Portland archdiocese: Coronavirus or no, Communion can be received on the tongue

“We consulted with two physicians regarding this issue, one of which is a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon. They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk,” the archdiocese’s office of divine worship wrote March 2.

March 4, 2020 Catholic News Agency The Dispatch 21Print

Portland, Ore., Mar 4, 2020 / 06:01 pm (CNA).- The right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue has been affirmed by the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, which noted Monday that the risk of transmitting infection when receiving on the tongue or hand is “more or less equal.”

“We consulted with two physicians regarding this issue, one of which is a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon. They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk,” the archdiocese’s office of divine worship wrote March 2.

“The risk of touching the tongue and passing the saliva on to others is obviously a danger however the chance of touching someone’s hand is equally probable and one’s hands have a greater exposure to germs.”

The office said its statement came after some parishioners had indicated that they had been denied Holy Communion on the tongue, or told that reception on the tongue “has been banned in certain parishes.”

“After consulting with the Archbishop this office would like to clearly communicate that a parish cannot ban the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, nor may an Ordinary or Extraordinary minister refuse a person requesting Holy Communion on the tongue,” the office stated.

The worship office emphasized that ministers of Holy Communion should be “able to distribute Holy Communion without risk of touching the hands or the tongue,” and that “parishioners should also be instructed how to receive Holy Communion properly either on the tongue or in the hand.”

It added that “if Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion feel uncomfortable distributing Holy Communion either in the hand or on the tongue they should be excused from this ministry.”

Many Churches around the world have issued precautionary guidelines for Masses, or cancelled public Masses entirely, because of the coronavirus outbreak which originated in China late last year.

The new strain of coronavirus causes a respiratory disease, COVID-19, and has a fatality rate of roughly 3%. There have been more than 93,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in 81 countries, and nearly 3,200 deaths, as of March 4. The vast majority of cases and deaths have been in China.

In the US, there have been at least 147 confirmed cases in 16 states. These are concentrated in Washington, where there have been 32 cases, 10 of whom have died. Of those 10, seven were linked to a nursing home in a Seattle suburb.

In Oregon, there have been two confirmed cases and no deaths.

The Portland archdiocese’s further considersations followed upon a Feb. 28 memo which offered a number of guidelines regarding possible transmission of disease.

The guidelines noted that Communion under both species “is not always necessary or advisable,” and that “it is left to the prudent judgment of the pastor whether communion under both kinds should be offered.”

Citing the fact that “our hands are often transmitters of the cold and flu,” it said that self-intinction should not be permitted, which is, in any case, “prohibited by law”; that rather than shaking hands during the sign of peace, “a nod of the head and a verbal greeting of peace … may be used”; and that “holding hands during the Our Father should be discouraged.”

Extaordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should, it said, “take special precautions” and frequently wash their hands.

It added that those who are ill are “excused from Sunday worship,” and that the ill “are encouraged to make a spiritual communion.”

Parishes that distribute Holy Communion only under the species of bread “should take the opportunity to catechize the faithful regarding the Church’s teaching about the Most Holy Eucharist, especially regarding the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under either species,” the archdiocese noted.

The archdiocese added that after consulting with Oregon’s public health office, it found that “scientific consensus seems to be that although bacteria & viruses can be found on the communion cup, despite wiping and able to survive the alcohol, the risk of transmission is thought to be low. However, the cessation of the distribution of Holy Communion from the Chalice would significantly lower the risk.”

In addition, the archdiocese quoted a statement from the Oregon Health Authority that “We have thousands of cases of influenza and many hundreds of hospitalizations from influenza right here in the Portland area this year. And we have zero cases of this Novel Corona virus. Right now, a bigger threat to all of us is influenza.”

It reiterated that “Holy Communion under both kinds is not mandatory at any Mass in the Archdiocese of Portland.”

The worship office also recommended “that all parishes cease the distribution of the Precious Blood for the time being and that the Sign of Peace be eliminated or done without the chance of physical contact.”

The subsequent further considerations from the Portland archdiocese referred to Redemptionis sacramentum, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, which notes that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice.”

Immediately to Portland’s north, in the Archdiocese of Seattle, Archbishop Paul Etienne issued a differing set of directives in response to coronavirus.

The Northwest Catholic wrote March 3 that Archbishop Etienne “said that holy water should be removed from fonts” and “that Communion hosts should be received only in the hand, not on the tongue.”

The archdioceses of Portland and Seattle agree, however, that Communion should be under one species, that the sick should stay home from Mass, and that everyone should practice good hygiene and “avoid hand-to-hand contact during the Our Father and the sign of peace.”

The Archdiocese of Chicago also released March 3 coronavirus prevention guidelines, which urged hygienic practices and recalled that the ill are not obliged to attend Mass. There have been four confirmed cases of coronavirus in Illinois.

The Chicago archdiocese also said that there should not be physical contact at the sign of peace, hand holding during the Our Father, or the use of holy water fonts, and that Holy Communion should be distributed only under the species of bread.

It added that “given the frequency of direct contact with saliva in the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, every consideration should be given by each individual to receive Holy Communion reverently in open hands for the time being.”

The Diocese of Spokane has shared a factsheet and guidelines on coronavirus preparedness it received from Catholic Mutual, which advises these adjustments “after a pandemic has been declared”: distribution of Holy Communion only under the species of bread; not passing collection baskets; and bowing rather than shaking hands at the sign of peace.

According to Catholic Mutual, “Communion on the tongue is strongly discouraged” after the declaration of pandemic. The World Health Organization has not declared a coronavirus pandemic.

Catholic Mutual added that “if the pandemic progresses to a more serious stage” more changes may need to be made, such as the emptying of Holy Water fonts, seating in alternate rows of pews, and limits on the number of attendees to baptisms, weddings, or funerals.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales issued guidance on coronavirus dated Feb. 27 saying that in the current stage of coronavirus – characterized by very few cases in the UK and no cases in local parishes – the key thing for parishes to do is to urge that good hygiene be maintained.

The are 80 confirmed cases of coronavirus in England, and one in Wales. There has been one death in England due to the disease.

The English and Welsh bishops also directed that that this stage, parishes “ask anyone with cold or flu symptoms to refrain from the physical sign of peace, taking communion from the Chalice and advise they should receive the host on the hand only.”

It added that those attending Mass should be asked to sanitize their hands as they enter, and that “there is no need as things stand for the Chalice to be withdrawn or the of sign of peace suspended … This advice would only come if we had a very serious epidemic in the UK.”

The English and Welsh bishops advised that if the situation progresses such that there are a number of cases in local communities or a case specifically linked to a parish community, then Communion should be distributed only under the species of bread, the Host is “to be given on the hand only”, and that care should be taken in distribution that the minister not touch the recipient’s hands.

In that stage, the bishops also advise the suspension of the physical sign of peace, removal of holy water stoups, cessation of use of shared hymn books and missals, and not passing a collection plate.

