I need some rest. . .
So, BLOG BREAK!!!!
See you all on Feb 15th.
21 January 2009
God, Mother Earth. . .same thing.
.- After attending a Mass in which he received Communion, Bolivian President Evo Morales said he was Catholic but that he still worships Mother Earth (“Pachamama” in the Quechua language). He also added that he was “disappointed” that some Christian groups are questioning parts of the new Constitution that will be subjected to a referendum on January 25.
“I am Catholic but I am very disappointed at some leaders of the Catholic Church, not those of the base church,” Morales said during an interview on Erbol Radio.
The Bolivia bishops have said they are not opposed to the new Constitution, but have outlined ten sections that dangerously open the door to practices such as abortion and the loss of parental authority.
“I believe strongly in the rites and in Mother Earth (Pachamama),” Morales said. “But of course I am a Catholic and an admirer of Jesus Christ.”
So, in other words, El Presidente would feel right at home among the other syncretistic ne0-pagans that fill Catholic religious orders in the U.S. and Europe. . .
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
20 January 2009
Revised Travel Plans
Having surrendered to Italian Customs and quite probably consigned hundreds of dollars of imported medications to the Fiery Pits of Customs Hell by doing so, I have decided to take my Easter vacation early so I can visit my doctors and get this med situation straightened out for good.
I've re-arranged three final exams so that I can leave for my U.S. visit on Jan. 30th.
I've re-arranged three final exams so that I can leave for my U.S. visit on Jan. 30th.
I will be with the Parentals in Mississippi from Jan 30th-Feb 7th.
In Irving with the friars and my U.D. friends Feb. 7-11th.
Back to Mississippi and leave for Rome on Feb 14th.
Second semester begins Feb. 16th!
Please pray for this trip's success. . .
Once White gets it right. . .
Fr. Z. has up the full text of Obama's first proclamation. Here's the conclusion:
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century."
Sounds good. I'll buy it; however, maybe B.O. should show us how a day of renewal and reconciliation is done by repudiating and then apologizing for the "Reverend" he asked to give the day's benediction. DRUDGE has posted the text of Joseph Lowery's "blessing":
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. . .when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen. . ."
Of course, we should be very glad that justice and love is still possible even when black, brown, and red do not embrace right. Or, is it that only whites fail to embrace right. . .? Or, is that justice and love is only possible when whites FINALLY come around to embracing right? Whichever.
I dunno. I'm not feeling very renewed or reconciled knowing that B.O. thinks this guy represents renewal and reconciliation.
This is an obnoxiously racist "prayer." Is this B.O.'s idea of a renewed and reconciled America?
Sounds good. I'll buy it; however, maybe B.O. should show us how a day of renewal and reconciliation is done by repudiating and then apologizing for the "Reverend" he asked to give the day's benediction. DRUDGE has posted the text of Joseph Lowery's "blessing":
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around. . .when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen. . ."
Of course, we should be very glad that justice and love is still possible even when black, brown, and red do not embrace right. Or, is it that only whites fail to embrace right. . .? Or, is that justice and love is only possible when whites FINALLY come around to embracing right? Whichever.
I dunno. I'm not feeling very renewed or reconciled knowing that B.O. thinks this guy represents renewal and reconciliation.
This is an obnoxiously racist "prayer." Is this B.O.'s idea of a renewed and reconciled America?
19 January 2009
Holy Exercise in God's Gold Gym
2nd Week OT(T): Heb 6:10-20; Mk 2:23-28
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma
Having long ago resigned myself to the fact that I am an unrepentant couch potato—a homebody and gloriously lazy—I find St Paul constantly nagging us about being energetic, eager Christians. . .well, let’s just say that I find his bubbly-enthusiasm for workworkwork to be more than just annoying, it’s depressing. What happened to peaceful contemplation? Serene silence? When did we become the People of the Frantic Work Day? The Church of Git ‘er Done or Die Trying? Paul would have us running races, meeting deadlines, flying into panicked work-fits, racing about like manic monkeys hopped up on a double-sweet, double expresso. Someone needs to write a book on how many times in his letters he uses words like “eager,” “readiness,” “perseverance,” “fervent.” It’s exhausting just reading those letters! We can excuse some of Paul’s jumpiness. He was a Pharisee before his trip to Damascus. His whole life was ruled by rules. His whole life was ruled by schedules, appointments, rituals, formulas. He was busy b/c he had much to be busy about. Our Lord was a busy man too. But he teaches us that time and work are sacred, our labor and its measure are holy if given first and only in the service of the Lord.
