Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 20 mar 

Coronavirus. Two Church Pastors, Two Styles. Their Words Compared

*

On the same day of Wednesday March 18, Pope Francis and Cardinal Camillo Ruini gave two interviews on the coronavirus emergency.

The pope to Paolo Rodari for “la Repubblica,” the newspaper founded by Eugenio Scalfari.

Cardinal Ruini to “TG2 Post,” the in-depth talk show conducted by Manuela Moreno that follows the evening news on RAI 2.

Here are the transcripts of the two interviews. Let the reader compare.

*

.

POPE FRANCIS: “DON’T WASTE THESE DIFFICULT DAYS”

VATICAN CITY – “During these difficult days we can find small, concrete gestures expressing closeness and concreteness towards the people closest to us, a caress for our grandparents, a kiss for our children, for the people we love. These are important, decisive gestures. If we live these days like this, they won’t be wasted.”

Pope Francis spends his days in the Vatican following closely the news on the coronavirus emergency. Two days ago he went to Santa Maria Maggiore and to the church of San Marcello al Corso to pray. He tells la Repubblica what these days are teaching him.

Q: Holy Father, what did you ask for when you prayed in the two Roman churches?

A: I asked the Lord to stop the epidemic: Lord, stop it with your hand. That’s what I prayed for.

Q: How can one live these days so that they are not wasted?

A: We must rediscover the concreteness of little things, small gestures of attention we can offer those close to us, our family, our friends. We must understand that in small things lies our treasure. These gestures of tenderness, affection, compassion, are minimal and tend to be lost in the anonymity of everyday life, but they are nonetheless decisive, important. For example, a hot meal, a caress, a hug, a phone call… They are familiar gestures of attention to the details of everyday life that make life meaningful and that create communion and communication amongst us.

Q: Isn’t it how we always live?

A: Sometimes, we only experience a virtual form of communication with one another. Instead, we should discover a new closeness. More concrete relationships made of attention and patience. In their homes, families often eat together in great silence, but not as a result of listening to each other, rather because the parents watch television while they eat, and children are on their mobile phones. They look like monks, all isolated from each other. Here there is no communication, whereas listening to each other is important because that’s how we can understand the needs, efforts, desires of the other. This language made of concrete gestures must be safeguarded. In my opinion, the pain of these days should open us up to this concreteness.

Q: Many people have lost loved ones, many others are fighting on the front line to save lives. What can you say to them?

A: I thank those who give themselves in this way to others. They are an example of this concreteness. And I ask everyone to stay close to those who have lost loved ones, to be close to them in every possible way. Consolation must now be everyone’s commitment. In this respect, I was very impressed by the article Fabio Fazio wrote for Repubblica on what he is learning in these days.

Q: What, in particular?

A: Various passages, but in general the fact that our behaviour always affects the lives of others. He is right, for example, when he says: “It has become evident that those who do not pay taxes do not only commit a felony but also a crime: if there are not enough hospital beds and artificial respirators, it is also their fault.” I was very impressed by this.

Q: How can those who do not have faith have hope in days like these?

A: They are all God’s children and are looked upon by Him. Even those who have not yet met God, those who do not have the gift of faith, can find their way through this, in the good things they believe in: they can find strength in love for their children, for their family, for their brothers and sisters. One can say: “I cannot pray because I do not believe.” But at the same time, however, he can believe in the love of the people around him, and thus find hope.

(Translated by Luis E. Moriones)

*

.

RUINI: “THE RISEN CHRIST IS OUR GREAT HOPE”

Q: Cardinal, in this emergency Italy has perhaps also rediscovered the small treasures that are hidden inside our homes. Is this so?

A: Yes, I believe that this truly tragic moment is leading us to rediscover the importance of the relationship with God and therefore of prayer. At least that is how I am living it: a moment in which I wholeheartedly entrust myself to the Lord and his mercy.

Q:  But how can we turn this dramatic moment into a resource, a rediscovery of our humanity as well, of our sentiments, of mutual assistance?

A: I believe that this moment is driving us to solidarity. We all understand that we are in the same boat, that we must try to help each other, because this is a matter of life or death. And here again faith can be of great help, because faith tells us precisely this, that we are all brothers, children of one Father, who watches over us. And we must believe in this, believe that we are not alone, not only because there are other people with us, but also because in the face of death the Christian knows that death does not have the last word. This must be said, because when one speaks of hundreds of dead, and naturally of many people who lose their loved ones, this question inevitably arises: does everything end with death? Or is death a passage, which is sorrowful, dramatic, but towards life? This is why the risen Christ is our great hope, he is the point of reference. Let us cling to him! Let us believe in him!

Q:  Many of the faithful are also a little disoriented right now, because to avoid contagion they cannot even meet God in church. What is the comfort that we can give to those who cannot actually live their religiosity, their faith in church?

A: I believe that we can find God in our conscience. Jesus said: when you pray, shut yourself in your room and pray. External circumstances are important, of course, going to church is important, but above all the inner relationship with God is important.

I would like to emphasize the importance of trust. We must not lose trust. It is true that this coronavirus has somewhat defeated us, for now. But it is also true that man will be able to win. He will be able to win through mutual solidarity, of course, but also through his ingenuity, the ingenuity of man who comes from God and who will also bring us to find remedies for the coronavirus. Whether it’s a treatment, a vaccine, or whatever it is, I don’t know when this will happen but I am convinced that we will also overcome the coronavirus, and for this we must have trust and ask the Lord to make the best use of the capacities he has given us.

Q:  We saw last Sunday the images of Pope Francis on the deserted streets of Rome, we saw him pray in front of the Crucifix of St. Marcellus, at St. Mary Major. And today he released an interview with “la Repubblica” in which he spoke of the concreteness of the little things, of turning this isolation into the discovery of a treasure. The exhortation was in the title: “Do not waste these difficult days.” How does one do this, cardinal?

A: These days offer us new spaces. While we are stuck at home, while we have to give up our usual activities, we have more time to devote ourselves to other things. And one of these is certainly rediscovering mutual relationships, rediscovering our affections, our friendships, the values ​​that keep us united. And as I said before, the rediscovery of our relationship with the Lord goes along the same lines. So in this way we can certainly turn to the good, turn into value, even those things that we must undergo to respect the rules and to fight the coronavirus. I would also like to say that it is very important that, as the pope said, each of us try to do everything possible, that each of us know that it is also his responsibility. Every man is free, every man is responsible. We must be aware of this and never let ourselves go. Unfortunately, there are also very negative examples – we must say it in this circumstance – of people who are taking advantage of the disaster to try to gain some paltry personal economic advantage. But in the face of this there are many positive testimonials, we think of doctors, nurses, but not only them. Well, our freedom is in part responsible for this. We are free persons, we can consciously decide to make good use of all the resources we have, also in the sense of solidarity and help for those who need us most.

Q:  Cardinal, many people are leaving us on account of this cursed virus, and the saddest thing is that they go off in solitude. Often there is not even the possibility of having a funeral.

