Retreat and Regroup

I'm off on retreat for the rest of this week!

Be sure to watch this episode of the Vortex (from yesterday):



Read the script here.

Meanwhile, I will be...

...following the yellow-lined road...

...over the rainbow!

WYD Embarrassment

Mass? Ugh.

My mom always told me, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." 

Well... I avoided watching any videos of WYD, and tried not to look at too many still photos. I've avoided writing anything about WYD on my blog up to this point; but I can remain silent no longer. Those who see the error really must speak out against the abuses; it's our duty to speak the truth when the emperor has no clothes. And frankly, I'm not interested in reading any comments from "liberal" or "progressive" Catholics who want to tell me I'm a "pharisee" and a "hypocrite". My sorrow and angst over the atrocities of WYD are based on Church documents that clearly state how Our Lord is to be worshiped. So spare me. Ad hominem attacks on me (or others) will be deleted.

WYD is an embarrassment. It is an insult to the intelligence of the young people it was meant to...uh...entertain. And that's what I fear it was meant to be: entertainment that just might entice young people into a deeper relationship with Jesus and with His Church. But where's the "deep" stuff? Where's the Catholic identity?

Frankly, when we allow the pop Christian music genre at Mass, we allow our sexualized culture to enter into our worship - because pop Christian music emulates secular music, but throws in "God" words. The culture intrudes on our faith, rather than our faith penetrating secular music; that is, our faith is corrupted, rather than our culture being converted. Changing the words doesn't change the driving beat ("that you can dance to") and other characteristics of pop music.

I've seen and experienced this myself, when I was a Protestant in a "pentecostal" church community. The music cycles through "foreplay" to "climax," the music itself driving those emotions. Look at the performers, gyrating almost sensuously, the music moving towards its crescendo;then you come down a bit, and then on to full climax. You can see it in the crowd. Swaying. Hands raised. Eyes closed. Finally, inevitably, especially amongst Protestants and Catholic charismatics, babbling in "adoration." Everyone is "in love" and "adoring" their feelings. Indisputable. I think it takes a good bit of honest introspection to see this, but I think it is undeniable. Feeling good feels great, and we call that "god."

That's what I see in the WYD videos. Of course, I don't mean to imply that everyone experienced the event in the same way (do I really have to add that qualifier?! Apparently, I do, judging from past comments on other posts); but I do mean to say that the "style" of liturgy employed at WYD 2013 was very conducive to this adoration of self. Somewhere, somehow, someone may have been inspired toward a religious or priestly vocation, or had a major conversion of heart, or...whatever...but it wasn't because WYD is truly conducive to such discernment.

And for those who want to insist that WYD "bears fruit", I urge you (and everyone, actually) to read this great post by Louie Verrecchio at his blog "Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II". 

If I had to tell people that WYD epitomizes the Church, I would be humiliated. I could not in good conscience suggest that anyone become Catholic; heck, they might as well just run down to the local pentecostal church and wave their hands and dance in the aisles there. Thank goodness the liturgies at WYD are not typical of Mass at your run-of-the-mill Novus Ordo parish (which can be bad enough, without all the frills and thrills of a WYD Mass).

WYD is just the Los Angeles Religous Ed Conference multiplied by 1000...or 10,000...or some big number. I think I would be physically ill if I watched this entire video (below), but if you skip around in it, you will get the picture - if you haven't already watched reports elsewhere.



This is Mass?! These are our shepherds?! (See also the "dancing bishops" with Fr. Z's commentary at his blog. Oh, and the Vortex features the same bizarre event; I'll post that tomorrow.)

And then there's this:
 

This is Adoration?! I don't think so. I think it is more likely to be emotionalism engendered by "contemporary Christian" music.

I weep for Our Lord who has had to suffer all of this. Does Jesus love the pilgrims? Oh yes, He does. He loves the wayward shepherds, too, but he will hold them accountable.

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! (Matt 18:6-7)

I am simply appalled by what I have seen and read of WYD. And I am very, very sad.

Here's a real Mass. Watch it to sooth your soul, especially if you have subjected yourself to the above idiocy.

More on Modesty at Mass

It's not just women, either!

Another reader – one who has shared “inappropriate attire” stories before - emailed the following to me after my July 27 post:

I read your post today about the woman's dress at Mass and I couldn't help but be reminded of my own experiences. A woman with two young daughters appeared at Mass as an EMHC with her top pinned under her arms and her breasts two-thirds exposed. I watched while men avoided her or looked up at the ceiling, women shaking their heads after receiving Communion, and young boys almost falling into her. What a disgrace.