Should a third stage be reached, when there are many cases in local parishes, the English and Welsh bishops said that “Mass and Liturgy in public should be suspended and parish gatherings suspended.”

The Latin Mass Society issued a statement March 2 welcoming the English and Welsh bishops’ guidelines, while noting they “do not take the form of a decree with the force of canon law.”

The group noted that at celebrations of the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, “the Sign of Peace is not given among members of the congregation; the Precious Blood is not distributed to the Faithful (from the Chalice); and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are not employed. In these respects these celebrations already adhere to or render unnecessary recommendations given in the Guidelines for a heightened level of hygiene necessary in the case of a more serious outbreak of the virus.”

The Latin Mass Society added that in Masses said in the extraordinary form, Holy Communion “may notbe distributed in the hand, according to the universal liturgical law applicable to them. Should the spread of COVID-19 necessitate the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, this would mean the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion to the Faithful in these celebrations.”

It noted that “the Communion of the Faithful is in no way necessary to the validity or liceity (in such circumstances) of the Mass. Should prudence dictate the necessity for such a step, the Faithful should be encouraged to make a ‘Spiritual Communion’.”

“We wish to observe, however, that the distribution of the Host in the hand does not appear to be less likely to spread infection than the distribution on the tongue,” the Latin Mass Society wrote. “On the contrary, distribution on the hand has the result that the Host touches possibly infected surfaces, the palm of the left hand and the fingers of the right hand of the communicant, which is avoided in distribution by a priest directly onto the communicant’s tongue.”

MARCH 3, 2020

Our First Catholic President?

SEAN FITZPATRICK

On Ash Wednesday, the White House released a statement from President Trump. “For Catholics and many other Christians,” it reads, “Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of the Lenten season that concludes with the joyful celebration of Easter Sunday. Today, millions of Christians will be marked on their foreheads with the sign of the cross. The imposition of ashes is an invitation to spend time during Lent fasting, praying, and engaging in acts of charity. This powerful and sacred tradition reminds us of our shared mortality, Christ’s saving love, and the need to repent and accept the Gospel more fully. We join in prayer with everyone observing this holy day and wish you a prayerful Lenten journey. May you grow closer to God in your faith during this blessed season.” {This is something you probably never heard about in the media…what a surprise…}
These are remarkable words to come from a sitting president. But then, much of this presidency is remarkable. Donald Trump has ignited a movement that is unparalleled in modern times. His devil-may-care, go-for-the-jugular manner may not always be gentlemanly, but it’s effective. President Trump is not a perfect president, but he may be the perfect president for a country threatened by left-wing madness. As far as Catholics are concerned, his Ash Wednesday message should stand in contrast to the message coming from the Democratic hopefuls of Super Tuesday, offering some clarity in the confusion and a strong indicator why President Trump deserves and needs Catholic support in the 2020 election.
President Trump’s Lenten statement is one of clear, calm Christianity and a call for those acts that America and Americans most need: prayer, fasting, and charity. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are yelling over each other on debate stages and trying to outdo each other in their progressivism as they claw their way to Super Tuesday, united only in a mounting hatred for President Trump as he bravely serves according to his lights and not the entrenched agenda of left-lunging bureaucrats and politicians.
Super Tuesday’s presidential primaries in fourteen states will bring at least one of the candidates closer to the delegate count required to run against President Trump. Whoever emerges victorious, it’s certain that person will campaign for a worldview of political radicalism and moral relativism. The Democratic nominee, whoever he may be, will unleash a fresh barrage of contempt for the President in keeping with the unprecedented backlash of antipathy we have already seen against this man who refused, and still refuses, to play the political patty cake of Washington, D.C.

 ❧The hatred leveled at President Trump is extraordinary—even demonic—as all hatred must be deemed to some extent. Catholics should take good note of this hatred, and also note that all the “right” people hate President Trump—that is, the Left. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as the saying goes, and Catholics should take seriously the call to side against such hatred with the power of their vote. His Ash Wednesday message of humility and living the Gospel is a comfort because it shows that President Trump is willing to speak the truth. It is a message Catholics can hardly hope to hear from any Democrat.
Ironically, Democrats constantly attack the President as one waging a war on truth. These accusations are difficult to countenance from those who deny the truth of life, sex, and gender, the corruption of big government, the results of elections, and even the existence of objective truth itself. When the truth does not matter, but only political posturing, positioning, and party lines, then the one who speaks truth fearlessly will be a bull in a china shop. President Trump doesn’t care if he is that bull—and he is hated for it.
To be fair, the President also has a self-serving streak about him. Self-aggrandizement and self-promotion have been his bread and butter for decades. These qualities are not among those that make a man virtuous. Manners and morals must matter in government; given his track record, Catholics ought to be wary and qualify their support when he does or says things that are not laudable or virtuous.
But we should support him nonetheless. Catholics should admire and respect all that President Trump has done for the cause of life and truth, and prepare to support him against the hate he will face from his opponent. His Ash Wednesday message is one that Catholics can get behind and, in so doing, they should get behind him for Super Tuesday and beyond.
The Founding Fathers spilled a good deal of ink on the essential role of virtue, both private and public, if freedom or a true republic were to exist. Even though President Trump may not be the most virtuous president history has seen, a man with less (shall we say) self-confidence may have lacked the mettle to take on the Beltway establishment.
Catholics should remain loyal to the President while pushing for virtue as well as victory. Virtue must remain the ideal and vulgarity resisted in the same way that the hatred from the Democrats should be resisted. Being guarded, however, does not exclude being grateful for President Trump and—with prayer and fasting and works of charity—to expect that he will continue to act decisively.
Given the dark hatred of Super Tuesday’s candidates and their affiliates, may Catholics play their part in securing a second term for President Trump to make America great again while bearing in mind the words of President John Adams: “No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.” May we grow closer to God in our faith during this blessed season.
Photo credit: Getty Images

By Sean Fitzpatrick

Sean Fitzpatrick is a senior contributor to Crisis. He’s graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and the Headmaster of Gregory the Great Academy. He lives in Scranton, Penn. with his wife and family of four.

Volume > Issue > The King James Bible & the Latin Mass

The King James Bible & the Latin Mass

NO MORE MISSALETTES FOR CHRISTIANETTES!

By Peter Kreeft |

April 2000

Peter Kreeft is Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, a Contributing Editor of the NOR, and the author of over 40 books, the most recent of which is A Refutation of Moral Relativism.

The King James Bible & the Latin Mass

Once upon a time there was a drink that was the most popular drink in the history of the world. It was called Coke. In a fit of inexplicable idiocy the Coca-Cola company decided to change the recipe, the most successful recipe in the world.

In the same era (the Era of the Fidget), there was a car company called Volkswagen. Its product, the VW bug, was the most popular car since the Model T Ford. Yet Volkswagen decided, after many years, to squash the bug. The company went swiftly downhill in sales.

Coca-Cola is still Number One, because the company quickly learned from its mistake. People hated the new recipe, and cried, “Bring back classic Coke!” So the company bit the bullet, repented, and brought back the Same Old Thing, Coke — because people loved it.