A: This is really very sad: not being able to be close to loved ones who are leaving us. We hope that the people who are there, the doctors, the nurses, say a good word to them, that through them they may feel that they are not abandoned. And above all I would like to pray to the Lord to make them feel that he is close and waiting for them, like the Father waiting for his son who returns home, as the Father in the parable was waiting for the prodigal son, as Abraham was waiting for the poor Lazarus who was dying.

•  20 marzo 2020
•  English

Who Defines Fundamental Human Rights?

David Carlin

FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 2020

People who (like me and, I suppose, most readers of The Catholic Thing) object to the Roe v. Wade ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 – the ruling that declared that the U.S. Constitution contains a right to abortion – often point out that despite reading the Constitution very carefully, often with a magnifying glass, we can find no mention in it of a right to abortion.

We find rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press and freedom of religion; we find a right to bear arms; we find a right to trial by jury; we find a right to vote; we find a right not to be a slave; we find a right to purchase alcoholic beverages; and so on.  But we find no right to abortion.

Therefore, we conclude that there is no such Constitutional right.  We conclude that the Court invented this “right.”  The Court, by a 7-2 margin, made it up.  It didn’t make it up exactly out of thin air.  No, it made it up out of the very thick air of sexual revolution that was characteristic of the cultural atmosphere of the sixties and seventies.

The younger generation had discovered sexual freedom, which to be complete required freedom of abortion; and so seven of the nine old men of the Court (no women in those days) decided to show that they too, despite their advanced corporeal age, were young in spirit.

We conclude also that once the Court decided it has the authority to make up a right to abortion, thereby amending the Constitution in a manner that bypasses the amendment process spelled out in the Constitution itself (Article V), it could make further illicit amendments by “finding” other nonexistent rights.  For instance, it could find a right to homosexual practice (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003; a 6-3 ruling).  And it could find a right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015; a 5-4 ruling).

Unless the Court changes its ways (which it might if it has a stable conservative or “originalist” majority), we expect that in the not-too-distant future it will “find” in the Constitution a “right” to polygamy, a right to be euthanized, and a right to be transgender.

Those on the other side, the liberal side, however, who deplore our literal and narrow-minded reading of the Constitution, those who hold that we have a “living” Constitution – enthusiasts for abortion and homosexuality and transgenderism and euthanasia – can argue that un-Constitutional “rights” we object to actually are alluded to in the Constitution.

Where?  In the Ninth Amendment, which says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  Without question, this sentence implies that there are at least a few other rights, perhaps many, besides those enumerated.

So there you have it.  All human rights (or “fundamental human rights” as we are now in the habit of calling them) are protected by the Ninth Amendment.  If abortion or same-sex “marriage,” or euthanasia is a human right, then these rights are implicitly contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Now, I agree that all human rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment.  For example, if there is a fundamental human right to ride a horse down Main Street while totally naked, then this right (let us call it the Lady Godiva rrght) is protected by the Ninth Amendment.

But who decides what is, and what is not, a fundamental human right?  Judicial liberals seem to believe that this decision should be made by the Supreme Court – or more exactly by five or more members of the Court.

In 2015 the Court decided by a 5-4 margin that same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right.  This seems awfully odd.  I would have supposed that X would count as a fundamental human right only if mankind generally had so decided, or at least the American portion of mankind.  And it would not be enough for all Americans to decide that X is a fundamental right by a narrow margin; an overwhelming margin would be required.

And not merely an overwhelming margin on this or that particular day or year, but an overwhelming margin for a long, long time, perhaps for centuries.  Or so it seems to me.

But judicial liberals tell me I’m wrong.  They think a 5-4 Supreme Court majority is sufficient to establish X or Y or Z as a fundamental human right.  And then they appeal to the principle of stare decisis to argue that, once X or Y or Z has been established as a fundamental human right, it can never be dis-established.

This gives liberals a great tool for enacting whatever may be their public policy agenda – not through legislatures but through courts.  Would you like America to have a $100 per hour minimum wage?  Well, if you can get a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court to declare that workers have a fundamental human right to be paid $100 per hour, then everybody will have to be paid at least $100 per hour.

This is a far-fetched example, I admit.  But there are many other potential examples that are not at all far-fetched.  In fact they are waiting just around the corner.  Like polygamy.  Like euthanasia.  Like transgenderism.

I’m an old man, and I’ve been living in the USA for a long, long time.  I should feel at home here by now.  But I feel on some days that I’m a stranger in a strange land.  On those days, I find it hard to believe that a majority, probably a large majority, of my compatriots seem to agree that fundamental human rights can be discovered by a 5 to 4 vote of a panel of judges – something that seems to me to be an utter absurdity.

Ah well.  This is perhaps one more bit of evidence that I have lived past my expiration date.  Take me off the shelf.

*Image: Justices of the Supreme Court (1972). Front row: Potter Stewart, William O. Douglas, (Chief Justice) Warren E. Burger, William J. Brennan Jr. and Byron R. White. Back row: Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, and William H. Rehnquist. [Getty Archive]

© 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

MARCH 20, 2020

The Happy Throuple Buys a Home

ANNE HENDERSHOTT

The Happy Throuple Buys a Home

While the supporters of same-sex marriage dismissed claims from critics who predicted that once the Supreme Court opened the door to same-sex marriage in Obergefell in 2015, it would only be a matter of time before polygamous marriages would begin to be normalized. And although there are still laws against polygamy, polyamorous marriages are already being celebrated on mainstream cable television, in the media, and in the entertainment industry.  Polyamorous marriage even made a brief debut in the halls of Congress when the openly bisexual California Representative Katie Hill proudly promoted polyamory—before she resigned under the cloud of an impending ethics investigation over campaign finance violations.

The once conservative HGTV—the same network that brought us the much-loved Fixer Upper, featuring the joyful evangelical family of  Chip and Joanna Gaines—is now  promoting what the producers have called a “throuple,” i.e., a man and two women in a romantic relationship, who are searching for a new home with room for three sinks in the master bathroom. Promoted on HGTV’s House Hunters as “Three’s Not a Crowd in Colorado Springs,” the marketing materials describe a “throuple” in need of a new home for their growing family  and promise plenty of excitement as “the house hunt becomes difficult with only one week to satisfy three very different personalities.” In interviews, the newest female member of the throuple said, “Buying a house together as a throuple will signify our next big step as a family of five, rather than all four of them plus me … I didn’t plan on being in a relationship with a married couple, but it just happened very naturally, organically.”

Well, maybe not “naturally” because there is nothing “natural” about a marital throuple.  Catholic teachings—as well as the teachings of all the major religions—are clear on the sanctity of marriage between one woman and one man.  The relationship portrayed was an adulterous relationship, yet HGTV portrayed the throuple as a regular family with children in need of a new house.  We learn that the husband in the relationship “always knew his legal wife, Lori was bisexual.” And we learn that he was always perfectly fine with that when he says: “This has nothing to do with church and state; it’s a commitment between the three of us.  We are all equals in this relationship.”  Well, maybe not entirely equal as his opinions were marginalized throughout the episode: the two female members of the throuple seemed to make all of the decisions.  In the middle of the house-hunting, the throuple “tied the knot” in a commitment ceremony in Aruba.

