Everyone's heard of Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. Not as many are familiar with the ancient and traditional name for today, "Spy Wednesday". The name is thought to have originated in commemoration of the day on which Judas agreed to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.
The purpose of this post isn't to liken those individuals within the Church who have betrayed Her to Judas Iscariot; although the analogy is quite apt. What is really motivating me is the campaign of vilification which the MSM has unleashed against the Pope, using some recent revelations about the handling of past cases of sexual abuses in an attempt to portray him as personalbly culpable of mishandling or covering-up specific cases.
The media has played fast and loose with the facts, and in their irresponsible lust to discredit the Church they have done far more harm than to simply libel the person of Pope Benedict XVI. As egregious as the sins of the abusive priests are, and those of the bishops who failed to take proper action in their cases, the Church has largely dealt with the past cases and implemented policies and safeguards designed to prevent future incidents - and to handle them properly if they do occur.
And occur they will. We are dealing with human nature and human sin. It is not the fault of the Church if one of Her sons commits unspeakable acts of his own volition, nor if his religious superior fails to take proper action upon learning of them. They alone are liable to the judgments of courts civil and ecclesial - and to the Final Judgment of God. Ultimately, the enemies of the Church know this; and they know that in order to wound the Church more greivously than the revelations of the past decade have done they must come up with a "big name" and tie him to some enormous malfeasance. Hence the rush to judgment when the name of Cardinal Ratzinger (former title of the present pope) was peripherally linked to one case in Germany and another in Milwaukee.
In both instances, the New York Times has led the charge to mischaracterize and sensationalize these cases. Individuals more knowledgeable than me have convincingly refuted their misrepresentations. In the Milwaukee case, the NYT attempts to portray the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as having been lax in dealing with questions regardin a canonical trial for the accused priest.
In fact, insofar as the case was mishandled the blame almost certainly rests with the former Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, best known as as a longtime dissenter from Catholic orthodoxy who resigned in disgrace when it was revealed that he had authorized payment of some $400,000 in Archdiocesan funds as "hush money" to his own former homosexual lover. The NYT uncritically accepted his version of events without conducting any actual "journalism", so it fell to the newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Anchorage (in Alaska!) to publish a somewhat different account by Fr. Thomas Brundage, former Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the man in charge of the trial of the priest in this case. What, you may ask, did Fr. Brundage tell the New York Times? Nothing - they never bothered to contact him! That did not stop them from attributing various comments to him, comments which were contained in unsigned, handwritten documents obtained by the NYT.
As Fr. Brundage notes, the Vatican's handling of the process on these cases improved markedly in 2001, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was given responsibility for them. It's prefect at that time was... Cardinal Ratzinger!
There are plenty of good people out there trying to set the record straight on these cases, but unfortunately none of them has a big or bully a pulpit as the New York Times. But if you want to know the truth you can find it, thanks mainly to the "alternate media" of the Internet. Occasionally there's some fair treatment in the MSM, like this coverage of a recent talk at Providence College by columnist George Weigel, but sadly it's the exception rather than the rule.
At the Mass for his "inauguration", Pope Benedict XVI begged us to "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves". The wolves are very near indeed, and they have tasted blood. Pray for the Pope, and learn the facts so you can defend him when you hear him or the Church maligned by know-nothings. The Catholic Faith is true, and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. During Holy Week it might be opportune to remember St. Peter, who denied Jesus three times, if we're even tempted to simply keep quiet in the face of anti-Catholic bigotry.
31 March 2010
29 March 2010
Credo - Part I
Credo - "I believe". We all say it at Mass, but how often are we called-upon to declare what we believe - or why we believe it's true?
I had a conversation recently with a former colleague and he was basically asking me that question - why do I believe what I believe and do what I do? Why do I believe in God? Why am I a Catholic instead of something else? Why in particular do I strive to practice the Faith in a decidedly traditional orientation?
It's actually something that I've given some thought to in the past, so I was prepared to answer him in a fairly succinct fashion - well, succinct for me - as opposed to one of my interminable diatribes. Anyway, I thought the substance of it might make a good blog post, especially during Holy Week.
Ok, here goes:
It's easy to say that we "believe" in God because we were brought-up to do so, but rote learning can only take one so far. In my case I fell away from the Church when I was in my late teens, although I never consciously stopped believing. It was only when I began my journey back that I sometimes dared to question the existence of God. As I said, this is a succinct explanation so I am not going to elaborate upon every step and mis-step I took along the way, I'm just going to tell you why I believe now.