After Mass in the parking lot, I asked if I could speak with her privately away from her daughters. She sent them off with her husband. I explained to her how she was the talk of the people gathered after Mass, but that I chose to speak to her like a mother rather than a gossip. I explained to her how it is our duty as good Christians to admonish sinners and counsel the wicked, and that the outfit she was wearing was disgraceful, and should not have been worn outside her bedroom – let alone at Mass.

She cried, she shouted, "You are not a Christian! Would you like to tell my husband what you said?"

I said of course I would (what a dumb question). “Please bring him over here, and I will ask him what he gets out of wife dressing like that in public.” I continued with, "You have two beautiful daughters.  To set a good example is your job; being a temptress is not acceptable. She walked away.

Later that evening, we returned to the Church for a function. Fr. M came looking for me, and I thought, here it comes. But instead, he came to me and hugged me and said, “You did the right thing today; you admonished a sinner and counseled her as a mother would.”

It turns out that the woman used the Church bulletin to cover her chest and went to Fr. M. and apologized to him, and asked for his forgiveness. He said she told that I had also spoken to her husband, and told him what I said; Fr. M said he agreed with me. She wanted my name to thank me personally, and Fr. M told her he would be seeing me and would pass the apology on to me.

I wept when he told me this. I told Fr. M that her husband was the real hero of the day, as he could have agreed with her for peace, but instead he loved her enough to stand up to her and her wrong choices. [Although it would have been better if he’d said something ahead of time!]

Another example: We were at Mass and a mom, her son, and her daughter stepped into the pew in front of us. The daughter, about 14 years of age, had on a bikini with a shear sarong over it, and was soaking wet; she must have been grabbed out of the pool to go to Mass. My husband and other men were staring at the ceiling. Finally, the woman behind me got out of her seat and told the mother to take her daughter to the back of the Church immediately, which she did.

One more: Fr. W at Mass, right after Communion called out to the women in attendance and told them to wear underwear, and for their husbands to see to it that they did... to avoid their bouncing their way up and down the church. I was mortified.

Another friend emailed me with details of the “dress code” that is publicly posted at many SSPX and CMRI chapels. He notes that “People call them schismatic and not real Catholics, but they would not hesitate to correct and instruct in charity, rather than to take a chance of offending God.” Would that we were all a little more concerned about offending the Lord!

At any rate, here is the dress code from the CMRI, also posted in most SSPX chapels (or something very similar}.

Dress Code

If this is the first time you are attending the traditional Latin Mass here at Mount St. Michael, you will notice that our parishioners do not dress casually for church services. Since the changes that came about after Vatican Council II, few parishes have any kind of dress code. We still believe that modesty and appropriate attire are necessary, especially in church out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. Please observe these minimum standards of dress for attendance at church services at Mount St. Michael:

• Women and girls must cover their heads. (Chapel veils or mantillas are available for loan in the vestibule.)

• Women and girls must wear dresses or skirts that cover the knee completely when sitting or standing; slacks, shorts, sleeveless, tight or low-cut clothing or dresses with long cuts or slits are to be avoided.

• Men and boys should wear suit coats and ties.

• Jeans and other casual attire are inappropriate for attendance at church services.

If you’re not a “traditionalist” and you don’t wear a chapel veil to the Novus Ordo Mass (or even the EF Mass), fear not. You are not actually required to do so, but it is a very appropriate way to show reverence, and once you start doing it, you begin to feel naked if you attend Mass without a veil.

On her way to Mass?

On another blog I found a post on “Modesty at Mass: The Case for a Catholic Dress Code” which was written just prior to the changes in the liturgy in December of 2011. It suggested that a change in attire at Mass would accompany the changes in the liturgy. No sense reinventing the wheel – I’ll quote the post in part:

The way many people dress to Mass is completely offensive. Strapless tops, cleavage, skirts that hardly cover the derriere, shorts, tracksuits, cut-offs. Tank tops. Midriffs. Minis. How this became acceptable is a mystery. How to change it, is not.

A simple solution could restore churches everywhere to basic dignity: a dress code. Think this is radical? It’s not. The Vatican has one. The Vatican prohibits anyone from entering who is wearing:

· Shorts/skirts above the knee
· Sleeveless shirts
· Shirts exposing the navel
· Shirts for women that expose cleavage

In fact, I checked to see if this was true, and discovered the following info on a travel website:

Vatican Dress Code

Proof positive!

To enter the Musei Vaticani, the Sistine Chapel, and the Basilica di San Pietro you must comply with the Vatican's dress code, or you will be turned away by the implacable custodians stationed at the doors. (Also no penknives, which will show up under the metal detector.) For both men and women, shorts and tank tops are taboo, as are miniskirts and other revealing clothing. Wear a jacket or shawl over sleeveless tops, and avoid T-shirts with writing or pictures that could risk giving offense.