Volkswagen also listened and repented — belatedly — and restored its bug design, in a technologically superior package, and won numerous Car of the Year awards for it. It is in great demand again — because people love it.

The world’s second largest and fastest growing religion, Islam, never made the mistake Coke and Volkswagen made. Its primary “product,” the Qur’an (Koran), was never changed, nor supplanted by later revisions. Muslims must learn Arabic in order to read the Qur’an, as no translation of the original from Arabic has been officially recognized. As a result, Muslims know and love the Qur’an far more than Christians know and love the Bible. There is no “confusion of tongues,” no Babel. And no “generation gap” between old and new versions. The success of Islam would have been impossible if the Fidget had conquered the Qur’an. But the Qur’an conquered the Fidget.

There is also no liturgical fidget in Eastern Orthodoxy. If you ask any educated Western Christian what Eastern Orthodoxy’s crowning jewel is, the answer will be instantaneous and unanimous: its liturgy. The wisdom of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has prevailed in the East.

But not in the West. We now have dozens of versions of the Bible and numerous canons of the Mass, and people know and love them less, not more, than back when there was only one version of each.

The two greatest and most successful verbal “products” in the history of modern Christianity in the West have been the King James Bible and the Tridentine Latin Mass. By “successful” I mean well-known, well-loved, and life-transforming. By “greatest” I mean beautiful, worshipful, worthy of God — employing not just language that pleases the human ear but language that pleases the divine ear, language that elevates the human heart and thus pleases the heart of God.

(I omit the other obvious liturgical masterpiece, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer [BCP] because it is basically an application of the King James Bible to liturgy. But a marriage between the Tridentine Mass and the BCP would be a consummation devoutly to be wished for, but almost impossible today because a team of reigning Liturgical Experts [read: Terrorists] would perform the operation and surely botch it.)

What do the King James Bible and the Latin Mass have in common? In a word, holiness.

This holiness is detectable in a language that possesses a specific kind of beauty — a beauty that Scripture calls “the beauty of holiness.” This beauty is a power that carries us along like a wave carrying a surfer, so that we “worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” Such worship sanctifies us.

But what causes sanctification? It is a kind of humble magnificence brought about by the power of the bow. It has been said that “Man is never so tall as when he bows.” The King James Bible and the Latin Mass are magnificent, not as Baroque music is magnificent but as Mary’s “Magnificat” is magnificent — in it our souls “magnify the Lord.” The King James Bible and the Latin Mass are elevators for souls. They elevate us, edify us, inspire us. Why? Because they glorify God, not us. They do not “celebrate community,” as a pep rally does. What edifies man is the self-forgetful glorification of God.

But in order to “work” in edifying man and glorifying God, in order to be sanctifying and holy, the words of the Bible and the Mass must be at least a little strange (like Christ). For “holy” means “set-apart,” different, distinctive, not ordinary, not secular, not to be confused with an inter-office memo — i.e., not like the biblical and liturgical language that has put Catholic souls in a bland stupor for over 30 years, muffling all trumpets. “Holy” means “hieratic,” and even “hierarchical.” Language that sounds like pop psychology might comfort us and make us well-adjusted (to our fallen selves and the world), but we need linguistic “height” to sanctify us.

My radical proposal, which naturally follows from these non-radical premises, is that the Catholic Church adopt the King James Bible, as well as the Tridentine Latin Mass, not as permitted and tolerated aberrations, but as standard.

We would then have the best of both worlds. Protestants are not going to embrace the Latin Mass, but Catholics can embrace the King James Bible. These two beauties can’t be married in Protestantism, which is essentially exclusivistic, “protesting,” and divisive, but they can and should be married in Catholicism, which is essentially inclusivistic and universalistic (“catholic”). This would be a truly ecumenical gesture, using the very best “product” of Protestantism. (St. Augustine would call it “spoiling the Egyptians.”)

What will happen if we do? Well, let’s look at the track record. Until new Bible translations came out, the King James Version (KJV) shaped Western literature, culture, and education as no book except the Qur’an has ever shaped a culture. Everyone knew it. It was familiar, it was memorable, and it was memorized because it was so memorizable. That is, it was arresting, not bland; even a bit strange (like Christ). It had power. It had authority. Paradoxically, it was the very unfamiliarity of the KJV language that made it strikingly familiar. It stood out, like a giant in a crowd of dwarfs.

Then the Fidget went to work. We now have 50 times more versions, and 50 times less biblical literacy. We have more Bibles, but read them less. As translations have multiplied, readership has divided — in complete contrast to the Qur’an.

I have tried all versions of the Bible for private devotions, and find that the KJV “works” the most powerfully. Take for instance, the use of “Thee” and “Thou.” These archaic, non-ordinary, non-secular pronouns, like the capital letters we used to use, are aids both to express and produce the fundamental religious attitude which has been called “the numinous.” It is the attitude of awe, wonder, worship, and the “fear of the Lord,” which Scripture calls “the beginning of wisdom” but our modern religious educators call a primitive superstition to be eradicated from the worshiping heart like an embarrassing sore. Yet until this “sore” returns, the patient (Western civilization) will continue slipping into the coma of Brave New World.

And what works in private works in public too; Catholicism is not an esoteric, elitist religion. In both its public and private worship, Man and God are the two terms, and they do not change when the number of worshipers changes from one to two or from one to one billion.

No other Bible translation will replace KJV as the unifying one. Others have been tried. All have failed. The people have voted with their feet, and at their bookstores.

Perhaps accuracy will demand a few revisions to the KJV — or perhaps just a few footnotes. The old Revised Standard Version almost succeeded. But it too “fidgeted” just a little more than it had to, and it will soon be unavailable anyway, to be replaced (again!) by one without any Thees or Thous. As for the New Revised Standard Version or any translation beginning with the dread letter “N,” forget it. “New” here is a code word for “the first step in being politically correct,” and also for “to be further amended soon.”

The Tridentine Latin Mass is to the new Mass what the KJV is to the new Bibles. We need a liturgical revolution here even more desperately (may Cardinal Ratzinger live forever!). I suggest a simple, radical-sounding step. In the pews we now find flimsy, cheap “missalettes” (“missalettes for Christianettes”), which look as ugly, commercialized, dull, secular, and ordinary as the language inside. I propose that we replace them with lightweight bronze tablets, chained to the pews, on which is inscribed the common portion of the Tridentine Mass. Within a year we will have our liturgical revolution. We will have conquered the Fidget!