To avoid having one big, overly long post, I will end here for now, and pick up with "Why I am a Catholic" in Part II.
I had a conversation recently with a former colleague and he was basically asking me that question - why do I believe what I believe and do what I do? Why do I believe in God? Why am I a Catholic instead of something else? Why in particular do I strive to practice the Faith in a decidedly traditional orientation?
It's actually something that I've given some thought to in the past, so I was prepared to answer him in a fairly succinct fashion - well, succinct for me - as opposed to one of my interminable diatribes. Anyway, I thought the substance of it might make a good blog post, especially during Holy Week.
Ok, here goes:
It's easy to say that we "believe" in God because we were brought-up to do so, but rote learning can only take one so far. In my case I fell away from the Church when I was in my late teens, although I never consciously stopped believing. It was only when I began my journey back that I sometimes dared to question the existence of God. As I said, this is a succinct explanation so I am not going to elaborate upon every step and mis-step I took along the way, I'm just going to tell you why I believe now.
- I believe because of the evidence of my senses. Throughout my life I have observed in nature a marvelous complexity and consistency which has convinced me that a higher power or intelligence was responsible for its design and creation. The catchy term for that these days is "intelligent design".
- I am further convinced by the Proofs for the Existence of God which St. Thomas Aquinas proposed in his Summa Theologicae. This great saint distilled the arguments in favor of God's existence into five beautifully simple yet utterly convincing propositions which made complete sense to me, and I only wished I had been introduced to them at an early age. Faith can be completely rational!
- I believe because of miracles. Science cannot explain miraculous images such as that of the crucified Jesus on the Shroud of Turin or the color representation of Our Lady of Guadaloupe on the famous tilma of Juan Diego. Indeed, modern scientfic technologies have actually validated the inexplicability of these phenomena. Science cannot explain the many well-documented cures which the Church has recognized as genuine after exhaustive invstigations. Science cannot explain the "Miracle of the Sun" which was witnessed by tens of thousands of people in Fatima on 13 October 1917. Et cetera.
- I believe because I believe that God has at certain times answered my prayers. This is entirely subjective but since I am only accounting for my own belief and not that of others I consider it valid.
To avoid having one big, overly long post, I will end here for now, and pick up with "Why I am a Catholic" in Part II.
27 March 2010
The Years That the Locust Hath Eaten
Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with the Old Testament as I am with the New, but thanks to my abiding interest in my distant cousin Sir Winston Churchill I have long been able to quote the passage from the Prophecy of Joel, "And I [The Lord] will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten" (Joel 2:25 - OK, I admit it, I prefer the King James translation to the Douai in this instance).
Churchill used the phrase, to great effect, in one of his memorable pre-war speeches in Parliament at a time when he stood practically alone in attempting to rouse the government of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to the imminent danger posed by the rebirth of Germany under Hitler. His use of "the years that the locust hath eaten" referred to the period prior to 1936 when England and France, alone or together, could easily have stopped Germany's re-arming had they not lacked the will.
I've often thought of that phrase in the context of the catastrophe which has befallen the Church in the wake of the Council.
Fr. Raymond de Souza has a good column in Canada's least-bad newspaper, The National Post, contrasting what the media and the popular culture want the Church to be with what She must be to be true to Herself and Her spouse. The occasion of the media's sudden interest in the Church is of course the recent exposure of the cover-up by the Irish bishops of their own clergy's homosexual and pederast scandals, as well as a particular incident in the Pope's old diocese. They have tried mightily to indict the present Pope with culpability after the fact in these instances and others, but as Fr. de Souza points out the blame for the mishandling of these cases resides with the individual bishops, not the man who currently sits in the Chair of Peter.
He does not pull punches in identifying the cause of their laxity, and what the Holy See (including the former Cardinal Ratzinger) have done to combat it.
Years that the locust hath eaten, indeed.
[UPDATE - I should have realized that the Churchill speech I was thinking of was available online (isn't everything these days?) Not to distract from the point of this post, but do go and read it if you are unfamiliar with it. Good heavens, could that man write. And imagine it being delivered in that unique Churchillian style: the psalm-like cadence of his delivery, the slightly high-pitched voice rising and then descending to a near-growl as he punctuates a point, and the rest.]
