The indictment of Roger Clemens, charged with committing perjury before the United States Congress, brings a few questions to my mind:
1.) Should we be prosecuting a retired athlete for lying about using performance enhancing substances? There's a surprisingly large number who say "no", and they're not all rabid Roger Clemens fans. One argument seems is the old "he's suffered enough", i.e. he's become a pariah in MLB circles and his once-certain election to the Baseball Hall of Fame now seems extremely unlikely.
There are also those who dismiss the gravity of the offense about which he apparently lied, "it wasn't murder or treason or something". And there are those - myself included - who ask what business Congress has investigating steroid use in professional sports.
We heard many of the same arguments during the impeachment trial of President Clinton, who had certainly committed perjury himself. "it's impractical" to remove the President of the United States from office over a lie he told in a deposition regarding a rather personal matter; but this was only a small part of the argument contra impeachment. The most famous was that the offense "didn't rise to the level of impeachment", which I always found specious.
Is anyone reading this old enough to remember Alger Hiss? For the younger set, Hiss was an official in the U.S. State Department who had been at Yalta with F.D.R. and was secretary of the founding meeting of the United Nations. In 1948 an ex-Communist who was an editor at Time magazine, Whittaker Chambers, accused Hiss of being a Communist. This was a cause celebre, especially since Hiss was an member of the "East Coast Establishment", an Ivy Leaguer who'd been a protege of one Supreme Court Justice while at Harvard (Felix Frankfurter) and susequently clerked for another (Oliver Wendell Holmes). Hiss protested his innocence, and sued Chambers for libel. The events which Chambers was able to prove were beyond the existing statutes of limitations, but Hiss was eventually charged with perjury, convicted, and jailed for several years.
Men (and women, lest they cavil at my insensitivity) lie, about matters large and small, for reasons good and bad. But we need to be able to have confidence in our judicial proceedings and so the crime of perjury must be prosecuted and its perpetrators punished. And prosecutions for perjury ought not be so rare that they are reserved as a "safety net" for instances when the law provides otherwise-insuficient remedy for the deeds of a miscreant.
2.) Why is Congress investigating steroid use in Major League Baseball in the first place? On balance I suppose it might be a good thing, insofar as it keeps them from further curtailing our liberties, raising our taxes, or voting on any more legislation they haven't read! But really, how's this their business? Interstate commerce? "Equal protection"? Baseball's informal status as our "national pastime"? Or the "Imperial Congress" doing what it darn pleases? Not that any of that is germane to the plight of Clemens, for one thing he wasn't subpoenaed or anything, he volunteered to testify!
3.) There is much to be said about the effect of steroids (and H.G.H. and other stuff) on the game, far too much for this already-too-long post. But please indulge me in a modest proposal: how about a separate league for players who want to use performance-enhancing drugs? If, as the argument goes, a certain number of guys are going to do this no matter what, why not give them a venue to compete on an equal basis with their chemically-enhanced peers? Middle infielders routinely hitting tape-measure homers, "real" power hitters routinely racking-up 75 home run seasons, relief pitchers throwing 100 m.p.h. for mutiple innings on back-to-back nights, and a 5-day disabled list in consideration for the "quicker recovery" that most players caught using P.E.D.s claim as their reason for using the juice? If the "X-Games" and "Arena Football" were made for t.v., how much more the fully-juiced game of baseball? Maybe then the rest of us fans could go back to watching the game as Wiliams and Koufax played it; or at least reasonably so. (the mention of those names raises the question - how come these guys who are on the juice max-out at 100 pitches every fifth day, or need a break after a few straight games in the field?)
25 August 2010
18 August 2010
Inside the "Pastoral Center"
Something's been rotten in the Archdiocese of Braintree Boston for quite a while now, and most well-informed Catholics are aware that the Chancery "Pastoral Center" is riddled with heterodox clerics and self-serving hirelings whose advice and dealings have redounded to the discredit of the incumbent Cardinal Archbishop.
Recently two new blogs have been started by individuals possessed of a good deal of inside information on the peculiar goings-on within the Pastoral Center. The picture they paint is not pretty, but from my own sources I have been able to verify sufficient of their facts to convince me that both blogs are reporting the truth about the state of the Archdiocese.