While some viewers lauded the network for their openness to diversity, others used social media to express their unhappiness with the polyamorous marriage storyline.  Chelsey Reimann, an HGTV spokesperson, told a USA Today reporter that the network “features all homebuyers.” 

Perhaps. But it is possible that HGTV is simply attempting to respond to earlier criticisms of the network from LGBTQ activists for the network’s failure to highlight more gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples on the home-buying network. It is even more likely that  HGTV is trying to respond to the threatened boycott in 2016 over allegations of “anti-gay bias” lodged against Fixer Upper’s  Joanna and Chip Gaines because their Church, the Antioch Community Church, is a mission-based megachurch led by Jimmy Seibert, who is described by  BuzzFeed as “taking a hard line against same-sex marriage.”

Whatever the reason, it is clear that polyamorous marriages are trending. Responding to the HGTV episode, former California Congresswoman Katie Hill tweeted about the network’s throuple and told followers: “You know I’m gonna take at least partial credit for enough of society knowing this term for it to be on House Hunters.” The term “throuple” first emerged from the halls of the House of Representatives when Hill’s own unique marriage became public in a very messy divorce.  Hill was part of a throuple which included her, her husband, and a former campaign aide. Hill was pressured to resign her seat in Congress not because of her unique marriage but because the House Ethics Committee announced it was pursuing a formal investigation into campaign finances related to her romantic relationship with her campaign aide. Claiming that there is a “double standard” in Congress, Hill promises to promote polyamorous relationships and demand sexual equality for women in politics.

While most viewers of the HGTV episode might have thought polyamorous marriages are new, the reality is that in their quest to “destroy the patriarchy,” the radical feminists of the 1970s attempted to usher in an era of polyamorous relationships.  While it was not successful, it was not for lack of trying. Hollywood released dozens of movies with themes of swinging and open marriage, like Paul Mazursky’s comedy about open marriage, Bob and Carol, and Ted and Alice. The film starring Dyan Canon and Natalie Wood was the fifth highest-grossing film of 1969.  Beyond films, books on open marriage proliferated.  In their 1972 best-selling marriage manual, Open Marriage: A New Life Style for Couples, Nena O’Neill and her husband George encouraged couples to “strip marriage of its antiquated ideals and romantic tinsel” and find ways to make it truly contemporary.  Promising a new definition of marriage without jealousy and envy, the book created a scandal but spent more than 40 weeks on The New York Times best-seller list.  With statements such as “Sexual fidelity is the false god of closed marriage,” the book became a sensation. It was short-lived though, and, in 1977, Nena O’Neill published The Marriage Premise, which was described by The New York Times as arguing that “fidelity was perhaps not such a bad thing after all.”

It should not surprise us that polyamory is making a comeback because it is simply one more attack on the traditional family—or what radical feminists view as the patriarchy.  It is one more way to “smash” the patriarchy.

Despite the hype, polyamory is doomed to fail. In her book Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage and Why We Stray, Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist,  suggests that “open marriages never end up working long-term…The reasons open marriages don’t work are biological.  The parts of the brain involved in romantic love are next to areas that help orchestrate thirst and hunger…Thirst and hunger aren’t going to change anytime soon, and neither is the pair-bonding instinct we recognize as romantic love.  It evolved so our forebears could focus on one person and begin the mating process.” Fisher believes that couples in open marriages are people who “want it all…to preserve their deep attachment to one partner and have romance with others.  They want to be honest about it. But what they don’t tell you is that our brains don’t do that very well.”  Romantic attachments are “hardwired” and the norms surrounding marriage cannot be changed as easily as the sexually adventurous throuples might think they can.

Fisher knows that such relationships are burdened with jealousy and envy.  It is no surprise that California Congresswoman Katie Hill’s marriage broke down in a public and vicious divorce replete with ugly recriminations from all sides.  Hill’s rancorous divorce serves as a reminder that any attempt to dramatically change the marriage rules by bringing back the “open marriages” of the 1970s will fail because we are hardwired to know that these relationships can never work.  These polyamorous relationships feel wrong because they are wrong.  They are sinful.  Faithful Catholics call such marriages “adulterous” rather than polyamorous.  We do that because words matter, and the word “adultery” is itself derived from the Latin root “to alter” or “to corrupt.”  Faithful Catholics know that “polyamorous marriage” is a corruption of marriage—an aberration that will soon be relegated to the same dustbin of history as the failed “open marriages” of the past.

Photo credit: YouTube/PeopleTV

Tagged as Polyamory, polygamy15

By Anne Hendershott

Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Veritas Center at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education; The Politics of Abortion; and The Politics of Deviance (Encounter Books). She is also the co-author of Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are Revitalizing the Catholic Church (2013).

Settimo Cielodi Sandro Magister 19 mar 

Vatican in Disarray. Twice the Pope Gives an Order and then Retracts It

> Italiano
> English
> Español
> Français

> All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English

*

The coronavirus tsunami has ravaged Vatican life and the pope’s schedule. But it has also unveiled serious disruptions in the chain of command and in communication, with decisions first announced and then withdrawn the following day.

*

A first serious incident had to do with the reform of the curia, which has been underway at the behest of Pope Francis for a good seven years.

On Friday March 6 – while the curia was half empty, with all its leaders on a spiritual retreat in the Castelli Romani and Francis in semi-retreat at Santa Marta due to a “slight indisposition” – the daily bulletin that acts as the “Official gazette” of the pope’s decrees gave news of the institution of an important new office:

“Accepting the proposal of the Council of Cardinals and of the Council for the Economy, His Holiness Francis has arranged for the institution of the ‘General Directorate of Personnel’ in the Section for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State.”

The press release went on to describe in detail that the new personnel office would have exercised its powers not only over the Vatican dicasteries and entities properly speaking, but also over all the entities connected in various ways, including the Institute for the Works of Religion, and concluded:

“This is a step of great significance in the journey of reform launched by the Holy Father.”

Over the following hours, the specialized media covered and commented with emphasis on this news.

Except that the next day the Holy See press office retracted everything, issuing this stunning press release:

“In reference to the announcement made yesterday about the establishment of the General Directorate of Personnel, it is specified that at present this is a proposal made to the Holy Father by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Coordinator of the Council for the Economy, and by Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, SDB, Coordinator of the Council of Cardinals, that he establish this structure. The Holy Father will study the proposal and, if he deems it appropriate, will in due time establish the structure in the manner decided by him with a special Motu Proprio.”

All canceled in the span of 24 hours.

On the American portal “Crux” its director John L. Allen, a well-known vaticanista, poked quite a bit of fun at this “epic flip-flop,” explaining how disastrous personnel management is in the Vatican – too many employees, overlapping roles and offices, arbitrary promotions and transfers, a lack of specific professional training – and therefore how demanding and feared its reform must be, rung out by the drumbeat of the first of the two releases.

The fact is that the new personnel office died even before it was born, further aggravating the confusion.

Supposing, in fact, that the Vatican press office did not invent anything, it is only from the secretariat of state and ultimately from the pope that the order could have come to issue the press release of March 6. As well as the order to retract, the following day.