Churchill used the phrase, to great effect, in one of his memorable pre-war speeches in Parliament at a time when he stood practically alone in attempting to rouse the government of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to the imminent danger posed by the rebirth of Germany under Hitler. His use of "the years that the locust hath eaten" referred to the period prior to 1936 when England and France, alone or together, could easily have stopped Germany's re-arming had they not lacked the will.
I've often thought of that phrase in the context of the catastrophe which has befallen the Church in the wake of the Council.
Fr. Raymond de Souza has a good column in Canada's least-bad newspaper, The National Post, contrasting what the media and the popular culture want the Church to be with what She must be to be true to Herself and Her spouse. The occasion of the media's sudden interest in the Church is of course the recent exposure of the cover-up by the Irish bishops of their own clergy's homosexual and pederast scandals, as well as a particular incident in the Pope's old diocese. They have tried mightily to indict the present Pope with culpability after the fact in these instances and others, but as Fr. de Souza points out the blame for the mishandling of these cases resides with the individual bishops, not the man who currently sits in the Chair of Peter.
He does not pull punches in identifying the cause of their laxity, and what the Holy See (including the former Cardinal Ratzinger) have done to combat it.
Years that the locust hath eaten, indeed.
[UPDATE - I should have realized that the Churchill speech I was thinking of was available online (isn't everything these days?) Not to distract from the point of this post, but do go and read it if you are unfamiliar with it. Good heavens, could that man write. And imagine it being delivered in that unique Churchillian style: the psalm-like cadence of his delivery, the slightly high-pitched voice rising and then descending to a near-growl as he punctuates a point, and the rest.]
26 March 2010
Identity Theft - Give Us Back Our Holy Days!
Earlier this week I had occasion to consult the calendar for something or another and I noticed something that saddened me. I was going to say "shocked and saddened" but unfortunately I can't say I was really shocked.
This year we only have three - THREE - holy days of obligaton which require us to hear Mass on a day other than Sunday! By "we" I mean Catholics in most U.S. dioceses. How can this be?
First - the three really, actually, obligatory holy days of obligation in the U.S. this year:
Wait a minute - I know The Assumption is never transferred to a Sunday, right? Maybe so, but this year the 15th of August happens to fall... on a Sunday!
OK, how about All Saints Day? Nope, sorry, that's gone this year too. You see, it falls on a Monday in 2010; and the U.S. Bishops apparently believe that having to attend Mass two days in a row would place an onerous burden on the People of God!
I haven't the time to research the entire history of holy days, but I can tell you what I do know. Prior to 1911 there were at least eleven holy days of obligation in the calendar - in addition to the six which remain today there were The Epiphany, St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, The Nativity of St. John the Baptist, and Ss. Peter and Paul. Pope St. Pius X removed the obligation for St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, and St. John the Baptist in 1911. Later in the 20th century, we "lost" Epiphany and Ss. Peter and Paul, although some of these days are permanently or typically transferred to the following Sunday at this time.
I understand quite well that these liberalizations were undertaken in a spirit of charity. As I recall, the reforms of St. Pius X were in consideration of the need to tend crops or earn a living - as on Sundays, one is supposed to abstain from servile work on a holy day. I am reluctant to question the prudential judgments of the only 20th-century pope-saint, but I cannot help but wonder whether some other course of action - perhaps a partial dispensation for workers under certain circumstances - might have helped to beter preserve Catholic identity.
As for the more recent innovations in this area, I feel far less charitable toward those of our shepherds who've seen fit to continually "define Catholicism down" in many ways. In an age when nearly everyone who wants a car has one, is it really too difficult for a Catholic to attend Mass two days in a row if a holy day falls on a Saturday or a Monday? At a time when the secular world is offering us more and more choices of activities for our leisure time, oughtn't the Church issue us an extra summons to the most glorious of activities, Holy Mass, now and again?
The bishops of the U.S. have a campaign this Lent to get Catholics back to confession. This is a laudable intention, and you will hear not a word of complaint from me about it (although one might ask where they've been for the last forty years). But perhaps they'd be better off starting a campaign to restore the presence of the Church in the world, and in the lives of Catholics. Holy days are certainly a part of that presence, and I want my holy days back!
[I suppose it could be worse - the Diocese of Hawaii only has TWO! Every year! Just Immaculate Conception and Christmas. Quelle dommage!]