We’re not even talking Mass here!

Back to the other blog post:

Why don’t all Catholic churches have the same standards? It is the same Jesus Christ present in the tabernacle. It is the same discipleship the priests share with the pope. The human beings on their knees are the same people trying to live lives of holiness and chastity in a world that works to undermine them at every turn.

A Catholic dress code could be instituted with a relatively simple, three-step action plan:

Stage 1—Recruit code enforcement. The priests and deacons would recruit lay women of charitable but forceful demeanor, approximately two per Mass depending on the size of the parish, to enforce the dress code. These women would be trained to stand outside Mass and gently but firmly request those in violation of dress code to change. This stage would likely take eight weeks. I assure you, there would be no shortage of eager volunteers.

Stage 2—Announce the coming change. Just as the Church has been doing with the coming liturgy changes, parishes would include a weekly insert into the bulletin explaining the simple, four-pronged dress code. Priests would alert parishioners at every Mass. (The media would help with its usual hit pieces.) This would be done for four weeks consecutively before dress code beings.

Stage 3—Grace Period. For two weeks there would be a grace period, where the newly trained women would give warnings to those not dressed appropriately that in the future, such attire will not be accepted, but still allow them into the House of God. This allows them to practice confronting those dressed inappropriately and allows the stubborn, skimpy dressers to avoid the humiliation of actually being sent home.

Once the dress-code period becomes official, there will no doubt still be much angst. People will wail and gnash their teeth in their desire to attend Mass dressed in PJs or two-inch skirts. People will claim the Church is so draconian and unwelcoming and that Jesus would never send people away!

Sure, Jesus spent time with residents of the red-light district. But let’s not forget, Jesus also flipped tables in a rage when he saw his Father’s house disrespected. He also reminded us in a parable in a recent gospel that the man who showed up to a royal wedding not wearing the proper attire met a dreadful fate. Jesus was clear throughout the gospels: What you wear matters. He went to his own death in a garment so fine that men gambled for it.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

When a Pastor Lacks Charity

A friend drew my attention to a pastor’s weekly missive in the parish bulletin in a parish far, far away. She said:

This past Sunday’s article is about someone who said something about a woman wearing inappropriate clothing to Mass. This “someone” was accused of being uncharitable and unwelcoming.

Well, the uncharitable person was me, and the woman I spoke to was wearing short-short jean hip-hugger shorts with really ragged “cuffs”. They were so tight, the back seam was you-know-where. The hip huggers were more like “plumbers’ pants” (get the picture).

This is at a parish that another correspondent has writtenabout, decrying the inappropriate dress that abounds there. Apparently the pastor doesn’t address the issue…

Well, actually, he does – via his bulletin article, which says in part:

Once upon a time a woman, who was on a long journey that had taken her away from practicing her faith, returned to the church to pray. This journey was not an easy one. There were so many fears and anxieties, plus so many years of accumulated baggage. But setting down her burdens, she opened herself up to receive the sign of peace being offered among those praying with her. With her guard down, she was unprepared when she turned to wish her neighbor the sign of peace and was verbally beaten up by this other woman. Instead of being wished the peace of Christ, she was victimized as she was very publically criticized for what this other woman considered to be “immodest” apparel.

So the traveler took up her burdens again as she started to leave the church. A couple took her arm, and stopped her before she exited the pew. They had seen what had happened, and their faces showed the shame and embarrassment they were feeling. They tried to soothe her fresh wounds and to console her with an apology, but she held tight to her baggage, and left. Which of these, in your opinion, was neighbor to this woman?

Puh-lease. Sure, maybe my friend could have chosen a better time to let the woman know that her dress was inappropriate, and I do not know the exact words she chose. But I will tell you this: a sign on the church door suggesting what “modest” apparel might consist of could certainly be helpful.

And you know what? When I think of the snide laughter we all enjoy when we watch one of the Wal-Mart videos with hideously-dressed individuals, I can’t help but think it would be more charitable to actually take the person aside and explain that it looks like they are wearing no clothes, or that their bulges are, well, bulging…or whatever. It’s as if we “must not judge” when at Mass, but it’s okay to snicker at the candid videos from Wal-Mart.

And maybe if people started talking about modesty, we could start a return to modest dress in our society. After a recent airplane trip, one friend told me, “I hadn’t realized how tight women’s jeans are these days.” Yeah. That. Why wear anything?!