An unfortunate day, that Friday March 6. Francis was scheduled on that very day to make a surprise visit to Portacomaro, the village in Piedmont from which his grandparents and father emigrated to Argentina and where some of his relatives still live.

But in the end the trip was canceled. In this case, however, it was nobody’s fault that the pope had a cold.

*

A second sensational incident had to do directly with the coronavirus pandemic.

On March 8, the second Sunday of Lent, the Italian episcopal conference suspended for the whole country the celebration of Mass with the faithful present, but left the churches open.

The ordinance of the CEI does not concern Vatican City. Two days later, however, on Tuesday March 10, the press office of the Holy See announcedthat “as of today, the Square and Basilica of Saint Peter will remain closed to guided visits and tourists.”

The ban still seemed to allow the ordinary faithful access to the square and basilica. But in fact this did not happen, because at the entrance gates to the square the Italian police blocked everyone’s way, except for proven work needs.

On March 13, however, Cardinal Angelo Comastri, archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, stated to Vatican News, the online portal of the Holy See:

“I want to clarify that the Basilica of Saint Peter has always been open these days, never closed, from 7 in the morning until 6 in the evening. Clearly people have difficulty coming, but the few who do come pray.”

One can imagine that these rare faithful arrive not from the square, which is blocked off, but from inside Vatican City.

But why did Cardinal Comastri feel such an urgency to declare that St. Peter’s Basilica “has always been open these days, never closed?”

Because that same Friday March 13 and the previous Thursday the 12th were two hectic days in Rome and at the Vatican.

At noon on March 12, the cardinal vicar for the diocese of Rome, Angelo De Donatis, had issued a decree that not only confirmed the suspension of Masses but ordered the complete closure of all the churches of the diocese of which the pope is bishop, and as a result also of those located within the Vatican borders, until April 3.

Except that the following morning, Friday March 13, at the beginning of the Mass that he celebrated in solitude at Santa Marta and that was streamed – like every morning in these times of calamity – Pope Francis practically disavowed that ordinance. In these words:

“Drastic measures are not always good. For this let us pray: that the Holy Spirit may give pastors the capacity and the pastoral discernment so that they may provide measures that do not leave the holy faithful people of God alone.”

Not only that. On the same morning came an appearance by Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, the pope’s “almoner” and his highly trusted operative arm, who stated to Vatican News, from the entrance of the church of Santa Maria Immacolata of which he is rector, in the Esquiline district of Rome: “It is my right to guarantee an open church for the poor, and so I came here at 8 this morning and opened wide the door.” And as if that were not enough he added in an interview with “Crux”: “It is an act of disobedience, yes. This is an act that should bring courage to other priests.”

Floored by this deadly double broadside – with the addition of Cardinal Comastri’s statement on the basilica of Saint Peter being “never closed” – there was nothing for the cardinal vicar to do but retract. And in fact, around noon on the same Friday March 13, De Donatis issued a counter-decree that reopened, if not all the churches of Rome, at least the parochial ones and their equivalent.

Of course in the media, not only Italian, it exploded with a great uproar that Pope Francis had repudiated his vicar, forcing him to reopen the churches.

But unfortunately, apart from rare exceptions, almost all the media had failed to verify what was being shouted from the housetops.

Cardinal vicar De Donatis, in fact, had accompanied his counter-decree with a letter to the faithful of the diocese of Rome, in which he provided another piece of news of the highest importance, which meant that the whole story had to be rewritten.

The extra piece of news news was in the very first lines of the letter:

“With an unprecedented decision, after consulting our bishop Pope Francis, we published yesterday, March 12, the decree that establishes the closure of our churches for three weeks.”

So the cardinal vicar had not decided on the closure all on his own, but had simply done what his role requires of him: executing the decisions of the bishop of Rome, named Francis.

That Francis would then want to backtrack – seeing the many reactions of which Krajewski was the flustered main actor – was in the logic of things, as the cardinal vicar confirmed, a little further on in the same letter to the faithful:

“An additional consultation with Pope Francis, this morning, drove us however to take another need into consideration. Hence the new decree that is sent to you with this letter.”

But there are ways and ways. Francis could have spared his cardinal vicar from being publicly treated by him as incapable, without discernment, insensitive to the poor. And instead this is exactly what happened.

This incident, like the previous one, has laid bare not only the breakdowns of the Vatican communication system – on Monday March 16 communication dicastery prefect Paolo Ruffini was received in audience by the pope – but even more those of the chain of command.

Starting with its first link, Francis.Condividi:

•  19 marzo 2020
•  English

NEWS

WESTEN, OBVIOUSLY FRUSTRATED, TURNS TO PAGAN THEOLOGY TO EXPLAIN TSCHUGGUEL’S FALL

MARCH 19, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The enemies of Pope Benedict XVI are not Catholic in their manner of thinking. And as the facts and evidence of this comes forward, I will be publishing short articles to expose them.

Today’s exposé is on John Henry Westen. In the face of the disturbing news that Alexander Tschugguel, one of the Austrian Catholics who bravely threw the idols of Pachamana into the Tiber River back in October, has come down with COVID-19.

First, let us all pray for Alexander and for all Catholics who are ill anywhere of anything. But I have to point out second, that being sick from coronavirus does not make you a more special person than anyone else. From the facts surrounding Alexander’s infection, I do not think he got sick on his trip to Munich. That is not my purpose of writing.

I want rather to point out these stunning and shocking words of Westen:

It is very likely that Alexander was cursed or that he is a special target of the evil one whom he has infuriated by his holy actions.

So, in addition to praying for him, let’s all do some fasting too since the Lord told us that some demons only come out by prayer and fasting.

Disease caused by demons?

Sick people “have a demon”?

You can cure people of disease with an exorcism?

Wait one moment, this is not Catholic theology. This is paganism and tribal religion.

Catholics believe that God punishes with disease, either the sin of Adam or the sin of Adam and the sins of men. You can fall sick through no fault of your own, and then you suffer for the sins of your first Parent, Adam. You can fall sick through your own imprudence, and they you suffer for your own sins in addition. And you can fall sick through sin, such as through lust, which puts you in contact with disease.

But in these cases, the devils have no role. Indeed, in Catholic Theology devils have no role in causing infectious disease, because such disease is caused by living organisms, of whom God alone is their Creator and Lord. They are not caused by demonic activity, possession or obsession. And there is really no reason God has to ask a demon to move a germ to infect anyone, since He has His Holy Angels to do the punishing.

In fact, in Sacred Scripture it is God’s Holy Angels who pour our vials of plagues upon cities and nations to punish them, not demons. To imply that demons have a role in this is to imply that God is NOT the sole Lord of Life.

I do not discount that a demon might inspire a sick person to infect you by physical contact, but that is not the same thing as being possessed by demons.  If you are sick, see a doctor, not an exorcist.

I also do not discount that there are apparent diseases which are caused by demonic illusions, which medical science cannot explain or cure, but which are cured by exorcism by a Catholic priest, or cured by demons to make worse sort of deception take hold of men.