This year we only have three - THREE - holy days of obligaton which require us to hear Mass on a day other than Sunday! By "we" I mean Catholics in most U.S. dioceses. How can this be?
First - the three really, actually, obligatory holy days of obligation in the U.S. this year:
- January 1st - Mary, Mother of God (1970 calendar) or Circumcision of Our Lord (1962 calendar)
- December 8th - The Immaculate Conception
- December 25th - The Nativity of Our Lord
Wait a minute - I know The Assumption is never transferred to a Sunday, right? Maybe so, but this year the 15th of August happens to fall... on a Sunday!
OK, how about All Saints Day? Nope, sorry, that's gone this year too. You see, it falls on a Monday in 2010; and the U.S. Bishops apparently believe that having to attend Mass two days in a row would place an onerous burden on the People of God!
I haven't the time to research the entire history of holy days, but I can tell you what I do know. Prior to 1911 there were at least eleven holy days of obligation in the calendar - in addition to the six which remain today there were The Epiphany, St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, The Nativity of St. John the Baptist, and Ss. Peter and Paul. Pope St. Pius X removed the obligation for St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, and St. John the Baptist in 1911. Later in the 20th century, we "lost" Epiphany and Ss. Peter and Paul, although some of these days are permanently or typically transferred to the following Sunday at this time.
I understand quite well that these liberalizations were undertaken in a spirit of charity. As I recall, the reforms of St. Pius X were in consideration of the need to tend crops or earn a living - as on Sundays, one is supposed to abstain from servile work on a holy day. I am reluctant to question the prudential judgments of the only 20th-century pope-saint, but I cannot help but wonder whether some other course of action - perhaps a partial dispensation for workers under certain circumstances - might have helped to beter preserve Catholic identity.
As for the more recent innovations in this area, I feel far less charitable toward those of our shepherds who've seen fit to continually "define Catholicism down" in many ways. In an age when nearly everyone who wants a car has one, is it really too difficult for a Catholic to attend Mass two days in a row if a holy day falls on a Saturday or a Monday? At a time when the secular world is offering us more and more choices of activities for our leisure time, oughtn't the Church issue us an extra summons to the most glorious of activities, Holy Mass, now and again?
The bishops of the U.S. have a campaign this Lent to get Catholics back to confession. This is a laudable intention, and you will hear not a word of complaint from me about it (although one might ask where they've been for the last forty years). But perhaps they'd be better off starting a campaign to restore the presence of the Church in the world, and in the lives of Catholics. Holy days are certainly a part of that presence, and I want my holy days back!
[I suppose it could be worse - the Diocese of Hawaii only has TWO! Every year! Just Immaculate Conception and Christmas. Quelle dommage!]
23 March 2010
Just Because a Man is a Polemecist...
...doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. Several, in fact. And he makes them in provocative fashion.
Scottish columnist and commentator Gerald Warner has written a pointed and hard-hitting piece on the relationship between the "Spirit of the Council" and the homosexual scandals in thc Church which is worthy of attention.
Not that I agree with his every word, but on balance I think he's right. And anyone who can string together a rant like "These clowns in their pseudo-ethnic mitres and polyester vestments with faux-naïve Christian symbols, spouting their ecumaniac episcobabble..." is certainly capable of grabbing my attention!
Read the whole article over on Fr. Z's blog.
Scottish columnist and commentator Gerald Warner has written a pointed and hard-hitting piece on the relationship between the "Spirit of the Council" and the homosexual scandals in thc Church which is worthy of attention.
Not that I agree with his every word, but on balance I think he's right. And anyone who can string together a rant like "These clowns in their pseudo-ethnic mitres and polyester vestments with faux-naïve Christian symbols, spouting their ecumaniac episcobabble..." is certainly capable of grabbing my attention!
Read the whole article over on Fr. Z's blog.
17 March 2010
The Dog Ate My Homework
"Bad blogger... baaad blogger!"
I am told, by those who know these things, that the cardinal sin of blogging is to deviate from one's regular routine of posting; such that a longer-than-normal gap between posts may create the impression that the blogger has abandoned his blog altogether.
I haven't. I've just been too bloody busy. I have about three half-written posts which - by now - are no longer timely. I refuse to post stuff that I don't think anyone would read, if in fact anyone is reading this page at all, and so they have been deleted. But I had a few moments after dinner on St. Patrick's Day and decided to share a few thoughts (lucky you!)
