How Can He Stand For The TruthWhen He Won't Let His Own Priests Teach It?

It's not like we didn't see it coming:  The Diocese of El Paso is transferring its only priest with a normal testosterone level, Father Michael Rodriguez.  We cannot presume to know the entire reason for this transfer, but the two most likely explanations are that the diocese is 


A)  punishing him for his outspoken defense of the family against homosexual indoctrination


OR


B)  are afraid of losing their tax-exempt status.


It's probably both, but Bishop Ochoa has already admitted "B" in a news release:

"(Father) Rodriguez has recently challenged certain city officials to participate with him in a partisan debate on issues related to an upcoming election...This type of intervention in the political in the political process by religious organizations such as the Diocese of El Paso and San Juan Bautista Church is not permitted under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code."

So there you have it.  The Church castrated.


Seriously, if Catholic priests are not allowed to preach the truth, what ARE they supposed to teach?  Better techniques for success in the workplace through prayer?


Every major civil rights advancement in American history was made because of RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND THE PREACHERS WHO SPREAD THE MESSAGE.  If this was not the case, half of the country would be feeding its slaves today.


We live in a time that religion is swept under the rug as something "personal", exclusively "between me and God" and we have been hoodwinked into believing that we are not permitted to share our convictions.  This has been further exacerbated by too many cowardly administrators who tremble at the very threat of losing their tax exemption.  We can only reply:

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

-Luke 16:13

Father Rodriguez did not endorse any candidate.  He simply spoke with clarity, courage and conviction about the truths of his faith and the truths of natural law.  Homosexuals have been invoking the mantle of "civil rights" to advance their distorted notion of marriage for many years and Rodriguez was able to neutralize such arguments in a respectful manner.


So where will Father Rodriguez be exiled?  In typical lockdown fashion, the diocese will not yet say.  So it would be useful to quote the scriptures one more time for the leaders of the southwest's cabal of cowardly Catholics:

Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

-Matthew 5:15

Father Rodriguez is a light in El Paso and his light shines all the brighter because of the contrast it creates with the other priests who grudgingly confess the truth if asked, but shun its public proclamation.  It would be a shame to keep this good priest under a bushel for very long.

America's Common Sense Bishop

Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth?  I tell you, no; but separation.

After 40 years of "Postconciliar Bishops" (churchspeak for local CEO's) the Catholic Church in America is showing signs of a new pulse.  One of the brightest (and most courageous) of this new breed of bishops is Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted.

The smoke has hardly cleared from the announcement that altar girls would no longer serve at the Phoenix cathedral, and he has pronounced yet another move towards restoring sanity.

The diocese is restricting the reception of Communion under both kinds to special occasions, and restricting the role of Extraordinary ministers, noting:

"In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion.  When both forms of Communion are used frequently, 'extraordinary' ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied."

Of course, we can be certain that the usual liberal suspects will be crying out in reaction:

"He is forcing us to return to the past!"

"This is unfair!"

"Clericalism!"

"Preconciliar!"

Baloney.

Just as no one has a "right" to be a priest, or an altar boy (that's "altar server" for the indoctrinated), no lay person has a "right" to distribute Holy Communion.  (In fact, we don't even have the right to touch It with our hands.  The only reason we can is because of an indult we are currently granted, which can be revoked at any time).

Naturally, those making the most noise will be the ladies who have etched out a Sunday career of parading to the altar at Communion time.  And, they will have a point--sort of.  They could say that this discriminates against women, but only because the vast majority of Extraordinary Ministers are women.

The priesthood has been emasculated.  Many parishes bring in "rent-a-priests" to say Mass every Sunday, then go on about the business of running their enterprise under the control of the parish lay administrator, who is, in most cases, a woman.

Besides, the laity does not need to receive under both kinds to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.  It has always been the teaching of the Church that the Body and Blood of Christ are both present in the Host.

So cry, and yell and scream liberal Catholics.  The game is ending, bit by bit and you cannot stop the return of tradition.  You can delay it, but it's coming nonetheless.  And as for Bishop Olmsted?  Look at his face.  Does he look like he's worried?

No Penance?Not Even on Friday?

Two events to reflect on:  One very recent, one just over a year old.