But a sick person by corona virus is none of these things. And it is profoundly disturbing that Westen has resorted to the theology of a witch-doctor to explain the plight of Alexander. This is a knee jerk reaction of someone involved in a pagan cult, not the reaction of a Catholic to the plight of a fellow catholic.

I know what I am talking about, as at the University of Florida, where I earned a B. A. in Cultural Anthropology I had to study the pagan religions of the Caribbean and Latin America.

So the next time you think to follow the advise of John Henry Westen, I think you should think twice.

____________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the page cited in the article and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

Our First Priority

Robert Royal

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2020

A priest wrote me recently: “I was in church with parishioners until 8:00 tonight, the official closing of all public Masses, devotions and gatherings in the diocese through at least April 1. Many people are distraught at the loss of the sacraments. It’s an eerie thing for a priest and pastor not to be a part of these graces in the lives of his people. One of our parishioners is in hospice and I’m prevented from visiting. Happily at least I brought him the last sacraments a few days ago, but still. . . .”

He goes on: “It’s funny. We’re completely shut down and I’m more swamped with calls, emails, and individual meetings, than ever. Let alone implementing ‘creative’ ways to stay in touch, support, pray with, and encourage parishioners. Both last night and in these last two days, I’ve noticed two general attitudes. The first is a beautiful, genuine  (and sad) upset at not having access to the sacraments. The second is a disturbing fear and anxiety over the virus and the unknown future. The former is good, the latter may be understandable, but it’s hard to deal with. And this only a few days in!”

Amid the wall-to-wall coverage of the Coronavirus pandemic and, in Catholic circles, discussions about what the Church’s response should be, this frustration among priests – the good priests – has gone all but unnoticed. Note: the frustration here is a wish to be with the people, but uncertainty how, precisely, to do that without doing harm.

Several priests have written me to say they want to get out there, boldly (at least ten priests have died from the virus in Italy). And in some places – my own parish, for example – priests are trying “creative” ways to hear Confessions that (we hope) won’t put parishioners or themselves at risk.

But public health officials have been right to warn priests that they could spread the virus, if they come into frequent contact with numbers of the sick.

Even casual contact can bring trouble. Our friend and colleague Fr. Gerald Murray is currently in self-quarantine. He explains on his Facebook page:

Dear friends,

I was informed this morning that one of our parishioners tested positive for coronavirus and is in an isolation unit at NYU Langone. She is an elderly woman. I visited her at her apartment on March 10th and sat at her dining room table.

As a precaution I am self-isolating at the rectory for the next two weeks. The rectory will be closed and the employees will not come into work.

I feel fine, except for being somewhat tired, which may be due to my sprained ankle (which is getting better) and the general strain of these days. I am not coughing, do not have a fever and have no breathing problems.

Please pray for my parishioner and for all the sick.

In these circumstances, we all have to be patient with misfires and outright failures. And for a certain amount of puzzlement, even among those who mean well. (The cowardly and corrupt, at a time like this, are beneath notice.)

One thing that must not happen, however, is for the Church to demote her saving truths about human life in the face of widespread sickness and death. Since all 7.5 billion people currently living on earth must die, sooner or later, that would be a spiritual pandemic far more deadly than the virus.

An astute woman who has written for The Catholic Thing just sent me this:

I don’t know if you read [Washington D.C.] Archbishop [Wilton] Gregory’s official statement in the coronavirus section of the archdiocesan website about suspending public Masses. I am bringing this to your attention (if you haven’t seen it) not because of the decision, which can be argued about either way, but because of the kind of slip of the mask which is all too tiresomely familiar with official statements from Catholic churchmen nowadays: [emphasis added]

“We are aware of the rapidly developing district and state guidelines regarding the coronavirus.  My number one priority as your Archbishop is to ensure the safety and health of all who attend our Masses, the children in our schools, and those we welcome through our outreach and services. Please know that this decision does not come lightly to close our schools or cancel Masses.”

Did you get his number one priority as Archbishop? And no one flagged that when he or someone else wrote it, or told him he should qualify that a bit and include something about care of souls and such. They don’t believe – they keep letting that out all the time.

She’s absolutely right. It’s precisely in times like these, when people are making large public statements, that their fundamental assumptions are revealed.

Two weeks ago, before the current fears about the virus – it seems like decades have passed since then – I wrote here about how calling safety “our number one priority” has become a sign of covert materialism decadence. During a pandemic, safety should, of course, not be last. But we should be able to expect that our Catholic leaders will not speak of “our number one priority” as do the political heathens.

Our modern medical systems can do a great deal, given long experience with infectious diseases, to minimize human suffering and death.

The Church has long experience, too, millennia dealing with sin and redemption, life and death (even pandemics), this world and the world to come. One of the great fictional accounts of such experiences is Alessandro Manzoni’s The Betrothed, perhaps the greatest Catholic novel ever written, a kind of Catholic War and Peace.

Words matter. Actions also – like public prayers, processions, penitence, reparation (a word from Fatima).

Pope Francis did a great thing in making a pilgrimage to special places of prayer in Rome last week on behalf of all those suffering from the pandemic. He’s called upon people around the world to say a Rosary together this evening at 9 PM Rome time, 4 PM Eastern time (United States).

We should all imitate and carry this further. That is where our strengths lie. Let’s show, at every turn, that even amidst widespread uncertainty and death, our “first priority” is truth and eternal life.

*Image: St. Charles Borromeo Helps Victims of the Plague by Benedetto Luti, 1713 [Bavarian State Painting Collection, Munich]

© 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

• About the Author
• Latest Articles

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press.  The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

MARCH 19, 2020

Celibacy Is a Gift to Priests—and the Laity

MICHAEL WARREN DAVIS

Celibacy Is a Gift to Priests—and the Laity

Few books have caused so much controversy even before they were published than did From the Depths of Our Hearts, a new defense of clerical celibacy in the Roman Church by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Robert Cardinal Sarah.

On January 14, Benedict’s private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, told the Italian news agency ANSA that, while the Pope Emeritus had consented to Cardinal Sarah’s inclusion of his essay in the book, he did not wish to be named as a co-author. “It was a question of misunderstanding, without casting doubt on the good faith of Cardinal Sarah,” Archbishop Gänswein explained, according to a translation by the Jesuit review America. The book’s publisher, Ignatius Press, agreed to list Cardinal Sarah as the sole author of future editions, and Benedict would be named only as a contributor.

Manuscripts of From the Depths of Our Hearts began circulating in the Vatican before the Holy Father promulgated Querida Amazonia, his exhortation responding to the synod. Before the final document was released, someone in Rome leaked a draft of Querida, which was published in the Corrispondenza Romana on January 30. The draft suggested the Pope would endorse married priests after all. The news was received joyfully by the Church’s small but influential clique of progressives. Francis’s most hardline critics were hardly surprised, though many traditional Catholics were sorely disappointed. Francis had long expressed his reluctance to abandon the rule of celibacy, which has historically been regarded as a tier of Holy Orders—a Sacrament that can only be validly conferred upon men.