If you have any interest in what's going on in the Archdiocese, check out:
Boston Catholic Insider
-and-
Bryan Hehir Exposed
Recently two new blogs have been started by individuals possessed of a good deal of inside information on the peculiar goings-on within the Pastoral Center. The picture they paint is not pretty, but from my own sources I have been able to verify sufficient of their facts to convince me that both blogs are reporting the truth about the state of the Archdiocese.
If you have any interest in what's going on in the Archdiocese, check out:
Boston Catholic Insider
-and-
Bryan Hehir Exposed
17 August 2010
Who ARE the Obamas?
Average Americans, many of whom were hornswoggled into voting for him in 2008, have only "known" Barack H. Obama - now our 44th president - for a little over two years. Aside from liberals and members of the Democrat party, he got an awful lot of votes because he: 1.) wasn't G. W. Bush, 2.) was our first serious black candidate, 3.) seemed cool, charismatic and charming, and 4.) promised "hope and change".
That got him elected, but since then it hasn't gotten him very far.
Fast-forward to August of 2010. The national economy continues to stagnate in large part because business and the markets have a great deal of uncertainty about the next 6-12 months. Will there be another "stimulus" - carefully crafted to funnel massive doses of your tax dollars to the hard left's favorite constituencies? How much more will Obama, Pelosi, and Reid add to the deficit - and the National Debt? And will they let the Bush tax cuts expire, thereby implementing the largest tax increase in American history effective 1 January 2010? What effect will the short-term Federal bailouts of many irresponsible states have on their long-term economies?
At a time when every job is precious and most states are running immense deficits due mainly to the cost of entitlements, our border with Mexico remains (malignly) neglected by the Federal government, permitting an ongoing flood of illegal immigrants whose presence further exacerbates the situation - to say nothing of the unfettered entree available to criminals and terrorists.
Meanwhile we're still fighting in Afghanistan and "occupying" Iraq to prop-up the nascent Iraqi government, but it's pretty obvious that the mission is poorly-defined and oh-by-the-way morale is rotten. The SecDef is happily cutting the military budget and the C-in-C never speaks of "victory", only of "withdrawal". Iran is less than a week away from activating a nuclear reactor which will allow them to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Speaking of our enemies, a group of "moderate" Muslims is pushing ahead with a plan to build a mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center site, a.k.a. "Ground Zero". These "moderate" Muslims, however, are only "moderate" when compared to the most zealous and murderous purveyors of militant Islam, and it has been demonstrated thay they have ties to
If ever there was a time for leadership this is it. But what have we got? An aloof president who doesn't "do" press conferences, or any other unscripted appearances if he can help it. On the rare occasions when he sallies forth without his plexiglass wingmen, the "TelePropmter Twins", he is invariably forced to issue a morning-after correction of his latest gaffe - usually delivered from a position of ignorance - on one of the the issues of the day; e.g. "Skippy Gates" vs. the Cambridge Police, the Arizona illegal alien law, the "Ground Zero Mosque", etc. ad nauseum.
Twenty months ago, some of B. H. Obama's more leg-tingling admirers in the M.S.M. were likening him to F.D. Roosevelt. Well, they're both liberal Democrats who never left an opportunity pass to increase the role of government in the lives of the governed. But F.D.R. was a known quantity to the American people when they elected him. Scion of an old New York family, cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I, candidate for Vice President in 1920, and two-term Governor of New York; Roosevelt had a record of accomplishment and the obvious qualifications for the nation's highest office.
F.D.R. compiled a mixed record during the Great Depression, while his first acts in office unquestionably staved-off a national panic his later policies - which included tax increases and unprecedented government regulation - are now understood to have prolonged the Depression beyond its duration in many other countries. But he was quite willing to acknowledge the failure of one or another of his programs or policies and scrap it in favor of an alternative; and I regard his foreign policy - at least 1938-44 - as having been largely correct.