A recent FaceBook status I noticed pictured a young lady who was quite a bit overweight, squeezed into the teeniest pair of cut-off shorts she could manage. It was quite a sight to behold, and my friend suggested that “if you have a figure that looks like this” you should reconsider what you wear in public. But the truth is, that pair of cut-offs was immodest, and would have been immodest on a slender girl who actually fit into them. Some would have applauded her “beauty”, but really, much of what passes for acceptable dress in today’s society is actually an occasion of sin for many of the beholders.

Back to my friend’s story about the inappropriately dressed woman at Mass…and the pastor’s missive in the bulletin. He was addressing that week’s Gospel, which was of course the “good neighbor” verses. Here’s another section of his article:

Maybe we can find the answers in the parable that Jesus told in today’s Gospel. Like the priest, could our overly exalted and self-appointed position as “Liturgy Police,” or our exaggeratedly coveted status as being “holier than thou,” be blocking our responding to others with love?

Like the Levite, could we be allowing an intolerant legalism to block the mercy God put into our hearts from being shared with others? Or has our heart just become so hardened, atrophied from lack of use that like the robbers, there is no love left to share—just intolerance and abuse?

There you have it. If you are concerned about liturgical abuse, you are the “liturgy police”, and if you are concerned about the disrespect shown to Our Lord at Mass by irreverent and immodest dress, then you are being “holier than thou”, and in either case, you are acting without love.

Those who take this point of view show very little charity toward those who are offended by bad liturgy and bad dress. Those “liturgy police” types are just supposed to get over it.  But in some cases, “getting over it” is not charity, or love of neighbor. Sometimes people need to be told that what they are doing is wrong.

Funny thing, too; the people who desire liturgical abuse are seldom told to “get over it”. Instead, they are pandered to. Why is that?! It is something I have never understood, even if you throw the weekly collection into the equation.

And why does this pastor not see how “mean” he is being to the poor woman who was offended by cleavage, bare shoulders, and plumber’s pants? Why is it wrong to be offended by such things, especially at Mass? What would a “good neighbor” (or good shepherd) have done in such a situation? Might he have spoken privately to the “holier than thou” parishioner, perhaps, if he really thought she had done something so egregiously wrong that other parishioners were feeling “shame and embarrassment”?

My friend noted in her email to me:

The only thing I commented on was the shorts; I kept my mouth shut about her spaghetti strap top with plunging neckline and bra showing. I think luckily she was in front of me and not an impressionable man who might have been led to lustful thoughts---at Mass. I guess we truly are in the “Church of Nice” as Michael Voris puts it where everything and anything goes.

Exactly.

But the next week, the same pastor continued the harangue on my friend. This time he said:

“I just finished reading your page. I'm stunned!” This was an e-mail response to my Reflections in last week’s Church Bulletin. I actually found that message encouraging. This means the inappropriate way a parishioner treated a visitor was an exception and not the norm. Let us not forget that the greater majority of

our parishioners are good neighbors who are kind to the strangers who join us at Mass. May the thoughtful and loving way these parishioners relate to others bring blessings upon us and our parish as the kindness of Abraham to strangers brought blessings to him and his wife, Sarah.

So, that mean ol’ parishioner is just an isolated blight on the landscape, eh? How’s that for charity! Since the vast majority of his parishioners are “good neighbors” – who perhaps dress similarly to the “victimized” woman of the previous week – then all is a-okay.

Now how’s that for a pastoral approach! Perhaps this pastor should see my friend as a lost sheep and go after her. Yeah, right.

My experience is that pastors like that are just waiting for those trouble-maker parishioners to leave. THEN they will have a perfect parish where everyone gets along and luuuuuvs one another. In a parish like this, no one cares if a traditionalist leaves the parish. The office staff cheers at their weekly meeting, and expresses concern to anyone who asks about the missing parishioner. I know. I’ve been there, on both sides.

Here’s the ironic conclusion to that pastor’s second bulletin article:

If you come to church just for people to wait on you and cater to all your needs and expectations, then maybe it would be better if you just went to an exclusive country club instead. But if you come to Mass to be fully present to the Lord, including His presence in the gathered community, if you are willing to give of yourself by treating your neighbor with kindness, then you have come to the right place, and may you receive the blessings of the Mass.

Umm…seems to me it is the “liberals” who want their needs to be catered to. The traditionalists just want a decent liturgy according to the rubrics – and if we had that, the immodest dress issue would probably take care of itself. When reverence and awe in the Mass is evident, that “attitude” tends to start being expressed amongst those attending such Masses. When God is made more evident by the way Mass is said (by following the rubrics!), one is more inclined to treat Him with the respect He deserves.