MAY 2010- On his way to Fatima, Pope Benedict stuns reporters by breaking with the Vatican's 2000 statement that the prophecies of Fatima are now fulfilled by telling them, "We would be mistaken to think that Fatima's prophetic mission is complete."

RECENT-  The Bishops Conference of England and Wales announced in May that they were restoring the requirement that Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays, a practice that goes back into effect this week.

What do Fatima and abstaining from meat on Fridays have to do with anything you ask?  Simply this:  You will have no trouble finding Catholics praying the rosary in obedience to the requests of the Blessed Mother at Fatima, but our acceptance of her message is quite selective.  We have picked and chosen the rosary.  We have discarded, ignored and forgotten her call to penance.

When was the last time you heard a priest preach a homily about the importance of doing penance for our sins?  Then again, doing penance for sins requires that we be aware that we are sinful creatures, and that kind of preaching seems to be verboten these days.

The very notion of the need for frequent confession is too "preconciliar" and "rigid" for many of today's clergy who were educated in seminaries in the grip of Vatican II's identity crisis. Yet, the very Act of Contrition we are required to pray at Confession promises that we will do penance:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life.Amen.

 How many of us keep that promise? How many of us perfunctorily murmur our three Hail Mary's and move on to our next pursuit of a good time?


Our fallen world presents us with no shortage of opportunities to do penance, but I would like to focus on an easy way (for most) that reinforces our identity as Catholics: Abstaining from meat on Friday.


1) Guess what? The rule for abstaining from meat on Friday was not abolished by Vatican II. In fact, the revised Code of Canon Law from 1983 tells us:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

2) The United States Bishops Conference has decided that we are only required to abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays during Lent, but that Fridays are still penitential days (which is the universal law of the Church). The bishops have simply said that individuals can choose what sort of penance they will do.

Now, let's look at human nature: Are we likely to do something we don't want to do without something or someone to remind us?


Friday is the day that Jesus died on the cross. It's the day that He denied himself unto death for our sins. It's the day that the Son of God, who never committed a sin of any kind, suffered a horrendously painful and shameful ordeal--an ordeal he could have easily escaped from--voluntarily, to open the possibility of Heaven for us.

Our culture tells us that Friday is the beginning of the weekend (Thank God It's Friday!). We have casual Friday. We have half days of work on Friday. We have the "weekender" edition of newspapers beginning on Fridays. Friday is the beginning of a three-day party for modern man.

But we are not called to be like everyone else. Instead, the Bible tells us:

Do not be conformed to this world..."

Do not love the world or the things of the world...

Friendship with the world is enmity to God...

...for men will be lovers of themselves...lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people, turn away.

There is no reason that we need to be marching off to the steakhouse every Friday evening. And, if for some reason, our friends invite us, remember, most menus also offer fish (and salmon is healthier than beef anyway).


When Friday comes, do our non-Catholic friends even know that we are Catholic?  How can they tell?  Are we keeping our promise to observe the laws of the Church by keeping Friday as a day of penance?

Penance does not have to be as hard as a hair shirt and whips. An easy way for all of us to do penance every Friday is to remember to abstain from meat. In doing so, we remember Who suffered and died for our sins.

10 + 0 Still Equals 10

Which belongs on the throne?

There's a definite sense of expectation in the air after the yesterday's meeting between SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay and CDF head Cardinal Levada.  It is a well-known fact that from the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Benedict has dearly wanted to end the rift with the Society of St. Pius X and prevent a full-blown schism.  It is also believed that the pope has a certain admiration for them, although he is careful not to express it.  This admiration has revealed itself on a few occasions, such as Benedict's reference to Archbishop Lefebvre as "this great man of the Universal Church."

So, for now, we wait to see if Bishop Fellay will indeed sign the doctrinal preamble presented to him by Cardinal Levada.  The actual content of this preamble remains a mystery, but it would be hard to imagine the pope sending anything to the SSPX for approval when he knows clearly where they stand.  And that sticking point thunders in every press release about the ongoing conflict:  The SSPX does not accept Vatican II.

So again we ask the question: Can one be a Catholic in full communion with the Church while rejecting Vatican II?

Councils are usually called to settle disputes within the Church or define dogmas or refute heresies.  Vatican II was unlike any other council in history, because it did none of the above.  

Pope Benedict was there.  He knows Vatican II as well as anyone possibly could.