Alas, B.H.O. is no F.D.R. During the last twelve tumuluous months President Obama has taken no fewer than seven vacations running to some forty days - not including Mrs. Obama's lavish vacation in Spain. None of these vacations were spent at property he owned himself - recall how often President Reagan and both Bushes were criticized for spending working "vacations" at their OWN residences in California, Maine, and Texas respectively. Indeed, F.D.R.'s favorite retreats were his own estate in the Hudson River Valley and the cottage he purchased at Warm Springs, Ga. Nobody doubts that the White House is able to maintain 24x7 contact with Obama when he's away from Washington, but neither do we labor under the illusion that he's devoting much time to the affairs of state.
When he does spend more than a week or so in Washington we are treated to carefully doled-out photo-ops, scripted and Teleprompter'ed remarks, and rambling statements by his press secretary. Poltics 24x7, but damn little substance.
So - who, and what, are these people we know so little about? Obama describes himself as a "progressive" and claims to be a "Christian". The former may be apt, but the latter is a bit of a puzzle. Twenty months after settling into the White House he has yet to "pick" a church. One of his stated reasons is a reluctance to inconvenience the other worshippers but his presence, but this contrasts rather badly with his willingness to inconvenience his fellow golfers, or beachgoers, or diners, etc. when one of his favored leisure activites is on the agenda. He's wont to lecture us - inaccurately - on being "our brother's keeper" when it serves to advance his nationalization of health care while embracing the feminist abortion-on-demand agenda. Reagan was pilloried for peripheral associations with Billy Graham, Jery Falwell, et al, but consider that Obama's two "spiritual" mentors are Rev. Jeremiah "God-damn-America" Wright and Fr. Michael "Non Compos Mentis" Pfleger.
Obama has been called a Marxist, a Socialist, an Alinskyite, un-American, and a closet Muslim. It's safe to say that no other sitting president has ever been identified in this way. The M.S.M. derides anyone who dares to voice questions about whether he really DOES answer to one or more of those designations, but they avoid the question of WHY people think these things about our 44th president. America didn't know who this man was when they elected him. We knew even less about his wife. Nearly two years later we can only judge him by his words and deeds.
One thing is clear - he and the Democrat Congress have taken the country in directions of which a majority of Americans disapprove, and they have lost the consent of the governed. As things stand now it is very likely that the G.O.P. will reclaim at least the House of Representatives in November, and there is certainly a path open for them to take the Senate as well. This election is as much a referendum on the Obama presidency as it is on the Democrat Congress, but the real verdict will be delivered in November of 2012.
America has twenty-seven more months to find out who the Obamas really are. Based upon the first half of his presidency I'm guessing they'll have a very hard time warming up to him during the second.
That got him elected, but since then it hasn't gotten him very far.
Fast-forward to August of 2010. The national economy continues to stagnate in large part because business and the markets have a great deal of uncertainty about the next 6-12 months. Will there be another "stimulus" - carefully crafted to funnel massive doses of your tax dollars to the hard left's favorite constituencies? How much more will Obama, Pelosi, and Reid add to the deficit - and the National Debt? And will they let the Bush tax cuts expire, thereby implementing the largest tax increase in American history effective 1 January 2010? What effect will the short-term Federal bailouts of many irresponsible states have on their long-term economies?
At a time when every job is precious and most states are running immense deficits due mainly to the cost of entitlements, our border with Mexico remains (malignly) neglected by the Federal government, permitting an ongoing flood of illegal immigrants whose presence further exacerbates the situation - to say nothing of the unfettered entree available to criminals and terrorists.
Meanwhile we're still fighting in Afghanistan and "occupying" Iraq to prop-up the nascent Iraqi government, but it's pretty obvious that the mission is poorly-defined and oh-by-the-way morale is rotten. The SecDef is happily cutting the military budget and the C-in-C never speaks of "victory", only of "withdrawal". Iran is less than a week away from activating a nuclear reactor which will allow them to produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Speaking of our enemies, a group of "moderate" Muslims is pushing ahead with a plan to build a mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center site, a.k.a. "Ground Zero". These "moderate" Muslims, however, are only "moderate" when compared to the most zealous and murderous purveyors of militant Islam, and it has been demonstrated thay they have ties to
If ever there was a time for leadership this is it. But what have we got? An aloof president who doesn't "do" press conferences, or any other unscripted appearances if he can help it. On the rare occasions when he sallies forth without his plexiglass wingmen, the "TelePropmter Twins", he is invariably forced to issue a morning-after correction of his latest gaffe - usually delivered from a position of ignorance - on one of the the issues of the day; e.g. "Skippy Gates" vs. the Cambridge Police, the Arizona illegal alien law, the "Ground Zero Mosque", etc. ad nauseum.