Paul writes to the Hebrews, “God is not unjust so as to overlook your work…by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones. We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end, so that you may not become sluggish…” So, here we have Coach Paul whipping the team into shape for the Big Game. Notice: work, serve, continue to serve, eagerly demonstrate, fulfill! Why? So that you don’t become sluggish, lazy! And, of course, this makes perfect sense if your eager service is to the benefit of the gospel. We have baptismal promises to fulfill. We have unplowed, unplanted fields to culivate and seed. To say nothing of the harvest!
So, yes, we must work. But we have a gospel scene this morning where Jesus “works” on the Sabbath and the Pharisees scold him for violating the law. Jesus easily rebuffs their attempt to catch him up by doing what he does best: showing them how his first commandment of love fulfills the law of Moses. Man was not created to make the Sabbath holy. Rather, the Sabbath was created to make man holy. A time for us to do the work of resting, to be with the Lord in solitude and peace when the first work of our daily work is done most ardently—in the human heart. Jesus teaches us that it is what comes out of our hearts that defiles us, makes us holy. Not what goes in. The Pharisees have confused merely obeying the Law with doing God’s work. Is there a quicker way to a heart attack than to work feverish for no purpose other than to get things done?
Obviously, Paul understands this. He’s not urging us to activity for the sake of activity. He’s urging us not to allow our hearts to become muscles ruined from lack of spiritual exercise. He writes that “we have as an anchor in our soul” the promise of Christ’s work on the cross. The heavy lifting of hope, the constant repetitions of love, the crunches of faith—these are the contant soul-building exercises of the Christian. Whenever you do them, you do them on the Sabbath.
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma
Having long ago resigned myself to the fact that I am an unrepentant couch potato—a homebody and gloriously lazy—I find St Paul constantly nagging us about being energetic, eager Christians. . .well, let’s just say that I find his bubbly-enthusiasm for workworkwork to be more than just annoying, it’s depressing. What happened to peaceful contemplation? Serene silence? When did we become the People of the Frantic Work Day? The Church of Git ‘er Done or Die Trying? Paul would have us running races, meeting deadlines, flying into panicked work-fits, racing about like manic monkeys hopped up on a double-sweet, double expresso. Someone needs to write a book on how many times in his letters he uses words like “eager,” “readiness,” “perseverance,” “fervent.” It’s exhausting just reading those letters! We can excuse some of Paul’s jumpiness. He was a Pharisee before his trip to Damascus. His whole life was ruled by rules. His whole life was ruled by schedules, appointments, rituals, formulas. He was busy b/c he had much to be busy about. Our Lord was a busy man too. But he teaches us that time and work are sacred, our labor and its measure are holy if given first and only in the service of the Lord.
Paul writes to the Hebrews, “God is not unjust so as to overlook your work…by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones. We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end, so that you may not become sluggish…” So, here we have Coach Paul whipping the team into shape for the Big Game. Notice: work, serve, continue to serve, eagerly demonstrate, fulfill! Why? So that you don’t become sluggish, lazy! And, of course, this makes perfect sense if your eager service is to the benefit of the gospel. We have baptismal promises to fulfill. We have unplowed, unplanted fields to culivate and seed. To say nothing of the harvest!
So, yes, we must work. But we have a gospel scene this morning where Jesus “works” on the Sabbath and the Pharisees scold him for violating the law. Jesus easily rebuffs their attempt to catch him up by doing what he does best: showing them how his first commandment of love fulfills the law of Moses. Man was not created to make the Sabbath holy. Rather, the Sabbath was created to make man holy. A time for us to do the work of resting, to be with the Lord in solitude and peace when the first work of our daily work is done most ardently—in the human heart. Jesus teaches us that it is what comes out of our hearts that defiles us, makes us holy. Not what goes in. The Pharisees have confused merely obeying the Law with doing God’s work. Is there a quicker way to a heart attack than to work feverish for no purpose other than to get things done?