New post on Roma Locuta Est The 7th Anniversary of McCarrick’s “Influential Italian Gentleman”by Steven O’Reilly March 5, 2020 (Steven O’Reilly) – Almost seven years ago to this day, the General Congregations for the 2013 conclave commenced. These meetings were attended by both cardinal-electors and those cardinals who would not be eligible to vote in the conclave which would begin mid-March 2013.This may call to mind the potential role played in the conclave by former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, regarding whom we still await the Vatican’s report on his sexual crimes and other corrupt acts. It has been just over a year since the release of the Testimony of Archbishop Vigano, which revealed that Pope Francis had lifted sanctions placed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. Vigano recounted his audience with the Pope in which Francis asked “what is McCarrick like?” The question was, as Vigano notes, deceitful as Francis was a long-time friend of McCarrick. The question appeared intended to determine whether Vigano was an “ally of McCarrick or not.”This was not the first time, nor the last, when Pope Francis would appear to reward or protect a friend. Readers may recall the infamous story of how Francis interrupted Cardinal Muller, as the the cardinal was saying mass, to demand he end an investigation into Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor over an abuse allegation. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, another long-time friend of Pope Francis, is considered one of the key “pope-makers” of the conclave which elected Cardinal Bergoglio. Catholics, understandably, wonder what motivated Pope Francis to lift the sanctions on McCarrick. Vigano in his Testimony seems to suggest one factor was the “important part he (McCarrick) had played in his (Bergoglio’s) recent election.” Here Vigano has in mind McCarrick’s revelation in an October 2013, during a lecture at Villanova University in which he recounted a curious tale. In early March 2013, just before the General Congregations, the pre-conclave meetings of cardinals, McCarrick was visited by an “influential Italian gentleman” at the North American College in Rome. Some have speculated this “Italian gentleman” was a priest or cardinal, others a freemason. However, it is my opinion that the “influential Italian gentleman” may have been hiding in plain sight. Henry Sire, author of The Dictator Pope, is of the opinion this “Italian” was a layman. McCarrick’s reference suggests this “gentleman” was a layman. From McCarrick’s description we may glean some obvious points, such as the “Italian” was probably close to Bergoglio, had knowledge of McCarrick’s friendship with him, and was himself a Bergoglio partisan. Also, as “very influential man in Rome,” it appears his profession allowed him to move in circles which included high-ranking prelates. This enigmatic visitor reminded McCarrick of his friendship with Bergoglio (“I know you’re his friend”) then lobbied him in favor of Bergoglio, saying five years of him would be enough to remake the Church. This “Italian gentleman” asked McCarrick to ‘talk up, Bergoglio’ with other cardinals. The potential Bergoglian interest in McCarrick is understandable. McCarrick could ‘talk up Bergoglio’ with his fellow American cardinals, but more importantly McCarrick was known to be very influential with third world cardinals from Asia and Africa. Curiously, Murphy-O’Connor would later say “the key was getting the Asians and Africans to support Bergoglio.” I have discussed this in greater detail in a prior article on the subject of why McCarrick would have been of value in an papal election campaign for Bergoglio (see The “Influential Italian Gentleman”).The identity of this “influential Italian gentleman” has been the subject of much speculation due to concerns over potentially illicit campaigning by the St. Gallen mafia. Aside from his identity, a couple key questions with regard to this seemingly mysterious visitor include: Was this visitor acting on his own behalf, and thus expressing only his own wishes that McCarrick ‘talk up’ a Bergoglian papacy?Or, was the visitor acting on behalf and with the knowledge, direction, and approval of someone else, e.g., Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, or even Cardinal Bergoglio? With regard to question #1, a “yes” answer does not seem to pose any difficulties. Catholics (or non-Catholics) might have their personal preferences for whom the next pope might be, perhaps based on what they know about a candidate, personal friendship or a mixture of both. So, for the visitor to have expressed such thoughts or suggestions as he did does not appear to me to pose a problem. However, with regard to question #2, the papal legislation governing papal elections, Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), explicitly prohibits “…all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope” (cf. UDG 80).  Was the mysterious visitor acting with the knowledge, direction, and approval of one or more cardinals seeking to elect Cardinal Bergoglio? In his book The Dictator Pope, Henry Sire observes while Bergoglio made a show of being ‘indifferent’ and “making a circus of not wanting to go to Rome” for the conclave, this was far from the truth. Sire cites El Verdadero Francisco which quotes one priest, who dismissing this pretense of disinterest, said “…I knew that he was talking to half the world and plotting like mad.” That Bergoglio took an active interest in events in Rome following Benedict’s resignation announcement also comes through clear enough in O’Connell’s book. Therefore, it is curious that on the day of Bergoglio’s arrival in Rome on February 27, he did not dine with important cardinals but with several Italian journalists. Our only real sources of the immediate days surrounding the resignation of Benedict and election of Cardinal Bergoglio, and the movements of the parties involved are the several books written on the election of Pope Francis. Perhaps the place we might look for the Italian layman who might fit McCarrick’s general description (e.g., a friend of Bergoglio, respected and influential man in Rome, etc) is in these books — the “Bergoglian gospels” if you will. The four main accounts of Bergoglio’s election written by Bergoglian ‘insiders’ include Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s memoir, and the three “synoptic” accounts by Austen Ivereigh, Andrea Tornielli and Gerard O’Connell.  Reading these “synoptic” accounts of the conclave period, a few Italian laymen from Bergoglio’s inner circle do stand out–and these, I believe, are the only Italian laymen mentioned in any of the accounts. These Italians were all journalists.On February 27, these Italian journalists were the ones with whom Bergoglio dined — the night before Pope Benedict’s resignation (February 28, 2013). All were long-time friends Bergoglio, avid Bergoglians, and notable “vaticanisti.” The more prominent of these is Andrea Tornielli, who at the time of the 2013 conclave was a writer at La Stampaand Vatican Insider. In December 2018, Pope Francis appointed Tornielli as Editorial Director of the Dicastery of Communications at the Vatican.On March 1, 2013, according to O’Connell’s book, Bergoglio dined with Murphy-O’Connor. This differs from the late Murphy-O’Connor’s memoir which places this dinner on March 3. This discrepancy raises interesting questions regarding the timeline (e.g., were there two dinners with the two cardinals?) which we cannot go into here. However, O’Connell certainly had the cardinal’s memoir before him in writing his own account, as well as his own interview notes with Murphy-O’Connor, thus I believe — if we must choose one — the earlier date is likely the correct one. It is at this dinner the two discussed the election strategy; the late Murphy-O’Connor’s protestations to the contrary are difficult to believe (see some additional commentary on Murphy-O’Connor here). The morning after the Bergoglio/Murphy-O’Connor dinner, March 2nd, Andrea Tornielli published an article in Vatican Insider, a news site closely followed by cardinals, bishops and the Roman curia. The article was a favorable puff piece on Cardinal Bergoglio which could have only pleased the Argentine cardinal. Certainly in retrospect, one could be excused for thinking that this article amounted to something of a ‘campaign announcement,’ a veritable campaign press release for Bergoglio. The very first sentence of the article gets straight to the pithy punchline of a campaign slogan for any cardinal with a short attention span: “‘Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things..’, whispers a long-time cardinal friend of the archbishop of Buenos Aires.”The widely-circulated article certainly aided Bergoglio. It is known that Murphy-O’Connor used this quote himself with another writer. If Murphy-O’Connor was the first to utter this line, had he been interviewed by Tornielli after his dinner with Bergoglio on March 1? Is that where Tornielli got the quote? Yet, if we accept Murphy-O’Connor’s claims that interest in Bergoglio’s candidacy did not coalesce around the cardinal until after the start of the General Congregations (March 4, 2013) and that he did not dine with Bergoglio until March 3rd, we are left with the distinct–and very amusing–possibility that Bergoglio was himself the source of the quote in Tornielli’s article of March 2nd — possibly from their dinner of February 27! Regardless, McCarrick’s “Italian” visitor used a line very reminiscent of the one found in Tornielli’s article. The visitor said: “If we had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.” McCarrick said the “Italian gentleman” visited him just before the General Congregations, which would place the visit, mostly likely, on either March 2 or March 3, just after publication of Tornielli’s article.It is certainly speculation to suggest the identity of the “influential Italian gentleman.” However, given McCarrick’s apparent role in the election of Cardinal Bergoglio, as well as his rehabilitation by Pope Francis after his election; it is a question of relevance, even if only for the historical record. Asking McCarrick to ‘talk up Bergoglio’ might have only expressed the unknown visitor’s personal preference for Bergoglio as a friend rather than complicity in such an illicit campaign for Cardinal Bergoglio. Indeed, there may have been absolutely nothing inappropriate about such a visit. Only if — and that is a big if  — such a visit was arranged with the knowledge and approval of Bergoglio or another cardinal acting with him, would it seem to run afoul of UDG.Still, it is a curious episode in the tale of McCarrick and the 2013 conclave. One can only hope that someone in the Vatican press corp will put the question directly to the relevant parties above to either rule in or rule out possibilities. In addition, it would be great if some intrepid reporter could track down McCarrick, before he dies, to ask him who was the “influential Italian gentleman” — and who, if anyone, sent him?Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of the recently published Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA) Steven O’Reilly | March 5, 2020 at 7:36 pm | Categories: Current Events in Church, Influential italian gentleman, McCarrick, Pope Francis, Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7YMML-6ce