Anyway, I did resolve to eschew posting on politics and so forth during Lent, so this is not a post about political matters. But if you are the type of person to read The Archlaic's blog you will probably find these links interesting:
Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Also of note is the bit about "all Fridays" - many people believe that Friday abstinence was abolished by Vatican II but that's not so. Pope Paul VI's 1966 Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini permitted national episcopal conferences to substitute "other forms of penitence and especially works of charity and the exercises of piety", that change is further codified in Canon 1253. However, when was the last time you heard of the U.S.C.C.B. - or an individual bishop - reminding the faithful of this obligation or defining what "other forms of penitence" might be appropriate? And how many Catholics do you think are aware that Friday penitence - if not abstinence - still binds? A little something to consider while you're enjoying your cheeseburger this Friday! Also, don't forget to say a prayer to St. Joseph, Patron of the Church, for the Pope and the Church...
I am told, by those who know these things, that the cardinal sin of blogging is to deviate from one's regular routine of posting; such that a longer-than-normal gap between posts may create the impression that the blogger has abandoned his blog altogether.
I haven't. I've just been too bloody busy. I have about three half-written posts which - by now - are no longer timely. I refuse to post stuff that I don't think anyone would read, if in fact anyone is reading this page at all, and so they have been deleted. But I had a few moments after dinner on St. Patrick's Day and decided to share a few thoughts (lucky you!)
Anyway, I did resolve to eschew posting on politics and so forth during Lent, so this is not a post about political matters. But if you are the type of person to read The Archlaic's blog you will probably find these links interesting:
- Why does the Census need to know my "race"? And why is - to name one - "Pakistani" a "race"? Mark Krikorian has an interesting suggestion for action on National Review Online. "Ich bein ein American!"
- What is one to do if the Democrats in Congress succeed in "passing" the present "Health Care Reform" bill via extra-legislative tricks of dubious constitutionality? Should one refuse to comply? Quite a few people think so, and some of them have started a Facebook page.
- In the past week there have been headlines all over the world: "Pope Linked to Sex Abuse Case". No need to let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to bash the Church.
- Let me get this straight - when a number of lawyers who've spent the previous eight years representing terrorists - pro bono - are hired by the Obama Administration to work in the D.O.J., the MSM is nowhere to be seen. When Attorney General (for now) Eric Holder stonewalls on releasing their names, the MSM remains asleep at the switch. When it becomes apparent that A.G. Holder was himself one of those lawyers, the MSM emits a collective yawn. No conflicts, there, no sir-ee! Not like there are when the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is reported to have started a "Tea Party group, which The L.A. Times fears will threaten the impartiality of the Supreme Court(!)
Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Also of note is the bit about "all Fridays" - many people believe that Friday abstinence was abolished by Vatican II but that's not so. Pope Paul VI's 1966 Apostolic Constitution Paenitemini permitted national episcopal conferences to substitute "other forms of penitence and especially works of charity and the exercises of piety", that change is further codified in Canon 1253. However, when was the last time you heard of the U.S.C.C.B. - or an individual bishop - reminding the faithful of this obligation or defining what "other forms of penitence" might be appropriate? And how many Catholics do you think are aware that Friday penitence - if not abstinence - still binds? A little something to consider while you're enjoying your cheeseburger this Friday! Also, don't forget to say a prayer to St. Joseph, Patron of the Church, for the Pope and the Church...
01 March 2010
Pope Benedict's Gifts to the Church
Back in April of 2005, when Cardinal Medina Estevez appeared on the balcony to announce the name of the new pope, my heart nearly stopped when he got to "Josephum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem..." RATZINGER! Who'd have believed it? I got a chuckle at the thought of the gang at America or the National un-Catholic Distorter standing glumly around a monitor and then shuffling back to their desks in silence. The scene at the Archlaic's Residence was a bit different, champagne corks were popped (as I recall it was just past Easter) and a stogie worthy of Churchill perfumed the air (to the dismay of Her Magnitude).