Obviously, Paul understands this. He’s not urging us to activity for the sake of activity. He’s urging us not to allow our hearts to become muscles ruined from lack of spiritual exercise. He writes that “we have as an anchor in our soul” the promise of Christ’s work on the cross. The heavy lifting of hope, the constant repetitions of love, the crunches of faith—these are the contant soul-building exercises of the Christian. Whenever you do them, you do them on the Sabbath.
Scarce this week...
Light posting this week!
I'm starting to feel the bad effects of going w/o my HBP meds. Crankier than usual (is that really possible?)
Homily due for tomorrow's Mass. Look for the podcast too. . .
Last Sunday's homily due. . .
Paper due Thursday. . .
Weekend trip starting Friday. . .
Good News: my Liguori Press editor liked the proposal and the sample litanies I sent. If I can get the full manuscript to her by May, the book will be available August 2009!
Speaking of books, thanks for the recent activity on the WISH LIST!
I'm starting to feel the bad effects of going w/o my HBP meds. Crankier than usual (is that really possible?)
Homily due for tomorrow's Mass. Look for the podcast too. . .
Last Sunday's homily due. . .
Paper due Thursday. . .
Weekend trip starting Friday. . .
Good News: my Liguori Press editor liked the proposal and the sample litanies I sent. If I can get the full manuscript to her by May, the book will be available August 2009!
Speaking of books, thanks for the recent activity on the WISH LIST!
17 January 2009
Just another pro-abortion politician
Let's put to rest this notion that the Born Alive Protection Act was kind of devious GOP trick to force poor B.O. to vote against one of his largest bankrollers, the abortion industry. This vid is a side by side comparison of the Illinois state bill and the federal bill. In the vid B.O. states that he supported the federal bill (to assist infants who survive an abortion) but opposed the state bill b/c it was "constitutionally flawed." The vid clearly shows that except for a few P.C. touches on inclusive language, the two bills were identical.
So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.
What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.
In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.
And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."
Like I said: just another politician.
So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.
What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.
In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.
And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."
Like I said: just another politician.
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
What!? No lashing out?! No cracking down?!
Imagine that!
I don't think the Demonic Overlords of the Decrepit Media are gonna be happy about this. . .
An article from the leftie-media about the Vatican that doesn't contain the words "crackdown," "lashes out," "silences," or "condemns."
You can't trust anyone to be consistent these days.
You can't trust anyone to be consistent these days.
I don't think the Demonic Overlords of the Decrepit Media are gonna be happy about this. . .
Insanity: me & Italian Customs (Updated)
Update (09/27/10): PLEASE, help me understand why this post is getting hundreds of hits a week! If you found this post thru a search engine or linked on another site, could you drop me a comment? I'm very curious about why this post is so popular.
I am surrendering to Italian Customs and asking them to simply return my meds to the U.S.
Their demands for documentation proving medical necessity are obscene and even if I managed to put together the stacks of proof they want, I can only keep a one month supply of each med.
I give up.
75 days before I return to the U.S. I may just decide to stay.
Challenge: why reduce but not outlaw?
A quick challenge to those who support the "reduce the numbers but don't outlaw" with regard to abortion:
You hold that abortion should remain legal but that we should find ways to reduce the number of abortions. Why do you think the reduction of the number of abortions is a worthy goal?
For the sake of the argument, ignore the option of both outlawing abortion and working to reduce the number of abortions (this is the Church's position).
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
You hold that abortion should remain legal but that we should find ways to reduce the number of abortions. Why do you think the reduction of the number of abortions is a worthy goal?
For the sake of the argument, ignore the option of both outlawing abortion and working to reduce the number of abortions (this is the Church's position).
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
16 January 2009
Done, doing, will be done. . .%$#@ posteitaliane
OK. . .