THE ERROR OF LAICISM

MARCH 5, 2020

FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Vatican II unleashed a host of errors. One of them was laicism.

I am not speaking of the European political concept of laicism, which refers to the concept of a state which is not Catholic or religious in its affiliation, but which is secularist. No, I am speaking about the kind which regards the disordered relationship of the laity to the clergy.

Laicism is the idea that the laity should run the Church or can hold offices in the Church, or worse, that they can be as effective or more effective than clergy in the work of the Gospel.

Laicism as an error is completely foreign to Catholicism. It comes from the protestant sects who rejected the priesthood of Christ as something which men could share by the Sacrament of Orders.

In the English speaking world, laicism is a more common error, because there are so many Protestants who convert to the Catholic Faith but keep the error of laicism, because since they made money off religion as protestant laymen, they want to keep making money off religion as catholic laymen.

Laicism is also common in Catholic Media, because social media is a do it by yourself sort of thing, and that allows laymen to begin to assume teaching and preaching roles which do not belong to them.

Obviously, no where in the Gospel is there the least shred of support for the idea that the laity have any role of responsibility in the preaching or teaching of the Church. Yes, they are to give personal witness, but no, they should not take initiatives on their own.

However, the general corruption of the clergy since Vatican II has made the Catholic way of doing things very difficult if not impossible. Seminaries have become institutions to teach vocations not to believe, to accept modernism and to go along with sexual perversion, so long as it is kept generally hidden from the laity.

For that reason 99% of laity today probably do not have a pastor who wants to convert anyone to the Catholic faith AND knows how to do it AND has the time to organize any effort. He is straddled with keeping the parish running with all the demands for the Sacraments upon fewer and fewer clergy.

But this is the malicious feedback of laicism. Because laicism destroys vocations.

Laicism teaches that a young man can start his own apostolate and get a job maybe in the parish. No need for personal commitment of celibacy or the evangelical vows of religion!

Laicism is also exacerbated by the abolition of minor orders.

The Catholic way of things has in practice been abandoned by the clergy who followed Vatican II instead of Catholic tradition. The way back to catholic practice in the apostolate REQUIRES the restoration of the minor orders, not as mere sacramentals of prestige, but as true apostolates and missions.

A local Church which is properly functioning will then have no lone priest serving in the Parish, he will have several dozen men in minor orders — thus no longer laymen — to help him in everything and everywhere he goes.

Until that kind of way of being Church returns, Catholics who wish to defend the Faith or promote a work of mercy need to be very careful not to arrogate to themselves any authority. They need to be humble and not promote their own views contrary to that of any Doctor or Father of the Church. They have to have the common sense not to support members of the Lavender Mafia, or those in denial about Bergoglio.

The natural inclination of good laymen will always be to always defer to the priest. That is a good inclination, but in times of heresy, apostasy or moral depravity, one must be cautious and prudent. Because true obedience is for the upbuilding of the Church, not collaboration in destroying it.

In the mean time, Catholics should listen only to laymen or laywomen who are citing Church documents and Canon Law and showing due respect for the teaching of the Saints, the Doctors and the Fathers of the Church. Those who play games in such matters, should be shunned.

The error of laicism needs to be stamped out. Authentic catholic apostolates will oppose this error and speak against it. Where this error is not opposed, the result will be the death of the local church.

One of the great effects of laicism is in thinking that Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the pope, because he renounced the same thing which a layman renounces when he gives up heading an apostolate at his local parish. Laicism makes Catholics forget that Jesus gave real spiritual powers of governance and mission in the Church called munera which only the clergy can hold and exercise. The singular of munera is munus, not ministry.

• THE HUMAN PERSON
• SEXUALITY & FAMILY
• POLITICS & LAW
• EDUCATION & CULTURE
• BUSINESS & ECONOMICS

CULTURE, PHILOSOPHY, SEXUALITY

Tips for Talking to Your Kids about Sex: The Middle School Years

MARCH 4, 2020

BY THE CANAVOX STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LEADERS

In this segment, we continue our Tips by turning to the early teenage years, when conversations should be less about the mechanics of sex and more about the philosophy—or the meaning of sex. Remind them that sexual activity can lead to babies, and that babies born outside of wedlock suffer an injustice. Give them more advanced strategies for mind and body safety in today’s world, and balance it all out with positive messages about sex as a beautiful gift-of-self in marriage. 

Early teens (ages twelve to fifteen) experience powerful changes in their bodies, which lead them to pay more attention to their anatomy. Some become interested in romance as well. At this stage, the same-sex parent may need to ease a child’s apprehensions over changes in his or her body and help the child adjust to this new reality (for instance, teaching a son to shave, or a daughter how to use a tampon). The opposite-sex parent can give subtle compliments as teens develop (for instance, “I can tell you’re getting stronger,” or “You look so sharp in that grown-up dress”), presenting the changes as something that signals maturity, without getting so specific that the teen is embarrassed. By this time in a child’s life, moreover, the sex talk should be less about the mechanics of sex—which the child should pretty much understand by now—and more about the philosophy—or the meaning of sex.