I wonder if this pastor can milk my friend's actions for yet a third bulletin article...
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

PS  I recommend this article: "A Catholic Answer to Catholic Answers" in which Christoper Ferrara says a lot of things that help to explain why a pastor would write the kind of bulletin letter quoted in this post. Here's an excerpt:

The neo-Catholic mind is not troubled by this catastrophe, much less determined to oppose the reckless innovations that caused it. The neo-Catholic attitude to what even Paul VI admitted was “a process of self-destruction” of the Church (Allocution of December 7, 1968) is essentially: “What’s the big deal?” I will let Mr. Coffin’s own words in defense of his first two-hour foray against “radical traditionalists” establish the point: 

It happens to be easy to gripe about the many pressing problems facing the Church today, easy to be agog at the banality of many Ordinary Form (OF) liturgies with their clap-happy ditties that pass for sacred music, easy to lament the indisputable decline of Sunday Mass attendance since the early 1960s, and easy to be vexed by the pitiful state of catechesis in this country.

 But let’s keep our eyes on the ball. The end is the life of glory with God in the beatific vision, not the Traditional Latin Mass, nor the Ordinary Form, no matter how reverently done. We need to love Jesus Christ and his Bride. On his terms, not ours.In two paragraphs of flippant prose, Coffin dismisses an almost apocalyptic collapse of faith and discipline in the Church. What does it matter, says he, that the liturgy has become banal, indeed a joke, that Mass attendance has declined, that catechesis is pitiful (not only in this country, by the way, but throughout the world)? What matters is that we attain the beatific vision—as if the very substance of the faith had nothing to do with reaching that goal!

ZENIT Interview with Cardinal Burke

ZENIT has an exclusive interview with Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke today. The interview was conducted “on the sidelines of Sacra Liturgia 2013, a major international conference on the liturgy held in Rome at the end of June”. Cardinal Burke has some interesting things to say – be sure to read the entire interview!

Here are some excerpts (my emphases):

ZENIT: Some argue the liturgy is mostly about aesthetics, and not as important as, say, good works done in faith. What is your view of this argument that one often hears?

Cardinal Burke: It’s a Communist misconception. First of all, the liturgy is about Christ. It’s Christ alive in his Church, the glorious Christ coming into our midst and acting on our behalf through sacramental signs to give us the gift of eternal life to save us. It is the source of any truly charitable works we do, any good works we do. So the person whose heart is filled with charity wants to do good works will, like Mother Teresa, give his first intention to the worship of God so that when he goes to offer charity to a poor person or someone in need, it would be at the level of God Himself, and not some human level.

ZENIT: Some also say that to be concerned with liturgical law is being unduly legalistic, that it’s a stifling of the spirit. How should one respond to that? Why should we be concerned about liturgical law?

 

Cardinal Burke: Liturgical law disciplines us so that we have the freedom to worship God, otherwise we’re captured – we’re the victims or slaves either of our own individual ideas, relative ideas of this or that, or of the community or whatever else. But the liturgical law safeguards the objectivity of sacred worship and opens up that space within us, that freedom to offer worship to God as He desires, so we can be sure we’re not worshipping ourselves or, at the same time, as Aquinas says, some kind of falsification of divine worship.

ZENIT: It offers a kind of template?

Cardinal Burke: Exactly, it’s what discipline does in every aspect of our lives. Unless we’re disciplined, then we’re not free.

…

ZENIT: … What basis of liturgical formation do we need in our parishes, dioceses and particularly in our seminaries?

Cardinal Burke: The first important lesson that has to be taught is that the sacred liturgy is an expression of God’s right to receive from us the worship that is due to Him, and that flows from who we are. We are God’s creatures and so divine worship, in a very particular way, expresses at the same time the infinite majesty of God and also our dignity as the only earthly creature that can offer him worship, in other words that we can lift up our hearts and minds to him in praise and worship. So that would be the first lesson. Then to study carefully how the liturgical rites have developed down the centuries and not to see the history of the Church as somehow a corruption of those liturgical rites. In the true sense, the Church over time has come to an ever deeper understanding of the sacred liturgy and has expressed that in several ways, whether it be through sacred vestments, sacred vessels, through sacred architecture – even the care for sacred linens which are used in the Holy Mass. All of these are expressions of the liturgical reality and so those things have to be carefully studied, and of course then to study the relationship of liturgy with the other aspects of our lives.

…

Read the rest here.

Vortex: The Supreme Irony of the Supreme Court

To be honest, I have never really given much thought to the Catholic justices on the Supreme Court!  I know I have been aware of the religious composition of the Court, but it was brought home to me again in Tuesday’s (July 23) Vortex, when Michael Voris pointed out that:

The US Supreme Court has nine judges – three are Jews, six are Catholic. Pretty funny, in a way, that in a Protestant majority country, there are no Protestants on the highest court in the land.