In 1988, long before his election as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger visited Santiago Chile to address the Chilean Bishop's conference. In a speech that focused on the "Lefebvre case", Cardinal Ratzinger said this about the Second Vatican Council:

"One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it."

It cannot be denied that after Vatican II many truths and values of the faith stopped being lived and loved in the Church. Fasting before Communion, frequent Confession, religious attire for priests and nuns, the importance of avoiding mortal sin, abstaining from meat on Fridays and many other disciplines, teachings and traditions were suddenly tossed aside, de-emphasized or became the objects of mockery and jokes.  This atmosphere of disdain for all that Catholics once practiced certainly invited a response, and that is just what Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers gave us.

This response, as noted by Cardinal Ratzinger, fed a hunger that too many of our shepherds ignored:

"We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities.  Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today."

So Cardinal Ratzinger admitted that even young people were hungry for the tradition that was being denied to them and that some good was being done.  This is important because he is also saying that tradition cannot be just discarded.  It has value.

“For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church."

Those bishops probably didn't want to hear this part.  Cardinal Ratzinger told them that it was their own fault, that they, as bishops, had created "defects in the pastoral life of the Church" and that it was completely unnecessary.  In other words, he told them that the Church had shot itself in the foot since Vatican II.  And just how did this happen?  Ratzinger was blunt:

"While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the
dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program, on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross
is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion."  

Cardinal Ratzinger then emphasizes the importance of Christianity as a source of purification and repentance and that we, as Jesus' followers, are a people set apart, not in conformity with the world:

"There is no doubt that, with these theories and practices, they have entirely disregarded the true connection between the Old and the New Testaments: It is forgotten that this world is not the Kingdom of God, and that the “Holy One of God”(John 6:69) continues to exist in contradiction to this world; that we have need of purification before we draw near to Him; that the profane, even after the death and the Resurrection of Jesus, has not succeeded in becoming ‘the holy’.  The Risen One has appeared, but to those whose heart has been opened to Him, to the Holy; He did not manifest Himself to everyone. It is in this way a new space has been opened for the religion to which all of us would now submit; this religion which consists in drawing near to the community of the Risen One, at whose feet the women prostrated themselves and adored Him."

The Cardinal then explains that the Mass is the Church's most sacred rite.  The very de-sacralization  of this rite created the prohibited hunger for tradition:

"The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush;  It is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again. The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom weare not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritualof the Church; all the rest diminishes it. Men experiment with it in lively fashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed intodistraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the priest or the liturgical director."

So must Catholics accept Vatican II?  Cardinal Ratzinger said:

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II."

So the Cardinal says that the Council is binding upon the Church.  One might argue that as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith for John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger would have to say that.  However, his next statement is almost a contradiction:

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

So Vatican II

•  Defined no new dogmas


•  Was a merely pastoral council 
(so much for Vatican II "reforms")


•  Cannot be invoked to the exclusion of what came before it


Cardinal Ratzinger said that it is binding upon the Church to accept the Second Vatican Council, and all the new dogmas that came with it:  Namely, NONE.


Let us recall now that a dogma is a belief or doctrine that must be held by all believers.  So one might argue Cardinal Ratzinger, the man who is now our pope, was telling these bishops that the Church must accept the teachings of the Council that didn't teach us anything...at least anything that we are required to believe or accept.


Let's put it another way:  10  + 0 = 10.    Let's say that 10 stands for the perennial teachings of the Church and 0 represents the dogmas defined by Vatican II.  We must accept the zero, but we must also accept the 10.  Certainly John XXIII had every right to call Vatican II, so we can accept that.  We can certainly accept the fact that the Church has its councils.   So can we accept the whole equation?  If so, it still leaves us with 10!  The trouble is, we've had 40 years of shepherds throwing out the 10 and delivering 0 to their flock.


Again, it would be hard to imagine Pope Benedict giving an ultimatum to the SSPX that contradicted their stance, and their stance is that they do not accept the teachings of Vatican II.  So if the teachings amount to ZERO, what does that mean?


My money says that the pope offered them 10.


So they don't accept the "reformed" liturgy of Paul VI?  So what?  There are already other religious orders who only offer the Tridentine Latin Mass, so that should pose no problem.  Besides, the new Mass was not mandated by Vatican II, never offered during Vatican II and only came after Vatican II,  developed by a committee called by Paul VI.  True, it is invoked as a by-product of Vatican II, but the document invoked, Sacrosanctum Concilium, is vague at best and also calls for the preservation of all liturgical traditions and Latin.  In this sense, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers are very much Vatican II Catholics!