Then, on February 12, the final draft of Querida was released. To progressives’ consternation and conservatives’ relief, it contained no reference to celibacy or female deacons. Nothing had changed. 

Did an advance copy of From the Depths of Our Hearts make its way to Pope Francis’s desk? Did the pleas of these holy priests, these towering intellects, inspire him to uphold tradition? We may never know. Yet Archbishop Gänswein’s statement, issued less than a month before Querida was published, certainly suggests that it made a splash in Rome. It’s possible that Benedict and Cardinal Sarah saved the Sacrament of Holy Orders before their defense of it even hit the shelves.

❧

The section of the book that struck me most was Cardinal Sarah’s discussion of his own childhood and early ministry in Africa. His village in French Guinea was certainly what we would call mission territory. He recalls that Christianity was still nascent in his village, and he “lived in a world that had barely emerged from paganism.” Cardinal Sarah’s father was only baptized when His Eminence was two years old, and his grandmother was received into the Church on her deathbed.

It was the “radical character of the missionaries’ life” that attracted Cardinal Sarah to the priesthood. These men had refused all worldly comforts for the love of Christ and the people to whom they ministered. They had sacrificed the joys of family life and conjugal love purely out of zeal for saving men’s souls. The young Robert Sarah and his people saw this for what it was: a mark of holiness—one that no animistic shaman, Protestant pastor, or Muslim imam could ever bear. It inspired a devotion in Cardinal Sarah’s people, and planted the desire in his young heart to share their trials and in their graces.

“How dare we deprive peoples of the joy of such an encounter with Christ?” he thunders. “I consider that a contemptuous attitude… The visit to a community by a missionary priest who has come from a distant land expresses the solicitude of the Universal Church. It is the image of the Word visiting humanity.”

Would he have had the same experience with a married priest? Of course not. (“I certainly wouldn’t be a priest today,” he admits.) And there’s little doubt that his village would not have been transformed into a seedbed for salvation. A married priest could not have impressed upon his new flock the truly radical demands of the Gospel. So he warns: “The ordination of married men in the midst of the community would express the very opposite movement: as if each community were bound to find the means of salvation within itself.”

This discussion of his childhood is also an effective preface to his remarks on the plight of our fellow Christians in the Amazon. Progressives have long insisted that clerical celibacy actually serves as a barrier to evangelization. Think of comments made by one of the Amazon Synod fathers, Bishop Erwin Kräutler, who was born in Austria but served in the Amazonian diocese of Xingu. During a press conference held while the synod was underway, Bishop Kräutler was asked about the possibility of suspending the rule of celibacy in the River Basin. As LifeSiteNews reports, he didn’t beat around the bush. “There is no other option because they don’t understand celibacy,” Bishop Kräutler responded bluntly.

This pessimistic view Cardinal Sarah calls “contemptuous, neo-colonialist, and infantilizing.” “All the people of the world are capable of understanding the Eucharistic logic of priestly celibacy,” he insists. “There is no culture that God’s grace cannot reach and transform.” And this is the crucial point. Bishop Kräutler comes from a culture that’s nominally Christian but has largely ceased to believe. It was transformed long ago; now it’s becoming increasingly deformed. This is the exact opposite of the situation with the peoples of the Amazon, whose souls have yet to be sapped by modern secularism but who haven’t fully embraced the Faith either. He’s giving advice on how to run the maternity ward based on his experience working in a nursing home.

What does Cardinal Sarah have to say, as a missionary nurtured by a missionary Church? “When God enters a culture,” he observes, “he does not leave it intact. He stabilizes and purifies it. He transforms and divinizes it.” This, he notes, has been the case since the apostles first began preaching the Gospel to the Jews and the Greeks. “It is a scandal for the world and will always remain so because it makes present the scandal of the Cross.”

Of course, we can’t expect the peoples of the Amazon to intuitively “understand” celibacy—no more than we can expect them to understand why God would take on human flesh and die a painful and humiliating death by crucifixion. And it is not only futile but cruel to soften the blunt edges of the Faith, as if to trick the unconverted into thinking that Christianity is an easy-going, low-maintenance religion. We’ve tried that in the West, and it has proven a miserable failure.

❧

If the rule of celibacy is lifted in the Amazon, it’s only a matter of time before progressive bishops in Western countries that also suffer from a shortage of priests—Germany, for instance, and even the United States—demand that exceptions be made for their own dioceses. In less than a single generation, we should expect celibacy to become an exception to the norm, rather than the norm itself. Perhaps it will disappear altogether.

This would be a disaster—or, rather, merely a progression of the disaster that has been rapidly unfolding since the middle of the 20^th century. The Western Church has become infected with a spirit of accomodationism. We take every opportunity to make the Faith more agreeable to the standards of our secular and materialist culture. It began in earnest following the Second Vatican Council, when the Latin Mass was replaced by the Novus Ordo and high altars were swapped out for Protestant-style “table altars.” We did away with Gregorian chant and began singing vapid, saccharine hymns.

It isn’t only the liturgy that has been corrupted. Priests feel discouraged from delivering homilies on grave moral issues like contraception and pornography. Social justice, though vital, has taken precedence over sound catechesis. Standards for admission to the seminary have relaxed, leading to an influx of active homosexuals to the priesthood.

What has been the result? Vocations plummeted. The pews are empty. Most Catholics don’t know the Church’s moral teachings; those who do largely ignore them. According to an infamous Pew Research Center poll released last August, two-thirds of American Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence. Another survey published in January by RealClear and EWTN shows that just 47 percent agree with the Magisterium that abortion is intrinsically evil.

The centers of rebirth are found in precisely those parishes that defy the prevailing culture, not those that accommodate them. Never in all my years as a Protestant student in the Catholic school system (grades five through twelve) did I feel seriously inclined to swim the Tiber. Like thousands of other converts, I found my home in the Catholic Church through parishes that celebrate traditional Masses—first at a community of the Anglican Ordinariate, then a diocesan parish that celebrated the Tridentine Mass. I’m forever in the debt of holy, learned priests who wear a cassock seven days a week and preach the full, scandalous truth of the Catholic faith from the pulpit—they are true Gospel radicals.

❧

These are not merely aesthetic differences. They represent two ways of understanding what it means to be Catholic. One (if I may crib a line from Chesterton) wants a Church that will move with the world; the other wants a Church that will move the world.

My mentor John O’Sullivan was immortalized by a rule of thumb he set down known as O’Sullivan’s First Law: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.” I would like to borrow from him, too, and coin a new dictum: “All societies that are not actually Christianizing will, over time, revert to paganism.” Whether we’re talking about the Amazon or the United States, Christianity cannot exist amidst any kind of pluralism. There is no middle ground between God and not-God. So, if the Church is not constantly evangelizing a nation—not only its people, but their culture and institutions as well—she will gradually weaken and, perhaps, disappear.

Pope Emeritus Benedict once called celibacy a “sign of freedom and renunciation of any compromise.” In a more fundamental way, all Catholics are called to take these precepts to heart. True freedom from sin, error, and barbarism is only possible by a renunciation of any compromise with sin, error, and barbarism. If the Church is to flourish in the Amazon, and if she is ever to return to her former glory in the West, then we must be prepared to fight for this liberty without giving any quarter. That is the meaning of “Gospel radicalism.”