In that episode – embedded below, with the full script following – Michael Voris made some extraordinarily good points (at least, I think so). For instance:

So we’ve all heard the cries for years now about how pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be excommunicated, or at the very least, not be allowed to march up and receive Holy Communion. But how about pro-abortion Catholic JUDGES? Or pro same-sex marriage Catholic JUDGES?

I admit, I had never really thought about this before. Here’s another point (my emphases throughout):

All of this societal decay has been brought about by Catholic politicians and jurists. The list is seemingly endless, from Kathleen Sebelius and her HHS mandate to the Kennedys to the Cuomos to countless others – the leaders who have betrayed this culture are big name Catholics. They are not alone certainly, but the others who they have sided with aren’t Catholic.

And what are the bishops doing about it? MV asks the question and answers: “Nothing.” He acknowledges that some bishops may speak to some politicians and judges behind the scenes, but the point is that not one Catholic leader has received correction and then reversed himself or herself on issues that concern their (alleged) Catholic faith. So if the bishops are doing something, it is having absolutely no effect. And the fact that we can’t see their actions or see any change in the un-Catholic behavior of various “Catholic” politicians simply causes scandal and results in more and more Catholics believing that the teachings of the Church are not binding.

Michael Voris clearly notes that the emperor is wearing no clothes:

Judge Anthony Kennedy is a prime example of the old adage – garbage in, garbage out. He votes for evil, because he has never been told in any meaningful fashion, that there is such a thing as evil. He has no fear of God, or respect for Absolute Truth. And now, he will be one of the deciding votes when the HHS mandate of Obamacare is brought to him by the US Bishops’ lawsuit.

There are too many ironies here to count. A majority Catholic Court continues to vote against natural law principles enunciated by their Church; and the very bishops who have, over the course of their careers, done next to nothing to fight against these intrinsic evils, but allowed them to fester in their schools, seminaries, parishes and chanceries, are now going to come before this same court and say that they should not be forced to pay for insurance coverage for contraception.

…

So a Catholic judge who has ruled time and time again as though he is not Catholic, is gonna be voting on an issue that is being presented as a non-Catholic issue, by the very Catholic leaders who have spent their careers side-stepping and excuse-making for their failure to boldly teach Catholic truth.

A judge who, in practice, denies his Catholicism, being appealed to by bishops who have, in practice, denied their Catholicism – or, at the very least, their duty to teach it fully – arguing about a law that denies the truth about a Catholic teaching… ALL pretending this has nothing to do with Catholicism.

“Supreme Irony” indeed. Michael Voris, rem acu tetigisti (you have hit the nail on the head).

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: folks, we are in a world of hurt. Our Church leaders need our prayers more and more every day. As MV concludes:

If there was ever a crowd that needed prayers my fellow Catholics, it is our leaders. Pray for them, that they may see the destruction their inaction and double speak and accommodation has wrought.

 Pray and fast.

The script:

So we’ve all heard the cries for years now about how pro-abortion Catholic politicians should be excommunicated, or at the very least, not be allowed to march up and receive Holy Communion.

But how about pro-abortion Catholic JUDGES? Or pro same-sex marriage Catholic JUDGES? After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander right? What would make Catholic judges who render opinions supporting intrinsic evil and more exempt from excommunication than Catholic politicians who vote in favor of the laws that the judges rule on?

And we need look no further than the United States Supreme Court, which just recently voted to essentially uphold same-sex marriage. No, they didn’t go QUITE that far, but they went far enough that the militant homosexuals are cheering and preening and pro-family forces are crying and very worried – as indeed they should be.

The US Supreme Court has nine judges – three are Jews, six are Catholic. Pretty funny, in a way, that in a Protestant majority country, there are no Protestants on the highest court in the land. Strange, huh?

Anyway, one Catholic judge in particular – Justice Anthony Kennedy – is the “Biden/Pelosi Catholic” of the high court. He never misses a chance to vote AGAINST truth and natural law and IN FAVOR of intrinsic evil. Never. He cast his vote in favor of killing unborn children in the infamous Casey vs. Planned Parenthood case of 1992 which upheld Roe vs. Wade – actually strengthened it, in fact.

Roughly 10 years later, he would again side with the majority in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. When that happened in 2003, same-sex marriage was virtually assured of becoming legal in every state.

And now, ten years later again, Kennedy is once again on the side of evil by supporting same-sex marriage – certainly if in principle if not in actual fact. His vote – with the majority of the court, which is majority Catholic, has gone a long way to clearing the decks for women engaging in sexual conduct with other women and men with men to be called marriage.