Catholics are members of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, who remains the same yesterday, today and forever.  Does our post-Vatican II Church reflect the reality of its Divine Founder?  Here's what Cardinal Ratzinger told the bishops gathered in Santiago:

"All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith."

I can accept that 10 + 0 = 10.  Just give me my 10. 

"That we may live happily every after...

A couple of weeks ago at Sunday Mass, one of the intentions for the Prayer of the Faithful went something like this:

"For higher reading scores for our elementary age students. Let us pray to the Lord..."

I have to give credit to whoever wrote this:   Hearing that intention woke me from my middle-of-Mass stupor, but for all the wrong reasons.  I looked at the person I was with and we both raised our eyebrows with that "Can you believe this?" look only two close friends can share.

Yes, higher reading scores are certainly something we need more of, but is this an issue that deserves a place on the list of the precious few prayer intentions mentioned at Mass?  Isn't the Prayer of the Faithful supposed to be reserved for matters of parish-wide or world-wide importance, including the gravely ill and those recently deceased?  How did the Prayer of Faithful get to be such a politically-correct airing of good will to all?

Or what about this intention from this week:

"For our world, still wounded by terrorism and war; for all who struggle daily to make peace and to transform the conditions that breed terror and violence. We pray to the Lord..."

A bit better, but it still sounds like it was written by a committee of ecumenical social workers.  Let's face it:  Terrorism continues to exist because we live in a world that denies the social kingship of Jesus Christ.  We live in a world that is in rebellion against the Catholic Church.  We have tried detente, the UN, "dialogue" (whatever that means) radical ecumenism and every other human contrivance to obtain world peace and we have failed.  This should be no surprise to Catholics, since the Blessed Mother warned us at Fatima in 1917 that our human efforts could not bring about world peace, but only one thing could:  Repentance and Conversion.  (There's also a little requirement about the pope, bishops and Russia, but we'll leave that for another time).  

So if we wanted a more Catholic prayer for ending terrorism and bringing peace to the world, maybe we could compose a prayer like this:

"That all of us in the Catholic Church would have the courage to love our enemies, to fast, pray and do penance for them and deny ourselves with the intention of converting the world to the One True Church of Jesus Christ.  Let us pray to the Lord..."

No, you're not going to hear that very soon.  As long as Oregon Catholic Press holds the monopoly on liturgical "resources" like providing "relevant" intentions for the Prayer of the Faithful, we'll continue to hear this kind of drivel at Mass:

“For world leaders; that they may put an end to the disastrous effects of manmade global warming.  Let us pray to the Lord..."

Sorry, but these kinds of empty-sounding  intentions have about as much impact as hearing someone say, "That we can all live happily ever after.  Let us pray to the Lord."  Full and active participation?  This is one part of the Mass where most of us are likely to stay awake only because we are on our feet.


One good thing:   Many parishes end the Prayer of the Faithful with something like this:

"And for all the intentions deep in our heart.   We pray to the Lord."

That's fine.  Because God does hear our prayers, and our prayers are even more forceful when someone prays with us.  The congregation may not be praying for the same intentions I have, but at least my Guardian Angel can share my prayer with me.  Here's a prayer I include every week:

"That our priests and bishops will find the courage and grace to obey the teaching authority of the Church and the pope."

LET US PRAY TO THE LORD.  

LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER!

"Progressive" Is a Relative TermVERY Relative

The Massgoer's GuideTo Full and Active Participation

The lucky parishioners at St. Caliban's parish in Chuckapockee, Wisconsin were among the first to preview the new USCCB guide for "full and active participation" at Mass.

The new guide offers parishioners a chance to score themselves on how their journey to "become Church" is going.  Below are the rules for self-scoring:

Each participation requirement offers a score of 5 points, which is causing some preliminary confusion, since no one at the USCCB has explained how a single point can be earned for the minimum 36 score.  