But we must be led by our priests, their words, and (no less importantly) their examples.

In a 2006 address to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict warned: “Our world, which has become totally positivistic, in which God appears as at best a hypothesis but not as a concrete reality, needs to rest on God in the most concrete and radical way possible.” By this, he meant the celibate priesthood. And he’s right. Our world has never been more in need of true spiritual fatherhood than it is now.

May the Holy Father safeguard this glorious rule which Our Blessed Lord has entrusted to him. May our dear priests grow in their love for this precious gift He has given them. May they teach us the courage necessary to lead a Christian life, which is a source of constant scandal to our fallen world. And may God’s will be done, in all things, at all times, and throughout all nations.

Image: AFP via Getty Images

Tagged as Amazon Synod, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Robert Sarah, celibacy43

By Michael Warren Davis

Michael Warren Davis is the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine. He is a frequent contributor to The American Conservative and the author of the forthcoming book The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).

Cardinal Collins in Toronto: Daily Mass 7:30AM from St. Michael’s CathedralPosted: 18 Mar 2020 08:44 AM PDTIn Toronto, Thomas Cardinal Collins, following live Mass from St. Michael’s Cathedral at 7:30 EST prays the rosary before the Lord, truly present in the Tabernacle. Live on Facebook daily at 7:30 A.M. EST. https://www.facebook.com/StMikesCathTO/  I note that “some” bishops, have cancelled confession except in cases of imminent death. Not good. Not good at all.  In Toronto, it is by appointment and at a suitable confidential distance. His Eminence makes eminent sense. May God bless him and keep him healthy. Cardinal’s Message on COVID-19 – March 17, 2020  Tuesday, March 17, 2020  My dear faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto,I wish to provide you with a further update on our response as a Christian community to the COVID-19 situation which is evolving rapidly. Today, the Premier of Ontario has declared a state of emergency. Once again in the history of our archdiocese we are in the midst of an epidemic. I am deeply grateful for the priests, deacons and lay pastoral workers of the archdiocese who have acted in this emergency with such loving pastoral care. We are called to ensure that this continues even more in the time ahead. For example, I encourage all pastors to organize the members of their parish to assist those who are isolated and vulnerable, especially the elderly, while always following the directions of the health authorities. For the duration of this health emergency, I decree that the following be implemented in all parishes, missions and chaplaincies throughout the Archdiocese of Toronto:Mass – In view of the requirements of the Government of Ontario, during this medical emergency, beginning Tuesday, March 17, 2020, I instruct that all public Masses be cancelled, both during the week and on the weekend. Churches will be available for individual private prayer.The priests of the archdiocese will celebrate Mass every day privately for the intentions of the people.The faithful will be able to watch, via livestream, a Mass which will be celebrated every day at 7:30 a.m. at St. Michael’s Cathedral Basilica, which will be followed by the Angelus and the Rosary. I will personally celebrate this Mass as much as is possible. This Mass, Rosary and Angelus will also be available on the Archdiocese of Toronto’s YouTube channel for those who cannot join at 7:30 a.m. These Masses and prayers will be offered for the intentions of everyone as we go through these trying times. In addition, Mass will be broadcast daily on Salt & Light Catholic Media Foundation, VisionTV (Daily TV Mass) and EWTN.So many of our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world are deprived of the opportunity to celebrate the Holy Eucharist, for many reasons. Due to this health emergency we also will now experience their suffering. Perhaps this sacrifice will help us to cherish more profoundly the great gift of the Holy Eucharist. There is no substitute for personally participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the source and summit of our life in Christ, and we pray for the time when this may be universally available once more.It is important to follow carefully the provisions of the health authorities, but it also essential that our spiritual life be enhanced and strengthened all the more during this crisis. At this time, when we are reminded of the brevity of life and of our own mortality, we are called to go deeper to our spiritual foundations. I encourage all people who remain at home and who are cut off from regular social interaction to engage in prayer – to pray the Rosary, to read the Scriptures and to offer prayers for those who are suffering the most in this crisis. We should also pray for the health care workers and others who are engaged in fighting this pandemic on the frontlines. Baptism – At this time, communal celebrations of Baptism are not allowed. Individual Baptism is allowed with immediate family and following the regulations established by the health authorities. RCIA – I dispense the catechumens from the scrutinies. Information will be sent out later on the Triduum and reception into the Church.First Holy Communion, First Reconciliation and Confirmation will be postponed for the duration of the emergency.Sacrament of Reconciliation – Communal celebrations of the Sacrament of Reconciliation are not allowed at this time. All those who wish to receive the sacrament should contact a priest. The sacrament is to be celebrated not in a confessional but rather in another location, where confidentiality may be ensured and where the distance required by the health officials can be maintained. Marriage – Marriages without Mass may take place with the immediate family members, provided they follow the regulations established by the health authorities. The postponement of the wedding may be requested given these circumstances, but if this is granted there may be a need for revision of the canonical requirements.  Marriage Preparation is very important. At this time, however, marriage preparation classes are cancelled and pastors are to arrange for individual couples to be prepared properly for marriage.Visits to the Sick and Homebound should continue as much as possible. As previously communicated, visiting clergy and volunteers should take direction from the health care facility. Parishes should also take care to contact the homebound and vulnerable.Funerals – During this emergency, there will be no vigils or wake services. The Rite of Committal will take place with the immediate family at the cemetery. There will be no funeral Mass at this time, but we encourage the celebration of a funeral Mass at a later date when it is possible.  Parish Meetings and Events are cancelled at this time.Parish Offices – While parish offices may offer more limited operating hours, they should maintain an active presence in the community and be accessible to the faithful. Parishes are encouraged to follow the direction of the Archdiocese of Toronto’s Human Resources department, providing flexibility for staff as appropriate. The Archdiocese of Toronto’s Catholic Pastoral Centre will also follow this practice, ensuring that offices remain accessible.We will review our emergency provisions regularly in accord with the requirements of the public health officials and we will provide updates at: www.archtoronto.org/covid19. While it is a painful moment in the life of the Church to take these extreme measures, we pray that they will aid in combating the pandemic that has affected so many in our own community and around the world. Once again, we pray for those suffering and for those who are caring for the sick. We are facing many trials during our Lenten journey this year. We take these to prayer, and look for opportunities to be the face of Jesus to all those whom we encounter. May God continue to bless you.In Christ,Thomas Cardinal Collins Archbishop of Toronto

MAIKE HICKSON

BLOGS

Italian Catholics on the ground relate ‘extremely grave’ situation caused by coronavirus

The entire social structures have ‘broken apart’ and the ‘life of the Church is totally broken’Wed Mar 18, 2020 – 12:53 pm EST

• Share on Facebook134
• Share on Twitter
• 15
• Share via Email
• Print this Page

March 18, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Different Catholic commentators from Italy have shown grave concern about the coronavirus and its rapid spreading and are supporting measures that are restricting the virus. In the midst of conflicting debates as to whether this illness is just a little bit worse than the normal flu, they see that it is dangerous and that we need to contain it. As we all struggle to understand this new disease and how to respond to it, LifeSite reached out to several well-informed Catholics who are already living under the conditions of lockout and closed churches.