The thesis outline is done and submitted. . .the project I'm proposing is WAYYYY too big for a 70 page thesis. . .
The book proposal for Liguori Publications is due tomorrow. . .so, work, work, work. . .
Yes, there will be a Sunday homily. . .
The thesis outline is done and submitted. . .the project I'm proposing is WAYYYY too big for a 70 page thesis. . .
The book proposal for Liguori Publications is due tomorrow. . .so, work, work, work. . .
Yes, there will be a Sunday homily. . .
And, just to brighten my day, I received another letter from Italian customs informing me that my latest shipment of meds from the U.S. is being held hostage in Milan. Just for the record: four shipments of meds have been sent from the U.S. since July 2008. I've received exactly one. I have already run out of one med. I'm quickly running out of a second, which is not prescribed in the E.U.
Pray for my sanity.
Pray for my sanity.
15 January 2009
The Folly of a Pro-abortion Catholic
During the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns, Kerry-Catholics and Obama-Catholics argued that Catholics could "in good conscience" vote for these two abortion rights extremists b/c both wanted to "reduce the number of abortions rather than outlaw abortions all together." This alleged reduction would be achieved through "eliminating the socio-economic pressures that make abortion attractive to poorer women." I still wonder how one reduces an undesirable behavior by making it moral, legal, and free of charge? Regardless, last November, some 48% of Catholics bought into this fantasy and helped to elect this nation's first promoter of infanticide to the White House. Yes, our soon-to-be Great Leader believes that it is morally and legally permissible to kill children and/or to let them die if they survive their mother's attempt to kill them.
Aquinas argues that we move from wisdom to folly as we sin. Each sin weakens the gifted-ability of the conscience to recognize the Good and the intellect/will's ability to choose the Good and do it. In other words, in the same way that choosing and doing the Good makes choosing and doing the Good easier and easier, sinning makes it harder and harder. At some point, the conscience is no longer capable of distinguishing between Good and Evil, and our inordinate passions consistently win the battle of conscience as we mire ourselves in folly.
Case in point: Eric McFadden, the former head of "Catholics for Clinton," "Catholics for Kerry," director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for Ohio's Democrat governor, former field director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, past president of Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, most recently Hillary Clinton's State Faith & Values Outreach Director for Ohio, a Knight of Columbus who supported Obama, and a pro-abortion Democrat was arrested yesterday for running a prostitution ring that included minors.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics for Faithful Citizenship are both front groups run by former Democratic Party officials. Both groups provide "cover" for Catholics who support abortion under the conscience-killing rubric of "Catholics are not one issue voters," that is, it's OK to support pro-abortion politicians so long as those politicians support only those parts of Catholic social justice teaching that agree with the Democratic Party's socialist tendencies.
Once your conscience tells you that it is OK to kill your child, running a prostitution ring that includes children is easy-cheesy. The idea is that "on-balance" McFadden was attempting to reduce the number of child hookers by providing them a fair wage. I wonder if he let them unionize?
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Aquinas argues that we move from wisdom to folly as we sin. Each sin weakens the gifted-ability of the conscience to recognize the Good and the intellect/will's ability to choose the Good and do it. In other words, in the same way that choosing and doing the Good makes choosing and doing the Good easier and easier, sinning makes it harder and harder. At some point, the conscience is no longer capable of distinguishing between Good and Evil, and our inordinate passions consistently win the battle of conscience as we mire ourselves in folly.
Case in point: Eric McFadden, the former head of "Catholics for Clinton," "Catholics for Kerry," director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for Ohio's Democrat governor, former field director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, past president of Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, most recently Hillary Clinton's State Faith & Values Outreach Director for Ohio, a Knight of Columbus who supported Obama, and a pro-abortion Democrat was arrested yesterday for running a prostitution ring that included minors.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics for Faithful Citizenship are both front groups run by former Democratic Party officials. Both groups provide "cover" for Catholics who support abortion under the conscience-killing rubric of "Catholics are not one issue voters," that is, it's OK to support pro-abortion politicians so long as those politicians support only those parts of Catholic social justice teaching that agree with the Democratic Party's socialist tendencies.