All of this societal decay has been brought about by Catholic politicians and jurists. The list is seemingly endless, from Kathleen Sebelius and her HHS mandate to the Kennedys to the Cuomos to countless others – the leaders who have betrayed this culture are big name Catholics. They are not alone certainly, but the others who they have sided with aren’t Catholic.

So, question – what are the bishops doing about it? Answer – absolutely nothing. Do they talk with these scoundrels – and that is what they are – behind the scenes? Probably, at least in some cases. What good has it done, presuming they have had private conversations with them? Absolutely none.

Name one – one! – premiere Catholic politicians or judge who after being instructed in the faith with regard to intrinsic evils like abortion and homosexual marriage has reversed himself or herself.

You can’t because none of them has.

[Justice] Kennedy is a PERFECT living breathing example of all that has gone wrong in the Church in the United States. He calls himself Catholic. Defies the laws of God. Is never rebuked by those charged with rebuking him, is totally free to free receive Holy Communion, is considered a Catholic in good standing. Meanwhile - the abortions keep piling up and the culture made more evil by acceptance and promotion of evil.

This is what decades of backing liberals and their causes by too many bishops has resulted in. This is what decades of ignoring the spiritual matters and realities and decomposition that has occurred has resulted in.

While the emphasis was and STILL is on social justice issues – which we know is code speak for democratic party double speak, the REAL matters – the ONLY ones that actually count – have been left to die a slow death.

Catholic education has become a laughing stock. It’s neither Catholic, nor much of an education. Catechesis bears no resemblance at all to natural law, intrinsic truth and beauty and goodness. Liturgy has conditioned the vast amount of Catholics to not only expect, but actually enjoy a watered-down presentation of the faith each Sunday complete with a Mass so rife with abuses and stylistic choices that it looks more Protestant than Catholic.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is a prime example of the old adage – garbage in, garbage out.

He votes for evil, because he has never been told in any meaningful fashion, that there is such a thing as evil. He has no fear of God, or respect for Absolute Truth. And now, he will be one of the deciding votes when the HHS mandate of Obamacare is brought to him by the US Bishops’ lawsuit.

There are too many ironies here to count. A majority Catholic Court continues to vote against natural law principles enunciated by their Church; and the very bishops who have, over the course of their careers, done next to nothing to fight against these intrinsic evils, but allowed them to fester in their schools, seminaries, parishes and chanceries are now going to come before this same court and say that they should not be forced to pay for insurance coverage for contraception.

And what’s rich about their argument is, it’s not based on the evil of contraception –which is what a bishop should be arguing, religious pluralism be damned – but rather, it’s based on the vague and moving target notion of religious “liberty” – a thoroughly UNCatholic notion if there ever was one.

So a Catholic judge who has ruled time and time again as though he is not Catholic, is gonna be voting on an issue that is being presented as a non-Catholic issue, by the very

Catholic leaders who have spent their careers side-stepping and excuse-making for their failure to boldly teach Catholic truth.

A judge who, in practice, denies his Catholicism, being appealed to by bishops who have, in practice, denied their Catholicism – or, at the very least, their duty to teach it fully – arguing about a law that denies the truth about a Catholic teaching… ALL pretending this has nothing to do with Catholicism.

And all the while – this very judge is the shining example of the very system which has produced all this spiritual insanity.

Judge Kennedy is the poster boy of the religious-liberty strewn thoroughly modern-going pluralistic society Church many of these bishops have promoted and still publically support. The Supreme Irony of the Catholic Church in America is a Supreme Court Justice.

No one could make this up.

If there was ever a crowd that needed prayers my fellow Catholics, it is our leaders. Pray for them, that they may see the destruction their inaction and double speak and accommodation has wrought.

Mary's Active Participation

A few weeks ago, the Holy Father was  quoted as making remarks that seem to indicate that he feels that the “doing of charitable deeds” is the only path to God, and that people who devote themselves to the contemplative life risk “losing themselves along the way”, and that those who “choose the path of penance and fasting” are Pelagians.

I have only read a brief summary of the Holy Father’s remarks, and decided not to dig any further. Who knows whether he was quoted adequately and accurately? It is not my purpose here to argue with the Pope!

However, I was a little disturbed by the thoughts and doubts the report aroused in me, and so I turned to my old favorite, The Cloud of Unknowing, for reassurance about the value of the contemplative life. Here’s one of my favorite quotes from that book (my emphases):

What I am describing here is the contemplative work of the spirit. It is this which gives God the greatest delight. For when you fix your love on him, forgetting all else, the saints and angels rejoice and hasten to assist you in every way – though the devils will rage and ceaselessly conspire to thwart you. Your fellow men are marvelously enriched by this work of yours, even if you many not fully understand how; the souls in purgatory are touched, for their suffering is eased by the effects of this work; and of course, your own spirit is purified and strengthened by this contemplative work more than by all others put together. (p. 48)

Yes, contemplative work – work which accomplishes a great deal! And yet this work is often discounted by more “active” types. In fact, it happened in my parish just last Sunday as the priest gave his homily. I love this priest and appreciate his no-nonsense statement of the truths of the Church. He does not pull punches.