Twenty months ago, some of B. H. Obama's more leg-tingling admirers in the M.S.M. were likening him to F.D. Roosevelt. Well, they're both liberal Democrats who never left an opportunity pass to increase the role of government in the lives of the governed. But F.D.R. was a known quantity to the American people when they elected him. Scion of an old New York family, cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I, candidate for Vice President in 1920, and two-term Governor of New York; Roosevelt had a record of accomplishment and the obvious qualifications for the nation's highest office.
F.D.R. compiled a mixed record during the Great Depression, while his first acts in office unquestionably staved-off a national panic his later policies - which included tax increases and unprecedented government regulation - are now understood to have prolonged the Depression beyond its duration in many other countries. But he was quite willing to acknowledge the failure of one or another of his programs or policies and scrap it in favor of an alternative; and I regard his foreign policy - at least 1938-44 - as having been largely correct.
Alas, B.H.O. is no F.D.R. During the last twelve tumuluous months President Obama has taken no fewer than seven vacations running to some forty days - not including Mrs. Obama's lavish vacation in Spain. None of these vacations were spent at property he owned himself - recall how often President Reagan and both Bushes were criticized for spending working "vacations" at their OWN residences in California, Maine, and Texas respectively. Indeed, F.D.R.'s favorite retreats were his own estate in the Hudson River Valley and the cottage he purchased at Warm Springs, Ga. Nobody doubts that the White House is able to maintain 24x7 contact with Obama when he's away from Washington, but neither do we labor under the illusion that he's devoting much time to the affairs of state.
When he does spend more than a week or so in Washington we are treated to carefully doled-out photo-ops, scripted and Teleprompter'ed remarks, and rambling statements by his press secretary. Poltics 24x7, but damn little substance.
So - who, and what, are these people we know so little about? Obama describes himself as a "progressive" and claims to be a "Christian". The former may be apt, but the latter is a bit of a puzzle. Twenty months after settling into the White House he has yet to "pick" a church. One of his stated reasons is a reluctance to inconvenience the other worshippers but his presence, but this contrasts rather badly with his willingness to inconvenience his fellow golfers, or beachgoers, or diners, etc. when one of his favored leisure activites is on the agenda. He's wont to lecture us - inaccurately - on being "our brother's keeper" when it serves to advance his nationalization of health care while embracing the feminist abortion-on-demand agenda. Reagan was pilloried for peripheral associations with Billy Graham, Jery Falwell, et al, but consider that Obama's two "spiritual" mentors are Rev. Jeremiah "God-damn-America" Wright and Fr. Michael "Non Compos Mentis" Pfleger.
Obama has been called a Marxist, a Socialist, an Alinskyite, un-American, and a closet Muslim. It's safe to say that no other sitting president has ever been identified in this way. The M.S.M. derides anyone who dares to voice questions about whether he really DOES answer to one or more of those designations, but they avoid the question of WHY people think these things about our 44th president. America didn't know who this man was when they elected him. We knew even less about his wife. Nearly two years later we can only judge him by his words and deeds.
One thing is clear - he and the Democrat Congress have taken the country in directions of which a majority of Americans disapprove, and they have lost the consent of the governed. As things stand now it is very likely that the G.O.P. will reclaim at least the House of Representatives in November, and there is certainly a path open for them to take the Senate as well. This election is as much a referendum on the Obama presidency as it is on the Democrat Congress, but the real verdict will be delivered in November of 2012.
America has twenty-seven more months to find out who the Obamas really are. Based upon the first half of his presidency I'm guessing they'll have a very hard time warming up to him during the second.