Once your conscience tells you that it is OK to kill your child, running a prostitution ring that includes children is easy-cheesy. The idea is that "on-balance" McFadden was attempting to reduce the number of child hookers by providing them a fair wage. I wonder if he let them unionize?
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Report: Apostolic Visitation of US seminaries (UPDATED)
[NB. The link to the actual report is now fixed.]
In response to the sexual abuse scandals that hit the Church square-on in 2002, the Vatican initiated in the fall of 2005 an "Apostolic Visitation" of all American seminaries and schools of theology that teach seminarians.
The review boards interviewed seminarians and recently ordained priests in order to evaluate contemporary priestly formation in the U.S. Interviewers asked questions about academic work, moral formation, spiritual life, faculty fidelity to the magisterium, etc. I was interviewed for this visitation just six months into my priesthood.
The final report has finally been released. Overall, diocesan seminaries are given very high marks for substantial improvements, especially in the tightening up the loosey-goosey "it's-all-about-me" formation programs, for instilling a sense of priestly identity in the seminarians, and for appointing strong, faithful priests to serve as rectors.
I am embarrassed but not surprised that seminaries and schools of theology operated and staffed by religous orders are consistently thumped for not making the cut. The critical language of the report is very restrained in pointing out problems. However, that these schools were singled out at all is very, very telling. Like most official documents of the Church, if there's even a hint of negative critical language, it is carrying a very painful slap. . .even if the hand is covered in the finest silk.
Schools run by religious are smacked for hiring and retaining dissenting professors (two areas of dissent were noted: blurring the distinctions btw lay/ordained ministries and advocating for women's ordination); for allowing lay and non-Catholic members of the faculty to vote on decisions about ordination; for laxity in teaching orthodox moral theology; among others.
The report is interesting too for its proposed solutions to remaining problems. Listing the proposed reforms together and taking them as a program, you get the diocesan equivalent of a religious order's novitiate! Excellent.
Time will tell. . .the inevitable biological solution. . .if problems in religious order schools can be solved fraternally and to everyone's benefit, or if it's going to take the delivery of a whole bunch of pink slips.
[UPDATE] I want to draw your attention to Clayton Emmer's wonderful blog, The Weight of Glory. Clayton blogs extensively on issues related to Catholic seminary formation. Check it out!
In response to the sexual abuse scandals that hit the Church square-on in 2002, the Vatican initiated in the fall of 2005 an "Apostolic Visitation" of all American seminaries and schools of theology that teach seminarians.
The review boards interviewed seminarians and recently ordained priests in order to evaluate contemporary priestly formation in the U.S. Interviewers asked questions about academic work, moral formation, spiritual life, faculty fidelity to the magisterium, etc. I was interviewed for this visitation just six months into my priesthood.
The final report has finally been released. Overall, diocesan seminaries are given very high marks for substantial improvements, especially in the tightening up the loosey-goosey "it's-all-about-me" formation programs, for instilling a sense of priestly identity in the seminarians, and for appointing strong, faithful priests to serve as rectors.
I am embarrassed but not surprised that seminaries and schools of theology operated and staffed by religous orders are consistently thumped for not making the cut. The critical language of the report is very restrained in pointing out problems. However, that these schools were singled out at all is very, very telling. Like most official documents of the Church, if there's even a hint of negative critical language, it is carrying a very painful slap. . .even if the hand is covered in the finest silk.
Schools run by religious are smacked for hiring and retaining dissenting professors (two areas of dissent were noted: blurring the distinctions btw lay/ordained ministries and advocating for women's ordination); for allowing lay and non-Catholic members of the faculty to vote on decisions about ordination; for laxity in teaching orthodox moral theology; among others.
The report is interesting too for its proposed solutions to remaining problems. Listing the proposed reforms together and taking them as a program, you get the diocesan equivalent of a religious order's novitiate! Excellent.
Time will tell. . .the inevitable biological solution. . .if problems in religious order schools can be solved fraternally and to everyone's benefit, or if it's going to take the delivery of a whole bunch of pink slips.