Sex As a Gift-of-Self in Marriage.  Reflect with your children about the real meaning of love: “True love is about self-gift. It’s about giving of ourselves to others in a spirit of sacrifice and love. Can you think of examples of people who show they love others by giving of themselves in service and love? . . . Can you think of examples of people from movies or books who show a lot of self-love but not other-person love? . . . Yes, those are great examples! So you understand why we must strive to respect and care for others just as we respect and care for ourselves.”

“Now, you already know that there is one ultimate way to give ourselves to another person, and that is in marriage, when we promise to love, honor, and remain faithful to one person we have chosen to devote all our love to. You see, our bodies have their own language, their own way of communicating this total gift of self. Sex is that language. Sex says, ‘I give myself entirely to you for my whole life.’”

“As you grow, you will find out that some people, including many teens, have sex without being married. However, that kind of sex is like telling a lie. The body says, ‘I give myself entirely to you, and I want to bond my body with yours and possibly have a child with you,’ but the people have not said these kinds of things to each other. They are usually not willing to welcome a child into their lives, and they usually just want to have sex without having to commit to loving one another for the rest of their lives. So basically, they are saying one thing with their bodies and another thing with their words. Do you see why this is dishonest? How do you think this could hurt people? . . . Yes, that’s right. So, you want to be an honest person, and save this act of total self-gift for marriage.”

Why Some Teens Have Sex Outside of Marriage. Your child may already be aware of sexually active peers. Reflect with them about these matters: “Why do you think some kids your age have sex?” Let them try to answer, and validate any truths they already know. “Yes, that’s right. Some teens seek out sex because they think it will make them more popular. Others do it out of curiosity, to know what it’s like. Others seek the emotional and physical high that comes from being sexual with someone. Some don’t want to have sex at all, but they drink alcohol and end up doing it mindlessly, often regretting it the next day. Sadly, many teens have sex to feel accepted or loved because they do not feel fully accepted or loved at home.”

It can be helpful to give examples in reference to either something that has happened in the real world or at school, or something depicted in a popular song or movie. This makes discussions more interesting and relevant. It also lets your teens know that you are not naive to what is going on and you want them to be in-the-know, too: well-informed and street-smart. Be sure to counterbalance the negative examples with positive examples of true love and romance from movies, books, and real life, to offer fodder for their moral imaginations.

Sex As a Baby-Making Activity. An additional message that hits home is the reminder that sexual activity can lead to babies, and that babies born outside of wedlock suffer an injustice: “Would you have liked to have had only a mother and not a father, or to have been abandoned? You see, marriage is what best ensures that a baby has both parents for as long as possible. When two people marry, they don’t just make promises to each other in private. They announce to each other and to all their family and friends at the wedding that they will be faithful and stay together, and that they are ready to raise any children created by their love. This thing we call ‘marriage’ is the best way to make sure that men and women stay with each other and help raise the children they create.” Conversations about subjects like these will help your teen understand why the rules and boundaries make sense and who is hurt when the rules are broken. (This will help you be a loving mentor and guide, and not just a rule-maker.)

Show Them Their Worth. Constantly emphasize to your children by words and many varied actions that they are wonderful, unique, worthy, and loved, no matter what: “You have dignity by design, forever and ever. No mistake or situation can ever blot out your dignity.” Teens who receive these messages from their mother and father will be less prone to turn to sexual activity to validate their self-worth. Never stop sending the message that the sexuality of their bodies is good, that sex is good, and that you want them to be prepared to express their total love to someone worthy of their commitment, if they decide to marry someday. (And if they want to stay single, that’s fine too.)

Body Safety Revisited. At this age, teens usually have a little more freedom and independence from Mom and Dad, so they need to be reminded about protecting their own personal boundaries: “Remember never to be alone in close quarters with an adult, especially someone of the opposite sex, unless there is an exceptionally good reason.” Speak clearly about these matters to both sons and daughters: “Always, always trust your gut if you start to feel uneasy—no matter whom you are with: a family friend, a teacher, a religious leader, a coach, etc. No one is to touch your thigh, smell your hair, expose themselves to you, or invite you to talk about sex or generally cross personal boundaries.” Young men and women need to be alerted to the dangers of predatory males specifically: “You may not feel like you would be attractive to older men, but there are some creepy men out there who prey upon young people. I don’t want you to be naive.” Think about some hypothetical scenarios together (“Say you are in the locker room at the gym. . . .”), and come up with ideas on how to get out of uncomfortable situations. “You do not have to be polite to people who cross boundaries. Walk away; ignore them. Run or scream if you have to get out of an uncomfortable situation. People who disrespect you are not worthy of your respect.” Invite them to communicate anything to you or another trusted adult: “It is not an accusation to simply relay that you felt funny being with so and so.” These are important conversations that will help your teens retain their own self-respect, personal boundaries, and confidence.

Sexting. By this age, many kids have a phone with a camera, and they need coaching on appropriate versus inappropriate photos. Explain that sexting is sending or forwarding pictures or messages that are sexual in nature, or asking someone to send you such images. Explain the very real hazards: “Sexting can put you at risk for blackmail and bullying. It can ruin your reputation and even attract sexual predators. Because texts are never really private, they can easily find their way to the internet.” Tell them not to be involved with sexting in any way, and to alert you immediately if anything like that is sent to their phone. Suggestive pictures of minors involving any nudity are illegal, and teens can be prosecuted just for having them in their possession.

By keeping these messages in mind, you will be well prepared to lovingly mentor and guide your middle schooler on these important subjects. Come back next week for the last installment of our Tips, where we give you some pointers for the high school years.

For hard copies of the booklet “Tips for Talking to Kids about Sex,” from which this article is excerpted, please email info@canavox.com. Other suggested readings about the natural law understanding of sexuality and marriage can be found at www.CanaVox.com.

About the Author

THE CANAVOX STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LEADERS

CanaVox is an interfaith marriage and sexual-integrity movement founded by modern moms who haven’t forgotten timeless principles. Our monthly reading and discussion groups around the world inform discerning women and men with up-to-date research drawn from the social sciences, … READ MORE

RELATED POSTS

• Tips for Talking to Your Kids about Sex: The Elementary School YearsAs a parent, you are in the best position to teach your children about sex.…
• Simple Justice: Kids Deserve School ChoiceRather than cave to self-interested protests against school choice from teachers unions, we should do…
• New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and DadPublished research employing the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), the ECLS (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study),…

LATEST ARTICLES

Tips for Talking to Your Kids about Sex: The Middle School Years

BY THE CANAVOX STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LEADERS

Venezuela’s Alleged Economic Recovery: The Truth behind the Misleading Narrative

BY JORGE JRAISSATI

The Post-Liberal Right: The Good, the Bad, and the Perplexing

BY SAMUEL GREGG

Essences or Intersectionality: Understanding Why We Can’t Understand Each Other

BY ADAM J. MACLEOD

Faith, Doubt, and Self-Delusion: A Tale of Two Feminists

BY ELAYNE ALLEN

Tips for Talking to Your Kids about Sex: The Elementary School Years

BY THE CANAVOX STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LEADERS

A Religious Liberty Ruling That Might Surprise You

BY HOWARD SLUGH

Making the Case for Traditional Architecture

BY JOEL PIDEL

The Long Autumn of Our Content

BY NATHANAEL BLAKE

Friends Clashing—Yet One More Time—On Free Speech

BY HADLEY ARKES AND ROBERT T. MILLER

Truth, Euphemism, and Physician-Assisted Suicide

BY T.A. CAVANAUGH

Speaking with the Barbarians: Maritain, MacIntyre, and Christendom

BY ANTHONY BARR

Humanistic Education for Today’s Students

BY ANNA BONTA MORELAND AND THOMAS W. SMITH

Is Economic Analysis Just a Weapon in Public Policy Wars?