Of course one of my first thoughts was that he'd end the "limbo" that the traditional Mass had been in for 30+ years, and sure enough he did, two years later, with Summorum Pontificum. Of course this was seen - not incorrectly - as a gift to the long-neglected Catholics who prefer the traditional liturgy, and also as a step toward a potential reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X. However, many commentators hailed it aa a gift to the entire Church and I believe that they were correct. For one thing it is Pope Benedict's intention that as priests learn (or re-learn) to celebrate the traditional form of the Mass it will have a positive influence on the way they celebrate the newer form. As such it is an especial gift to priests, whose very life and purpose is to offer Mass daily.
I opined at the time Summorum Pontificum was promulgated that one of its fruits would be an increase in vocations to the priesthood, and that such would become apparent within five years of S.P.. i.e. by 2012. I am not aware of any recent statistics in this regard, but anecdotally I do perceive activity along these lines.
Another gift, whose true value may also take some time to become apparent, is Anglicanorum coetibus; which provides for the establishments of "ordinariates" for groups of Anglicans wishing to become Catholic. These ordinariates are roughly analogous to personal dioceses, but do not correspond to or replace existing territorial dioceses; rather they are envisaged to "overlay" them much in the manner that the Military Ordinariate or various Eastern Catholic diocese and eparchies do. The same aging liberal naysayers who condemned Summorum Pontificum predictably panned Anglicanorum coetibus, but it appears that it is likewise starting to bear fruit. A group of traditionally-minded Anglicans in Australia has sought to avail themselves of the new provisions and the process of establishing a personal ordinariate is underway. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal gives some hint of the way that the Anglicans-cum-Catholics will be integrated into the life of the Church while retaining certain of their own liturgical traditions
Because of these acts, and the ecumenical overtures he has made toward various Eastern Orthodox churches, Benedict XVI has been called "The Pope of Christian Unity". This is certainly apt, but inasmuch as these concrete provisions in favor of true unity have been centered around liturgical worship it might be equally appropriate to call him "The Liturgical Pope". Certainly this has been an area of concern for him both previous to and during his papacy, and it is an area in which he has some expertise. As we look forward to the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict's election to the Chair of Peter it can certainly be said that he has had some significant accomplishments. For a man who wished to retire, and who predicted a short papacy for himself, it has thus far been a consequential one.
Of course one of my first thoughts was that he'd end the "limbo" that the traditional Mass had been in for 30+ years, and sure enough he did, two years later, with Summorum Pontificum. Of course this was seen - not incorrectly - as a gift to the long-neglected Catholics who prefer the traditional liturgy, and also as a step toward a potential reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X. However, many commentators hailed it aa a gift to the entire Church and I believe that they were correct. For one thing it is Pope Benedict's intention that as priests learn (or re-learn) to celebrate the traditional form of the Mass it will have a positive influence on the way they celebrate the newer form. As such it is an especial gift to priests, whose very life and purpose is to offer Mass daily.
I opined at the time Summorum Pontificum was promulgated that one of its fruits would be an increase in vocations to the priesthood, and that such would become apparent within five years of S.P.. i.e. by 2012. I am not aware of any recent statistics in this regard, but anecdotally I do perceive activity along these lines.
Another gift, whose true value may also take some time to become apparent, is Anglicanorum coetibus; which provides for the establishments of "ordinariates" for groups of Anglicans wishing to become Catholic. These ordinariates are roughly analogous to personal dioceses, but do not correspond to or replace existing territorial dioceses; rather they are envisaged to "overlay" them much in the manner that the Military Ordinariate or various Eastern Catholic diocese and eparchies do. The same aging liberal naysayers who condemned Summorum Pontificum predictably panned Anglicanorum coetibus, but it appears that it is likewise starting to bear fruit. A group of traditionally-minded Anglicans in Australia has sought to avail themselves of the new provisions and the process of establishing a personal ordinariate is underway. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal gives some hint of the way that the Anglicans-cum-Catholics will be integrated into the life of the Church while retaining certain of their own liturgical traditions
Because of these acts, and the ecumenical overtures he has made toward various Eastern Orthodox churches, Benedict XVI has been called "The Pope of Christian Unity". This is certainly apt, but inasmuch as these concrete provisions in favor of true unity have been centered around liturgical worship it might be equally appropriate to call him "The Liturgical Pope". Certainly this has been an area of concern for him both previous to and during his papacy, and it is an area in which he has some expertise. As we look forward to the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict's election to the Chair of Peter it can certainly be said that he has had some significant accomplishments. For a man who wished to retire, and who predicted a short papacy for himself, it has thus far been a consequential one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)