[UPDATE] I want to draw your attention to Clayton Emmer's wonderful blog, The Weight of Glory. Clayton blogs extensively on issues related to Catholic seminary formation. Check it out!
14 January 2009
Stopping the Marian madness (Updates)
Question. . .
Answer. . .
I just read on the internet that the Holy Father is trying to curb claims about apparitions of the Blessed Mother. What do you think about this?
Answer. . .
Before I can say anything concrete about this story, I will need to read to the actual papal document from the Vatican's own website. Never, never, NEVER trust the media (not even FOXNews) to get a story about Christianity right, especially if the news item is about the Catholic faith. They are invincibly stupid when it comes to telling the simple truth about what we believe as Catholics. Check, check, and triple check again anything they say about the Church.
UPDATE: John Allen has a few more details on this story. Unfortunately, the link takes you the site of the NCR, so have holy water and the Padre Pio Shorter Prayer of Exorcism ready in order to clean your computer of dissenting mal-ware and the infamously destructive McBrien-Chittister Trogan Horse virus. (h/t: Allan).
UPDATE: John Allen has a few more details on this story. Unfortunately, the link takes you the site of the NCR, so have holy water and the Padre Pio Shorter Prayer of Exorcism ready in order to clean your computer of dissenting mal-ware and the infamously destructive McBrien-Chittister Trogan Horse virus. (h/t: Allan).
Now, generally speaking, Marian apparitions are almost always false. . .they are reported by either perfectly wonderful Catholics who truly believe the Blessed Mother is speaking to them, or crackpots with some high priced rosaries to sell, or seriously mentally disturbed individuals in need of pastoral help.
Does the Virgin appear to people and give them messages? It is entirely within the realm of possibility. However, belief in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and veracity of the alleged messages in no way impinges on the salvation of Catholics. In other words, you can be a perfectly good Catholic, fully redeemed, true, good, and beautiful and never once pay the least bit of attention to any Marian apparition. You can, in fact, actively disbelieve that they occur without eternal consequence.
Why? before any apparition can be considered authentic, the Church--the Body of Christ on earth--must investigate the claims of those allegedly receiving the messages and verify the orthodoxy of the messages. If a message is found to be wanting in terms of its orthodoxy, then we know the message is not from Mary and cannot be held as true. If the message is deemed orthodox, that is, fully in line with the tradition of the Church's teaching on divine revelation, then all Mary is doing is repeating what we already know to be true. If Mary is simply repeating what we already know to be true, then there is no point in claiming that we must all listen to the message. We already have the message.
You will object here and say, "But Father, shouldn't people listen to Mary?" Yes, they should. And she has plenty to say to us in scripture. But not listening to her as an apparition is not going to send you to Hell. Our salvation is determined by one thing and one thing only: the degree to which we freely choose to cooperate in the "once for all" salvific death/gift of Christ on the Cross and his glorious resurrection from the tomb. Nothing an apparition of Mary can say or do can change that.
Well, what about people who find comfort and strength from these apparitions? More power to 'em! Go for it! If an apparition brings you closer to God through Christ and his Church, then I say: buy those place tickets and pack your bags for a trip to see Mary. But you are no more "saved" for going and no less "saved" for staying home. If the Church has declared that a particular apparition is false or the messages delivered are errorenous. then you are obligated to avoid those apparitions. Mary, the woman who said YES to becoming the Mother of God, is the model of ecclesial obedience. She would never tell anyone to disobey those given authority by her Son.
What I have no tolerance for is the false claim that Catholics are required to believe in this or that apparition because the Church has approved the apparition. I was told once that belief in the Fatima message is required for salvation. The only thing the Church says about any Marian apparition is whether or not there is sufficient objective proof that the apparitions are supernatural in origin and whether or not the messages conform to infallible Church teaching. Church approval simply means that it appears as though the apparitions themselves are legitimate and that the messages delivered are free form error. Apparitions that deliver heretical message are ipso facto false. Nothing more can be assumed about this imprimatur.