But last night, I was a bit disappointed. The Gospel was Luke 10:38-42, in which Martha complains to Jesus that her sister Mary won’t help with the hostess-work. Our Lord, of course, tells Martha that “There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.”

To me, a person’s interpretation of this passage is something of a litmus test that helps distinguish between contemplative and active souls. The active souls object to what Jesus told Martha, and are willing to venture that He has made a slight error!

Our priest extolled the “life of prayer” to some extent, but he said that he thought Mary shouldn’t get the “highest marks” – maybe only 90% - because we still need to “do” something.  He did acknowledge that God gave Mary the go-ahead to “just sit and listen”, but still added his own opinion on the matter. “Faith without works is dead,” he quoted St. James. And so, he implied, contemplatives must also engage in “works” in order to prove themselves. Engaging in works (as defined by “active” types) will help the contemplative lead a “balanced” life, opined our priest. He thought Mary would have done better if she’d gotten up to help Martha a little bit.

Well…Jesus didn’t think so.

Mary’s work was contemplative. No, she didn’t wash dishes or serve hors d’oeuvers; she worshiped Our Lord by listening to him, by focusing all of her attention on Him. It seems to me that “actives” don’t see this as work. They see it as sloth. They think it is easy to “just sit there” and listen. They don’t see that as “doing” something. And “doing” is what they are all about.

Certainly there are gradations. Few individuals are completely active or completely contemplative. Our priest has a contemplative bent, I think, but he is also very much oriented toward activity, and he usually interprets “active participation” at Mass to mean actively participating by singing, etc. – doing something. Another priest I know has very little of the contemplative in his personality. He gives the same homily about Martha every year on her feast day, saying that Martha deserves more credit than she gets, because she did all the work when Jesus came to visit. Where would we be, this “active” priest asks, if everyone just sat around like Mary?!  Martha is a hero to him; Mary is…well, Mary just didn’t pull her weight.

Of course, it is true that “faith without works is dead”. But it’s in the definition of “works” that we disagree. Contemplatives do perform “works” – even if those works are not seen by others. And contemplatives do, at times, even perform those works the “actives” are talking about. But mostly, actives don’t understand contemplatives. That’s just the bottom line, I guess.

Pope Pius XI also addressed this issue in his Apostolic constitution Umbratilem, approving the statutes of the Carthusian Order. He began the letter with these words (emphases mine throughout):

[1] All those, who, according to their rule, lead a life of solitude remote from the din and follies of the world, and who not only assiduously contemplate the divine mysteries and the eternal truths, and pour forth ardent and continual prayers to God that his kingdom may flourish and be daily spread more widely, but who also atone for the sins of other men still more than for their own by mortification, prescribed or voluntary, of mind and body - such indeed must be said to have chosen the better part, like Mary of Bethany.

Not only is it the “better part”, but it is also efficacious; it is work of the highest order. Pope Pius XI continued:

[2] No wonder, then, that ecclesiastical writers of former ages, wishing to explain and extol the power and efficacy of the prayers of these same religious men, should have gone so far as to liken their prayers to Moses, quoting a well-known fact, viz., that when Josue was engaged in battle with the Amalekites on the plain and Moses on the top of a hill nearby was praying and beseeching God for the victory of his people, it happened that as long as Moses held his hands raised heavenward, the Israelites conquered, but if from weariness he lowered them a little, then the Amalekites overcame the Israelites; wherefore, Aaron and Hur on either side held up his arms until Josue left the field victorious.

This example most aptly symbolizes the effect of the prayers of the religious We have spoken of, since those prayers are borne up by the august Sacrifice of the Altar on one hand, and on the other hand by works of penance, as by two props typified respectively in a certain way, by Aaron and Hur; it being the usual and indeed the principal duty of these solitaries, as We have remarked above, to offer themselves up to God and devote themselves as propitiatory victims and hostages for peace for their own weal and that of the world - a function which they fulfill in an official way, as it were.

[3] Therefore, from the earliest times this mode of life, most perfect and at the same time most useful and fruitful for the whole of Christendom more than anyone can conceive, took root in the Church and spread abroad on all sides...

I don’t think Jesus made a mistake about the value of Mary’s worship. I think he was trying to make a point!