BY JAMES E. HARTLEY

Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes

BY PAUL DIRKS

Science, Sex, and Suicide

BY RANDALL OTTO

“Peaceable and Just . . . Notwithstanding Their Spiritual Whoredoms”: Roger Williams, Civility, and the Freedom of Conscience

BY CORY D. HIGDON

Markets, the State, and the Imperative of Culture

BY SAMUEL GREGG

Moral Truth and Constitutional Conservatism

BY GERARD V. BRADLEY

The 17+ Women in El Salvador: A Case of Infanticide Impunity in the Name of Abortion Rights

BY LIGIA DE JESUS CASTALDI

The Best Practices—and Benefits—of Religious Parenting

BY DAVID DOLLAHITE, LOREN D. MARKSAND HAL BOYD

Understanding the Right to Privacy in the Age of Big Data

BY MATTHEW A. SHADLE

The Supreme Court Is Poised to Deliver a Victory to School Choice Advocates

BY MARK MOVSESIAN

Invoking the Tradition: Catholic Social Teaching in Policy Debates

BY BEN PETERSON

The Irony That Our Creed Is Our Culture: On Reno, Lowry, and National Conservatism

BY ALLEN C. GUELZO

Faith and Family Play a Bigger Role in Academic Achievement Than Race or Socioeconomic Status

BY WILLIAM JEYNES

Bitcoins, Libra, and Your Google Checking Account

BY JAMES E. HARTLEY

Institutions and the Culture War in 2020

BY DANIEL E. BURNS

Thinking and Acting Institutionally in 2020

BY DANIEL E. BURNS

Moral Standards and Legal Enforcement: The Debate on Free Speech, Continued

BY ROBERT T. MILLER

VIEW MORE ARTICLES

SPECIAL REPORTChuck Schumer, Wise Guy Yet his threats against Supreme Court justices are no laughing matter. 

byGEORGE PARRYMarch 5, 2020, 12:00 AM Chuck Schumer at abortion rights rally, March 4, 2020 (YouTube screenshot) 🔊 Listen to this article

First Interview: Head of German Bishops’ Wants More Homosex and Contraception

It’s possible to “open up” Catholic doctrine regarding contraception and homosexual fornication, Limburg Bishop Georg Bätzing said in his first interview as the president of the German bishops.

Bätzing told Katholisch.de (March 4) that “something has to change” in how the Church deals with gay fornication and homosexuals. Catholics would actually agree in light of the Church’s homosexual infiltration.

Bätzing insinuated that John Paul II already made “changes” in his “Theology of the Body,” and Francis “opened the door wide.”

#newsHgcefjyxme

Yes, I’d Become Catholic Again

Michael Pakaluk

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2020

A recent pilgrimage to the Holy Land with Saxum Holy Land Dialogues led me to think carefully about the question of whether today, given the crisis and confusion in the Church, if I were an eager “C.S. Lewis” Protestant – as I once was – I would become a Catholic, here and now, again.

In part, it was because the young professionals I accompanied in Saxum YPS wanted to hear about my earlier conversion to Catholicism as a grad student, so I was compelled to re-examine my motives.  In part, it was because a pilgrimage offers something like the fullest possible means to embrace Christianity for a Protestant.

I prayed in Gethsemane and stood atop Golgotha. I read the Beatitudes in my Greek New Testament, while looking out over the Sea of Tiberias.  I sang Adeste Fideles in fellowship with other believers in the grotto of Bethlehem.  But doing all that, what would I still lack, if I were a Protestant as before?  So I took an inventory for myself, and here is my tally.

First, I’d lack the Canon of the Mass.  This may seem a strange item to place first. Yet I remember clearly that, as a Protestant, it was difficult to find proper expressions of worship.  Almost always, the language used was merely emotional, or merely human, or lacking some essential element.

Whatever the gripes of some Catholics about the Novus Ordo, it remains true that each of the four versions of the Canon of the Mass gives wonderful expression to the essential truths of our faith, and the nature of Christian fellowship, in the context of giving God due worship.  These prayers express quite suitably what one looks for and esteems in the Holy Land sites.

Second, I’d lack the Eucharist.  Pilgrims are aware that a pilgrimage obliterates separation in place.  “Here” (hic, in Latin) becomes the operative word.  Here the Word became flesh.  Here the precursor of the Lord was born.  Here Mary placed the infant Jesus in a manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes. That is, after all, why one makes a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

But the Eucharist obliterates, as well, differences in time.  Our group celebrated Mass in the chapel of the Cenacle. At that liturgy, it was not simply here but also now that the bread became his body and the wine became his blood. And those things, similarly, happen now at every Catholic Mass.

Third, I’d lack the Apostolic Succession.  In saying this, I do not mean merely the commonplace point, very true, that Catholics remain under Peter, and Andrew and James, and the other apostles, just as the first Christians were.  We therefore live under the form of government that Jesus intended and established.  I mean additionally that the Apostolic Succession – with its consistent teaching over time – and the Eucharist are the types of continuity that God clearly cares about.

This point is worth dwelling upon.  When you visit a site in the Holy Land, you often find there, today, a Church.  And the guide will say something like this: “This church dates to the early 20^th century, on a site where archeologists have discovered signs of pilgrimage dating back to the 1^st century AD. The Romans built a pagan temple over it.  Under Constantine, a basilica was built there, which was destroyed by the Moors.  The Crusaders recaptured the place and built a church, which was destroyed by Saladin. The Franciscans sought from the Sultan and gained approval to build a new church there.” And so on.

No holy site has been immune to such revolutions of destruction, rebuilding, and change of control.  The identity of a place of pilgrimage seems incredibly left open to chance.  Sometimes even a miracle is necessary, such as in Helena’s discovery of the True Cross. God’s providence in these matters looks genuinely puzzling.

And yet, in contrast, God has clearly taken great care that two things be preserved over time, the Apostolic Succession, together with continuity of teaching, and the celebration of the Eucharist, as originally instituted.