30 July 2010
Lovey, the taxman's here!
I can't resist the temptation to offer a few words on the recent dust-up over the taxes on the new yacht purchased by our junior senior senator, John Forbes "Liveshot" Kerry, with his second wife's first husband's money:
. And so, with it all, I have very little sympathy for ol' Liveshot.
- I like yachts. While the formal definition of "yacht" is "any watercraft used exclusively for pleasure" one tends to apply it to vessels larger than 30-40 feet. The next best thing to owning a yacht is having friends who own yachts.
- I hate taxes. I'd be
happycontent to pay a federal tax whose proceeds were used to fund the military and a government just large enough to run a postal service and adjudicate matters like interstate highway numbering. I suppose we'd also need a state tax that would fund stuff like those few departments and agencies that are actually necessary, e.g. the State Police and the Department of Corrections. Most "services" should be local, paid for by locally-levied taxes. - I'm no fan of J.F. Kerry. I don't like his politics, I don't like his sanctimonious attitude, and I don't like his phony brand of Catholicism.
- In general I applaud "Liveshot" for doing his best to avoid the onerous Massachusetts sales tax and annual excise tax on watercraft. Unfortunately for him, the sorry effort which came to light last week apparently was his best.
- Like many scandals and lesser incidents, the cover-up was worse than the offense. Witness our hero's bumbling and tone-deaf attempts to explain it all away, which basically amounted to "It's my wife's boat and it's owned by an out-of-store corporation and it's maintained in R.I. and we don't owe any taxes but we'll pay what we owe and we've alread sent them a check and how dare you accuse J. F. Kerry of even thinking about evading taxes and by the way can I get out of here now?"
- So - is he just arrogant or just obtuse? In the first place, why not have his yacht built by one of the yards in New England? Hinkley comes to mind; they're in Maine rather than the People's Republic but they're "local". And there's certainly nothing illegal about someone who's a legal resident of Massachusetts documenting his yacht with a local hailing port even though its maintenance is done out-of-state.
- Did you notice that The Boston Daily Worker didn't have a word to say about it until today, after J.F.K. voluntarily paid the Massachusetts sales tax? Remember when Christy Mihos had a disagreement with the tax collector over the taxes on his boat? What double standard?
21 July 2010
A Serious Question
There have been scores of artists whose lives have been scandalous but who've nonetheless created works which glorify God. There have also been plenty of good and pious men and women who've striven for most of their lives to please God but yet fallen into notorious sin on occasion; some of them we know today as saints!
It is with these things in mind that I ask: whither Mel Gibson? In the past several years he's had a number of, um, rather embarrassing public scandals. First there was his DUI arrest in which he made a number of anti-Semitic remarks, then his divorce of his wife of 26 years which coincided with his affair with a thrice-married actress fourteen years his junior. His latest brush with public opprobrium has been courtesy of the rather messy end of that relationship, in which it is quite possible that domestic violence charges may be brought.
All of these unsavory events have occurred since his production of The Passion of the Christ - which he also co-wrote, directed, and financed - in 2004.
Not that Mr. Gibson was a candidate for immediate sainthood prior to that point, but it seems as though his personal life and career have taken a decided downturn since then. Hmm, do you suppose Mel might have incurred the supernatural wrath of someone of great power? Someone capable of taking possession of hearts and minds and souls, or at least bodies?
To put it bluntly, do you suppose Mel Gibson is possessed? I heard the latest audiotape released by his ex-girlfriend (the one with whose help he apparently wrecked his marriage) and he sounds to me like a very disturbed soul. I got to thinking and I asked myself - I also asked The Archlady - how someone who put his career and personal prestige on the line to make The Passion of The Christ could have such a dramatic turnabout in his life within a few short years... for the worse?
Remember, he wasn't simply a hired hand for The Passion, it was his own project from start to end and he deserves all possible human credit for it. it was in many ways a personal testimony to his faith, and Our Faith. If you are a believing Catholic and you think that Satan would simply let that go by without notice, even as it became (at that time) the 8th-highest grossing picture ever, you might want to re-examine your own faith! Even as this film stirred passions in Hollywood and the other elite citadels of our liberal and agnostic culture you can be sure that it caused great wailing and gnashing of teeth in Gehenna.