LifeSite is presenting now the views of those Catholics who have been outspoken in this discussion, among them Professor Roberto de Mattei, as well as a Rome-based journalist, Professor Armin Schwibach, and Hilary White, a traditional Catholic journalist living in Italy.

Professor Roberto de Mattei, a church historian and the President of the Lepanto Foundation, has told LifeSite that he supports “restrictive health measures.” 

“Faced with the Coronavirus epidemic,” he states, “I believe that the Italian line, which aims to protect people’s health, is fairer than that of some countries.” 

“I am therefore in favor of restrictive health measures,” the church historian goes on to say. He also reminds us that in Italy “it is forbidden to leave houses, unless you have to go to work, to a pharmacy or to a supermarket.”

But Professor de Mattei at the same time reminds us of the importance of our spiritual life. He regrets that the Masses are currently abolished in Italy, saying that “in my opinion, it would be possible to authorize them with due precautions. We are receiving extra Missam communion every day from a zealous priest.”SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

“Communion in the mouth cannot carry the virus if the priest disinfects his hands every time he distributes it,” Professor de Mattei explains.

He also stresses that “we must certainly do everything to preserve our lives but we must also ensure the spiritual goods that we need in order to persevere in the difficult days ahead.”

Practically, the spiritual means are: “the daily holy Rosary and Holy Communion as frequently as possible, even extra Missam. But above all we must love the justice of God, because without justice there can be no mercy and God is infinitely merciful because He is infinitely right.”

De Mattei also puts this current crisis in the context of the messages of  Our Lady of Fatima, saying that this is the moment “to remember the message of Fatima, because the divine punishments, which have already been affecting the Church for many years, are making themselves visible to the whole society.”

“It is time to multiply the calls for conversion and repentance and to nourish the supernatural spirit of those close to us,” the Catholic historian goes on to say. “We must certainly insist on asking for consecration to Russia. Pope Francis, or another Pope will make this consecration, but I fear it will be too late, as Our Lady predicted in Fatima.”

With reassuring words, Professor de Mattei concludes his comments to LifeSite, saying that everything that happens “is for the salvation of the elected and for the triumph of the Church,”  adding that “the closer the punishment is, the closer will be the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that Our Lady has promised us.”

‘Entire social structures have broken apart’

Other Catholics in Italy, such as Professor Armin Schwibach – the Rome Correspondent for the Austrian Catholic website Kath.net and a professor of philosophy – responds to the claim of many that the Coronavirus is not much worse than the usual flu. He responds: “Europe is broken, Italy, Spain, Germany. Is that not enough? The current damage in Italy is currently 650 billion euros.” Everything that existed 20 years ago, he continues, “no longer exists.” The “entire social structures have broken apart,” and the “life of the Church is totally broken.”

Schwibach also says that “the measures are necessary,” but they have grave consequences, even an increase of broken families because they “are simply locked up.” “Tonight,” he continues, “France will close, with military in the streets,” just as the Italians “have military in the streets here, too.” 

Schwibach recounts that “it’s not even certain how the supply will be regulated.” 

“I would advise everyone to take the matter seriously,” Schwibach tells LifeSite, and encourages everyone to “take a look at the films from the Italian intensive care units. The videos of the desperate doctors. The videos of the empty cities.” He adds that it is “not foreseeable how things will continue in the financial world.”

Professor Schwibach – who has repeatedly interviewed Cardinal Walter Brandmüller on matters of the Church – describes how “achievements of the last 50 years have been wiped away,” borders closed, and how “politicians first deny and then panic.” The European community, he adds, is gone.

‘The situation in Italy is extremely grave’

Hilary White, a former reporter of LifeSite and a resident of Perugia, Italy, has the following to tell us, while fully admitting that she is “nothing like an expert” but has simply read much on the topic: 

“The situation in Italy is extremely grave. The virus is incredibly transmissible; virologists have said it has between 100 and 1000 times the ability to bond with human cells than even our very worst viral epidemics like Spanish flu. This information is available online, but is mostly only being distributed by concerned people on social media. The MSM is either ignoring or suppressing it. Corona19 does not have the kill rate overall that SARS or other viruses do, but the two factors – extreme transmissibility and the fact that the person carrying the virus will not experience any warning symptoms for up to three weeks – is making it spread faster than anything we’ve seen in Europe in modern times. It’s going faster than any of the great plagues of the past except the Black Death. This means that even with the comparatively lower death rate, the number of deaths overall will likely be much greater than other recent viral epidemics. Sheer volume will outpace the others, and is already.” 

White also provides us with some recommendations for further study. For her, “closing the churches is perfectly sensible,” due to the high transmissibility of the virus. 

LifeSite asked White about some practical recommendations. We reproduce them here for our readers’ benefit:

“Practical things. In our village –  as in most of the rest of Italy – the supermarkets and pharmacies are open. Each family is asked to designate one person to do the shopping and the rest must stay at home. When you leave the property, you must carry a ‘self-declaration’ – a form that you fill out stating your address and where you are going and the reason for the necessity. (This came into effect since the last time I went to the village so I don’t know if it is being enforced.) At the village supermarket, they are open all day so as to avoid creating crowds and queues. They are allowing one person at a time into the shop.”

She continues with her practical measures:

“When I went out last time to bring home supplies, I wore gloves. When I left the shop I removed them (according to surgical nursing protocols, that is, without touching the outside part) and discarded them immediately. I used alcohol-based sanitizer and gloves to use the water fountain and washed the bottles and discarded the 2nd pair of gloves. When I got my things home, I left everything on the terrace and, again wearing gloves, took out every item (each apple, each orange, each potato etc) including the bottles and cans, and soaked them in a solution of 1 gallon (about 3L) of water + 2 tsps of bleach and dish liquid for 2 or 3 minutes. Then transferred the sterilized items to a water bath. Then chopped, bagged and froze in the freezer chest.

This is the normal procedure of many people who live in developing countries where water and food supplies can’t be guaranteed to be sterile or safe. It’s standard for medical volunteers in places where viral outbreaks occur – like Ebola in Africa.

Vinegar does nothing to stop the virus. Use bleach in a solution of water. Soap – ordinary hand soap – is also very effective. Wash your hands any time you have contact not only with a person but with any object a person might have touched outside the home.

Everyone around here is keeping a minimum distance of 1 meter. But researchers have discovered that in a closed environment the virus can be transmitted up to 5 meters away.”

These are voices from Italy. Their situation might be worse than any future situation in this country – due to the high mortality rate they are experiencing. But the transmissibility and even a lower mortality rate will still do much damage to many lives in our country. 

Therefore, it may be better to prepare – both physically and spiritually – for some difficult times.

May Pope Francis do the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary now.

The Holy Mass as a Spritual Communion” 

https://youtu.be/iWorfc3o8lk