“The fullest possible means to embrace Christianity” for a Protestant is, as it were, left up to chance. But these other things, which a Protestant does not possess, are not left up to chance.  (One must count Scripture among the latter – because the Bible does not verify its own canon, or carry along with itself its true interpretation.)

Fourth, I’d lack miracles. As pilgrims, we stood beside the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus created bread and fish to feed the multitude. We saw the pools in Jerusalem of Siloam, where the blind man received his sight, and Bethesda, where the man sick for thirty-eight years was healed.  I remember puzzling as a Protestant why there were no longer any miracles.

Many hold that an “Age of Miracles” was necessary only at the beginning, so that Christianity could spread rapidly.  (Doesn’t it need to be spread now?)  But we Catholics live and move and have our being among miracles.  We all know stories of miracles among our friends. We expect miracles. There is a Siloam and a Bethesda for any canonization. The Eucharist is a daily miracle.

Fifth, and finally, I’d lack my mother as a Christian, Mary.  When I converted, I did so in spite of “the Marian doctrines,” not because of them. But I see now that my heart was impoverished then, as well as my faith. A Protestant pilgrim might well wonder why the sites involving Mary, such as her home in Nazareth, where the angel appeared to her, are just as ancient as those involving Jesus and the Apostles. Why did Christians from the start sense that she was so central?

But then reflection on the Word becoming flesh should dispel that wonder, and clarify the connection between Mary, and truth’s insertion into place and time.

These realities abide.  Yes, if I were a “C.S. Lewis” Christian, I’d become a Catholic again, today, by the grace of God, in a heartbeat.

*Image: The Conversion of St. Paul by Caravaggio, c. 1600 [Odescalchi Balbi Collection, Rome]

Below: A photo by Professor Pakaluk at the Mount of Beatitudes

© 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

Michael Pakaluk

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His latest book, on the Gospel of Mark, The Memoirs of St Peter, is now available from Regnery Gateway. He is currently at work on a new book on Mary’s voice in the gospel of John.

Catholic Monitor

Tuesday, March 03, 2020

Do Marshall and Schneider think they are Greater Theologians than Doctors of the Church St. Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales?

So, Taylor Marshall in his podcast with Bishop Athanasius Schneider says we recognize Pope Benedict XVI as Pope–but does he recognize us? Marshall seems to feel this is a stroke of genius on his own part.  It is not.  Whether Benedict “recognizes us” is totally immaterial. What part of “Universi Dominici Gregis” do these two not understand? Moreover, on November 15, 2019, Taylor Marshall said “Bellarmine says when anyone is a manifest heretic even the pope he ceases to be a member of the Church and they can no longer hold their office”: “… [Marshall said] Bellarmine says when anyone is a manifest heretic even the pope he ceases to be a member of the Church and they can no longer hold their office… It seems to me that that would require a ecclesiastical decree… You would have to have cardinals make this decree… “(Dr. Taylor Marshall YouTube Channel, “Why are USA Bishops Tone-Deaf & Promoting Liberal Policies? w George Neumayr,” 1:02:05 to 1:06:55)

Why did Marshall not question Bishop Schneider who denies the Bellarmine teaching that heretic popes ceasing to be pope in his podcast with Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the 28th of February? Is Marshall back to his old position of denying Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching on heretic popes ceasing to be pope?

 Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales who was a close collaborator and friend of St. Bellarmine explicitedly summarized his teaching:

“Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, andthe Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: ‘Let another take his bishopric.'”
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Do Marshall and Schneider think they are greater theologians than St. Bellarmine andSt. Francis de Sales?

In 2019, Twitter, Nick Donnelly wrote:
“Bishop Schneider tells Raymond Arroyo that the [the Open Letter] signatories were wrong to accuse Francis of heresy because he hasn’t made a formal, universal declaration of heresy. Though he admits he has allowed wrong teaching Very disappointing hair splitting.”[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050]

In responding to Donnelly’s statement, Marshall apparently is implicitly saying Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales is promoting “sedevacantis[m]”:

“I agree w Bishop Schneider. If you condemn Francis as “heretical pope” one must break communion with him. This is why I called the doc “practically sedevacantist”. It’s not formally sede but the natural conclusion [what it ultimately promotes] is.”
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1129334902153986050] Is Marshall back to his old position and joining Schneider in waiting for “a formal, universal declaration of heresy” such as this:

Not privately, but Pope Francis officially acting as the pope explicitly contradicted traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage when he in a “official act as the pope” placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS) in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

“There is no other interpretations.”

The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews “sexuality active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”(LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)
In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said “It means that it is an official act of the pope.” 
Moreover, the article said:
 “Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.”(OnePeterFive, “Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status,” December 2, 2017)The “official act of” Francis is a “unorthodox interpretation.”
It is not just a private contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching.The “official act of the pope” is a “unorthodox interpretation” which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by “official act the pope” is teaching heresy.Now, let us quote philosopher Ed Feser:
“(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible… these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself.”(Edwardfeser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016)

How’s that for an understatement?

Marshall and Schneider might have heard that God commanded in one of the Ten Commandments:

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers a Heretic and Promotes Schism,” December 23, 2016)

Does this mean because Cardinal Brandmuller said that if a pope “open[ed] Communion to adulterers” he is “a heretic and promotes schism” that according to Marshall by inference he is a “sede” by “natural conclusion”?
 Since Marshall and Schneider apparently are implying that everyone who calls for an investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave is a schismatic or a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist, here are five really short and easy to answer dubia questions which hopefully aren’t too complicated for Marshall and Schneider to answer. To make it really easy for them it has been formatted so that they only have to answer: yes or no.

1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said “The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.

2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church a Sedevacantist or a schismatic? Answer: yes or no.

3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.

4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or schismatics? Answer: yes or no.

5. Is Bishop Gracida really a Sedevacantist and  schismatic for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church and for the laity to demand that the cardinals convene an imperfect council to judge if Francis is a explicit heretic or antipope.   

Posted by Fred Martinez at 8:46 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

4 comments:

Alexis Bugnolo said…

in n. 2, after

and accepted by the Church

I think you forgot to add a quotation mark.

I have given your post a big plug over at

https://fromrome.info/2020/03/04/5-questions-for-bishop-schneider-dr-taylor-marshall/10:29 PM

Fred Martinez said…

Br. Alexis,

Thanks.5:00 AM

Alexis Bugnolo said…

Is Bishop Schneider’s decision to trash the Doctors and Fathers of the Church related in any way with his leading position in TradiVox Inc, an Indiana 501 c 3 associated with a partner of a a major publicity company which works for environmental issues? And whose founder is an employee of the diocese of Sound Bend Indiana and a graduate of Steve Skojec’s alma mater?11:49 AM

St. Benedict’s Thistle said…

The connections are being exposed. Thank you. Steubenville is an interesting place. They have offered retreats to Catholic youth groups. They have a strange mixture of traditional and Charismatic practices that they promote to the youth. Troubling.12:17 PM