A couple of case studies can prove helpful:

Janie Schmoitz was late for Mass because of a traffic detour, so she missed the opening hymn.  She DID, however, serve as  a lector, but failed to make in on time to march in the opening procession.  She also hugged enough people during the sign of peace, waved to at least two people on the way to Communion, received Communion on the hand.  She sang the Communion hymn AND the recessional hymn.  This gave her a base score of 35.  However, since she was late, she could not get an aisle seat (the people sitting on the aisle refused to move over, and made her cross over them into the pew), foisting her plans to shake hands with Father when he walked down the aisle at the end of Mass.  Her cell phone went off during the Our Father, which left her fumbling in her purse to turn the ringer off, leaving her unable to hold hands OR use the orans gesture.  There were no new people at Mass for her to greet, so she failed to fully and actively participate.

Irv Sinclair was on time to sing the opening hymn, but his four year old son, Trout, had to go to the bathroom, leaving him unable to sing.  He made up for it by raising his hands during the Our Father, and he also hugged everyone around him during the sign of peace.  He waived at his friends on the way to Communion, received in the hand, sang the Communion AND recessional hymn and shook hands with Father as he was processing down the aisle at the end of Mass.  This gave him a base score of 40.  However, since he forgot to have his son go out for the "Children's Liturgy" he took a 5 point penalty for keeping an underage child in Church for the entire Mass.  Another failing grade.

Irma Hesselback, 92, is totally deaf.  She can, however, read which hymns have been selected on the board behind the lector's podium, so she sings at every Mass, loudly and off-key.  Although she is neither a lector nor Eucharistic Minister, she likes to March in the procession and often does so, even though Father has repeatedly asked her not to.  Mrs. Hessleback also likes to raise her hands and dance during the Our Father and  spends so much time hugging people at the Sign of Peace that she is often still hugging people who are trying to get up for Communion.  She not only waives at people on her way to Communion, but often gives them a loud, "Good Morning!"  She receives Communion in the hand and often takes to Host to the chalice and intincts it herself.  When Father walks out during the recessional, she not only shakes his hand, but walks out with him, singing the recessional hymn as loudly as she can.  She then runs back into the Church and looks around in the pews for dropped items to add to her collection that she keeps on her nightstand in the convalescent home where she lives next to the Church.  Father has repeatedly asked the administrators at the home to please not let Mrs. Hessleback out for Mass, but she continually finds ways to escape.  Mrs. Hesselback had a score of 55 Sunday, an admirable example of full and active participation for all parishioners to follow.

Congratulations, Irma Hesselback!

Hopefully, this program will soon be implemented in all of our parishes, to counteract the repressive effects of the coming new translation of the Mass.

The Catholic Time Tunnel

If John X. Catholic had been cryogenically frozen in 1962 and brought back to us today, what would he see at Mass?  What would he think?  What would be missing?  What new additions would surprise him?


He might notice, depending on where you took him to Mass:


Lay people walking around in the sanctuary
No discernable sanctuary
Altar girls
No tabernacle in a visible spot behind the altar
No reredos
No altar rail
No organ loft (or no organ)
Guitars, basses, drums, woodwinds, bongos
No votive candles
No statues
Lay people distributing Communion
People taking the Host into their hands
No kneeling for Communion
A "Risen Jesus" instead of a crucifix
Applause
Hand-holding for prayers
People talking loudly to each after Mass in the church
No genuflections


and, most sadly, 


NO REVERENCE.


In too many cases, if the average Catholic from 1962 could travel into the future to see our NOWCHURCH, they would be convinced that they were in a Protestant Church.

Questions, Contradictions & Tradition's Momentum

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has certainly been in the news a good deal these last few weeks, especially since the announcement of Superior General Bernard Fellay's upcoming meeting with CDF Prefect Cardinal Levada on September 14.

Of course, just about every news source puts their label on the SSPX:

"The ultraconservative SSPX..."

"The schismatic SSPX..."

"The Pre-Vatican II SSPX..."

So what of it?  No one would deny that the SSPX is conservative, not even its members.  They have done an admirable job of conserving the Church's liturgical traditions while the rest of the Church has dabbled in every type of experiment imaginable.

The schismatic label, however, is more problematic.  One might have argued that the SSPX was schismatic before January 2009, when Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications of its four bishops.  However, it was only the bishops who were excommunicated, not its priests, nor the thousands of Catholics who attend Mass at their chapels around the world.

Yet even before the excommunications were lifted, key players in the Church's dialogue with the SSPX repeatedly said that the SSPX was not in schism.  