Scripture, tradition, and right reason clearly teach that there can be no new revelation to the Church. None. If Mary appears and proclaims her Son to be the Messiah and asks all present to pray the rosary, fast, do charitable works. Great. But we already know to do all of that. If she appears and proclaims herself to be the Messiah and asks those present to start consecrating bread and wine to become her body and blood for our salvation, it's Satan, lying to them. There was a Marian cult in the U.S. a few years back that actually celebrated "Marian Masses" where the priest "changed" bread and wine in the body and blood of Mary in imitation of the real Mass. He and his cultists would take a "Marian communion" after the regular, sacramental communion. Some of my own Dominican brothers were involved in preaching the gospel to these people and bringing them back into the Church.
Mary herself was no doubt upset at this blasphemy againstg he Son.
No new revelation. Not from a priest. Not from a bishop. Not from a pope. Not from a angel. Not from the Mother of God herself.
Does the Virgin appear to people and give them messages? It is entirely within the realm of possibility. However, belief in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and veracity of the alleged messages in no way impinges on the salvation of Catholics. In other words, you can be a perfectly good Catholic, fully redeemed, true, good, and beautiful and never once pay the least bit of attention to any Marian apparition. You can, in fact, actively disbelieve that they occur without eternal consequence.
Why? before any apparition can be considered authentic, the Church--the Body of Christ on earth--must investigate the claims of those allegedly receiving the messages and verify the orthodoxy of the messages. If a message is found to be wanting in terms of its orthodoxy, then we know the message is not from Mary and cannot be held as true. If the message is deemed orthodox, that is, fully in line with the tradition of the Church's teaching on divine revelation, then all Mary is doing is repeating what we already know to be true. If Mary is simply repeating what we already know to be true, then there is no point in claiming that we must all listen to the message. We already have the message.
You will object here and say, "But Father, shouldn't people listen to Mary?" Yes, they should. And she has plenty to say to us in scripture. But not listening to her as an apparition is not going to send you to Hell. Our salvation is determined by one thing and one thing only: the degree to which we freely choose to cooperate in the "once for all" salvific death/gift of Christ on the Cross and his glorious resurrection from the tomb. Nothing an apparition of Mary can say or do can change that.
Well, what about people who find comfort and strength from these apparitions? More power to 'em! Go for it! If an apparition brings you closer to God through Christ and his Church, then I say: buy those place tickets and pack your bags for a trip to see Mary. But you are no more "saved" for going and no less "saved" for staying home. If the Church has declared that a particular apparition is false or the messages delivered are errorenous. then you are obligated to avoid those apparitions. Mary, the woman who said YES to becoming the Mother of God, is the model of ecclesial obedience. She would never tell anyone to disobey those given authority by her Son.
What I have no tolerance for is the false claim that Catholics are required to believe in this or that apparition because the Church has approved the apparition. I was told once that belief in the Fatima message is required for salvation. The only thing the Church says about any Marian apparition is whether or not there is sufficient objective proof that the apparitions are supernatural in origin and whether or not the messages conform to infallible Church teaching. Church approval simply means that it appears as though the apparitions themselves are legitimate and that the messages delivered are free form error. Apparitions that deliver heretical message are ipso facto false. Nothing more can be assumed about this imprimatur.
Scripture, tradition, and right reason clearly teach that there can be no new revelation to the Church. None. If Mary appears and proclaims her Son to be the Messiah and asks all present to pray the rosary, fast, do charitable works. Great. But we already know to do all of that. If she appears and proclaims herself to be the Messiah and asks those present to start consecrating bread and wine to become her body and blood for our salvation, it's Satan, lying to them. There was a Marian cult in the U.S. a few years back that actually celebrated "Marian Masses" where the priest "changed" bread and wine in the body and blood of Mary in imitation of the real Mass. He and his cultists would take a "Marian communion" after the regular, sacramental communion. Some of my own Dominican brothers were involved in preaching the gospel to these people and bringing them back into the Church.
Mary herself was no doubt upset at this blasphemy againstg he Son.
No new revelation. Not from a priest. Not from a bishop. Not from a pope. Not from a angel. Not from the Mother of God herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)