So - has the evil one bombarded Mr. Gibson with all sorts of provocations and temptations; or is this simply the sorry result of too much fame and public attention lavished onto one man? And, if indeed the minions of the underworld did in fact launch an assault upon Mr Gibson's soul, should we take the latest news as evidence that they have (at leat temporarily) succeeded?
Mel Gibson has done some awful things, but he also made a film - of his own volition - which has done incalculable good for many souls and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. By the Faith which he professes he is one of our brothers. Pray for him, please. It's likely that he's under attack and - as far-fetched as it might seem - theoretically possible that he's succumbed to possession. Or perhaps he's just lost his faith. Either way he could use some help from above!
It is with these things in mind that I ask: whither Mel Gibson? In the past several years he's had a number of, um, rather embarrassing public scandals. First there was his DUI arrest in which he made a number of anti-Semitic remarks, then his divorce of his wife of 26 years which coincided with his affair with a thrice-married actress fourteen years his junior. His latest brush with public opprobrium has been courtesy of the rather messy end of that relationship, in which it is quite possible that domestic violence charges may be brought.
All of these unsavory events have occurred since his production of The Passion of the Christ - which he also co-wrote, directed, and financed - in 2004.
Not that Mr. Gibson was a candidate for immediate sainthood prior to that point, but it seems as though his personal life and career have taken a decided downturn since then. Hmm, do you suppose Mel might have incurred the supernatural wrath of someone of great power? Someone capable of taking possession of hearts and minds and souls, or at least bodies?
To put it bluntly, do you suppose Mel Gibson is possessed? I heard the latest audiotape released by his ex-girlfriend (the one with whose help he apparently wrecked his marriage) and he sounds to me like a very disturbed soul. I got to thinking and I asked myself - I also asked The Archlady - how someone who put his career and personal prestige on the line to make The Passion of The Christ could have such a dramatic turnabout in his life within a few short years... for the worse?
Remember, he wasn't simply a hired hand for The Passion, it was his own project from start to end and he deserves all possible human credit for it. it was in many ways a personal testimony to his faith, and Our Faith. If you are a believing Catholic and you think that Satan would simply let that go by without notice, even as it became (at that time) the 8th-highest grossing picture ever, you might want to re-examine your own faith! Even as this film stirred passions in Hollywood and the other elite citadels of our liberal and agnostic culture you can be sure that it caused great wailing and gnashing of teeth in Gehenna.
So - has the evil one bombarded Mr. Gibson with all sorts of provocations and temptations; or is this simply the sorry result of too much fame and public attention lavished onto one man? And, if indeed the minions of the underworld did in fact launch an assault upon Mr Gibson's soul, should we take the latest news as evidence that they have (at leat temporarily) succeeded?
Mel Gibson has done some awful things, but he also made a film - of his own volition - which has done incalculable good for many souls and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. By the Faith which he professes he is one of our brothers. Pray for him, please. It's likely that he's under attack and - as far-fetched as it might seem - theoretically possible that he's succumbed to possession. Or perhaps he's just lost his faith. Either way he could use some help from above!
19 July 2010
While I was away...
I was away last week and had minimal contact with the outside world. I had a chance to catch up with my reading last night and ran across a very interesting article, on Zenit of all places: an interview with Fr. Calvin Goodwin, F.S.S.P. I hope a great many priests read it, and laics as well...
In other news, I learned on Saturday that the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, N.H. is very close to canonical regularization with the Diocese of Manchester. While Pope Benedict is not directly involved with this case - at least not to my knowledge - it is unarguable that his papacy has created the climate which has made this a possibility.
Fr. Z - and others - refer to Benedict XVI as "The Pope of Christian Unity", and they're absolutely spot-on. God grant him many more years on the Throne of Peter.
In other news, I learned on Saturday that the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, N.H. is very close to canonical regularization with the Diocese of Manchester. While Pope Benedict is not directly involved with this case - at least not to my knowledge - it is unarguable that his papacy has created the climate which has made this a possibility.
