Gordon Graham, Professor of Philosophy and the Arts at Princeton Theological Seminary, did in 2007 in an essay that explored liturgy, especially the Catholic Mass and its high-church Protestant counterparts “as a kind of drama.”

The Mass, he said, is “a dramatic enactment of the gospel in which all present participate in a variety of roles.”

A sort of choreography is in play, that is. He elaborates.

There is first the “Gathering of the People,” including “latecomers who join in the opening hymn” unknowingly in the role of “physically representing the church as it…

View original post 600 more words

This is CNN: Chyron shows disgraced Democrat Ralph Northam as Republican

Can you believe what CNN did?

How many mistakes has CNN made that favor Republicans? Why do the mistakes almost always seem to be anti-Republican?

Remember the early days of blogging, the gatekeeper theory, that said there was no trusting those un-professional people in their pajamas?

What the heck happened? Or had it already happened, hence the zest (market) even then for pajama-clad reportage and commentary?

They all cheered when Cardinal Cupich finished his recorded address at end of mass yesterday

Yesterday at end of mass.

Sunday sermons, weekday observations

The faithful were stunned at the sheer acuity of what the cardinal had to say:

—  He was the organizer of the coming synod of bishops about clerical abuse.

— It would be about protecting children.

— You could learn more at a website.

— He was sorry about abuse.

— We are in his prayers.

It was short! Two minutes. It said nothing about abuse of seminarians by bishops. It left out various other accusations and recriminations. People were cheered up by what he said.

View original post