When Pope John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, he also created a commission for the care of Lefebvre's followers and other Catholics who desired the Traditional Latin Mass:   The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED).  Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the PCED President from 2000 to 2009, said on more than one occasion that the SSPX was not in schism.  One of his most powerful comments came in a 2007 interview with the German magazine Die Tagespost:

• The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

They Are NOT Heretics!  

A heretic is someone who has committed heresy.  Heresy is a controversial or novel change to one's religious beliefs that conflicts with established dogma.

So is being a "Pre-Vatican II" Catholic an act of heresy?  Not if the pope is correct.  As both Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as Benedict XVI, Supreme Pontiff, the pope has repeatedly said that Vatican II defined no new dogmas and was not a reform council either, but merely a pastoral council.  In December 2005, he turned the Catholic world on its ear by declaring that the discontinuity and rupture we have experienced since the closing of the Council was not what was intended by either Pope John XXIII (who called the Council) or the Council Fathers.  He has also said that the Council must be interpreted in light of Tradition.

So if the Council gave us no new dogmas--that is, no new beliefs that must be held by believers in order to be Catholic--does rejecting the Council make one a schismatic or heretic?  Christopher Ferrara, in a recent column for The Remnant, makes a good argument that it does not.  He points out that for many years we have been told that Vatican II abolished and abrogated the Traditional Latin Mass, but the one authority who counts, the pope, has told us the opposite:  It was never abrogated.  Ferrara suggests that the pope's affirmation of the Traditional Mass' legitimacy is a first step that may result in the pope affirming that one does not have to accept all of Vatican II to be a Catholic in good standing, in full Communion with the Church.  And why should it, if indeed this Council defined no new dogmas?

Finally, here is a very puzzling development to consider:

If the SSPX is schismatic and not in full communion with the Church, why did the Vatican recently approve the transfer of a nun from her religious order to a Dominican order under the authority of the SSPX?

Change is in the air.

The 10 Commandments For Newly Ordained Priests

Congratulations, Father.  After all those grueling years of philosophy, theology and dormitory life, you've finally been ordained.  Now that the bishop, that kind, fatherly figure who was so pleased with your desire to become a priest, has sent you to your first parish, you'll want to stay on his good side.

What?  You thought that now that you're out of the seminary and have been ordained that you no longer have to hide your orthodoxy and you can be that great champion of souls that you always wanted to be?  

Think again.

Welcome to the American Catholic parish.  Not all of those folks in the pews share your inspiration and they have little tolerance for anyone who rocks the boat.  Monsignor is the boss and he's known the bishop a lot longer than you have.  That same bishop who ordained you can strip you of your faculties or send you to the most undesirable parish in the diocese.  So get your head out of the ivory tower.  Now you get to walk the tightrope of survival.  Here are a few pointers for the uninitiated:

1.  THOU SHALT NOT OFFER TO HELP DISTRIBUTE COMMUNION AT THE PASTOR'S MASSES SO THAT HE WON'T NEED EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS

Do you think he wants all those women yelling at him?

2.  THOU SHALT NOT OFFER TO START 

A PADRE PIO PRAYER GROUP

We don't need those kinds of Catholics in the parish.

3.  THOU SHALT NOT WEAR A BIRETTA AT ANY MASSES

Nobody remembers what it is and 
they're sure to start asking Monsignor about it.

4.  THOU SHALT NEVER SAY ANYTHING ADMIRING, KIND,  OR POSITIVE  ABOUT VENERABLE PIUS XII

It's been decided:  He's Hitler's Pope and that is that.  
We don't need you confusing the folks with any facts.

5.  THOU SHALT NOT TEACH AN ADULT EDUCATION CLASS USING RATZINGER'S SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY

Try Chicken Soup for the Soul instead.

6.  THOU SHALT NOT WEAR A CASSOCK 

ON PARISH GROUNDS OR AROUND TOWN

Why are you trying to stir up trouble?

7.  THOU SHALT NOT OFFER  TO HEAR CONFESSIONS FOR ANY PERIOD OTHER OR LONGER 

THAN THE TIME ALREADY SCHEDULED

30 minutes is enough.  What are you trying to prove, anyway?

8.  THOU SHALT ACCEPT AND USE ALTAR GIRLS 

AT ALL THY MASSES

That is, if you don't want to get a 20 year assignment 

as a hospital chaplain.