Fr. Z - and others - refer to Benedict XVI as "The Pope of Christian Unity", and they're absolutely spot-on. God grant him many more years on the Throne of Peter.
07 July 2010
A happy anniversary - Deo Gratias!
Three years ago today Pope Benedict's apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, acknowledging the right of priests to use the 1962 Missal ad libitum privately and under most circumstances publicly. Summorum Pontificum also established guidelines under which the faithful could request the T.L.M. directly from their pastors rather than seeking recourse to their bishop. As I've opined before, this was not only a gift to Catholics inclined toward traditional modes of liturgy and spitituality, it was a great gift from Pope Benedict XVI to the entire Church. Outside of the realm, admittedly small, of those who attend or celebrate the traditional Mass; Summorum Pontificum has had immense repercussions in the Church's relationship with the Orthodox Churches and with the large number of Anglicans disaffected by the increasing lunacy within their communions.
But since its stated intentions were to make the T.L.M. available to all who desired it and also to remove one of the stumbling blocks to a regularization of the S.S.P.X. it seems opportune to assess its success in those areas after three years (well, almost - S.P. came into effect on 14 September 2007).
I do not have the requisite statistical information on the growth of the traditional Mass in the past three years to make an informed pronouncement on the global situation, but I think it's definitely worth noting that in 2007 there were a total of ten every-Sunday T.L.M.'s in all of New England. There were two whole states without a single (approved) Mass in the Usus Antiquor (not even one in a cemetery chapel at 4 a.m. on the fifth Tuesday of February!) In the three years of Summorum Pontificum the number of every-Sunday Masses has more than doubled (to at least twenty-two), every diocese has at least one Sunday Mass, and there are lots of regularly scheduled weekday Masses, e.g. First Fridays. One parish, Mary Immaculate of Lourdes in Newton Upper Falls (MA) has a daily T.L.M. while Holy Name of Jesus in Providence (RI) has two traditional Masses every Sunday. It's hard to recall that back in late June and Early July of 2007 the Archbishop of Braintree was telling everyone how he'd set the Pope straight on the question of the T.L.M. in America, i.e. that there was virtually no demand for it! Do you suppose he'll have anything to say for today's occasion?
Oh, by the way, despite the best efforts of many within the Church and their allies in the "progressive" media there has been a notable improvement in relations with the S.S.P.X. The combination of Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the excommunications of their four bishops have facilitated a new stage which has begun with doctrinal talks which are now ongoing.
Thank you, Pope Benedict!
But since its stated intentions were to make the T.L.M. available to all who desired it and also to remove one of the stumbling blocks to a regularization of the S.S.P.X. it seems opportune to assess its success in those areas after three years (well, almost - S.P. came into effect on 14 September 2007).
I do not have the requisite statistical information on the growth of the traditional Mass in the past three years to make an informed pronouncement on the global situation, but I think it's definitely worth noting that in 2007 there were a total of ten every-Sunday T.L.M.'s in all of New England. There were two whole states without a single (approved) Mass in the Usus Antiquor (not even one in a cemetery chapel at 4 a.m. on the fifth Tuesday of February!) In the three years of Summorum Pontificum the number of every-Sunday Masses has more than doubled (to at least twenty-two), every diocese has at least one Sunday Mass, and there are lots of regularly scheduled weekday Masses, e.g. First Fridays. One parish, Mary Immaculate of Lourdes in Newton Upper Falls (MA) has a daily T.L.M. while Holy Name of Jesus in Providence (RI) has two traditional Masses every Sunday. It's hard to recall that back in late June and Early July of 2007 the Archbishop of Braintree was telling everyone how he'd set the Pope straight on the question of the T.L.M. in America, i.e. that there was virtually no demand for it! Do you suppose he'll have anything to say for today's occasion?
Oh, by the way, despite the best efforts of many within the Church and their allies in the "progressive" media there has been a notable improvement in relations with the S.S.P.X. The combination of Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the excommunications of their four bishops have facilitated a new stage which has begun with doctrinal talks which are now ongoing.
Thank you, Pope Benedict!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)