9.  THOU SHALT NOT OFFER PRIVATE INSTRUCTION IN THE FAITH TO ANYONE WHO CANNOT MAKE THE SCHEDULED RCIA CLASSES

That is Sister Randy's program and she decides 

who gets to be Catholic and who doesn't in this parish.

10.  THOU SHALT NOT TEACH THE CHILDREN IN THE FIRST HOLY COMMUNION CLASS 

TO RECEIVE ON THE TONGUE

Who do you think you are?  The Pope?

Will the Diocese of El Paso Leave This Priest to Dangle Because His Orthodoxy is Unpopular?

Picture this: A young priest on fire with his faith and love of the Church does what he wishes more priests had done when he was growing up: Take a stand. But may God have mercy on the priest who takes a stand on a topic that's too hot to handle.


Homosexuality is a very divisive topic within the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, is quite clear:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. 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.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

There is nothing new about this teaching, as it calls homosexuals, as it does all unmarried Catholics, to live a life of chastity.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Like abortion, the Church opposes homosexuality because it violates natural law. Lest any gay person take offense, keep in mind that overeating, drug abuse, compulsive gambling and other high-risk behaviors also violate natural law. And the number of men and women who suffer with these other aforementioned problems of human desire is not negligible. So why is it then, that when we refuse to enable these other behaviors and urge those enslaved by them to get help that we are called compassionate, but if we do the same for homosexuals, we are called bigots?


Which brings us back to the young priest who takes a stand, in this case, Fr. Michael Rodriguez of the Diocese of El Paso.


For the last few weeks, a series of ads called The Truth About Homosexuality, penned by Fr. Rodriguez and paid for by an anonymous married couple have been published in El Paso's papers. In a culture that is downright anemic in defending morality, Rodriguez has had the courage to speak the convictions of his faith: "All Catholics have a moral obligation before God to oppose any government attempt to legalize same-sex unions."


And he's right. All Catholic DO share this obligation. Social justice sometimes means taking an unpopular position. The problem for Fr. Rodriguez is that his diocese is less-than-willing to take that stand with him.


Fr. Anthony Celino, Vicar General of El Paso has publicly stated, "These paid advertisements are the personal views and opinions of Father Michael Rodriguez."


Now before reading further, it might benefit us to actually read Father Rodriguez' ads. You can read them at these links:


First Advertisement
Second Advertisement
Third Advertisement
Fourth Advertisement

It's important that we read the ads first because it is all-too-apparent that Fr. Rodriguez writes in an articulate, sensitive and respectful tone and that the texts he wrote quote generously from the documents of the Church and the bishops.


So why is the Vicar General of the Diocese insisting that the ads only reflect the "personal views" of Fr. Rodriguez?


If he means that the Diocese did not authorize the ads, why did he not say so in those words? If he means that the Diocese disavows the ads and their content, we have a problem. If the Diocese cannot stand behind the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the teaching of the U.S. Bishops Conference, something is very, very wrong.


Another priest, Monsignor Frances Smith, said "I do not agree with that lifestyle, but I will help anyone who needs it."


So does that mean that remaining silent about grave violations of natural law and mortal sins that, according to scripture, "Cry out to God for vengeance" is a way of helping homosexuals?


Has silence about homosexuality curbed the spread of AIDS?


Has silence about homosexuality stopped the sexual abuse of minors by priests with homosexual desires?


Which, brings us, ultimately, to the question that this begs: Are so many priests silent about homosexuality because they are, themselves homosexual?


In 2002 Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska spoke up at the U.S. Bishops' gathering and said that the bishops should study the actual causes of the scandal, and was met with silence. Eventually, the bishops had to commission such a study, and the study found that a vast majority of the priest-abusers committed their crimes upon adolescent males, a finding that the politically-correct leaders of the USCCB were quick to attempt to spin as irrelevant.


It's a terrible thing to ask such a question, a question that has hideous implications. But the abandonment of this priest begs the question: Are there powerful priests in the Diocese of El Paso who are themselves homosexual? And, if so, how high up does this go?


Just as we cannot afford a laity that "picks-and-chooses" which teachings to accept, we cannot afford leaders who "pick and choose" which teachings they will support.


Please pray for Fr. Rodriguez and the leadership of his diocese.