STAY AT THE PARTY

 By Tim Rohr

This will be a little different post than the JW usual. In fact, I should post it over at my other "Catholic" blog. Nevertheless, I'll post it here since this blog has a higher readership and this view may help someone that isn't necessarily looking for a "religious" perspective.

This past Sunday's gospel reading was the familiar "Wedding at Cana" whereat Jesus performs his first miracle. I'll copy the reading in full before sharing my thoughts:

Gospel. John 2:1-11

There was a wedding at Cana in Galilee,

and the mother of Jesus was there.

Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.

When the wine ran short,

the mother of Jesus said to him,

“They have no wine.”

And Jesus said to her,

“Woman, how does your concern affect me?

My hour has not yet come.”

His mother said to the servers,

“Do whatever he tells you.”

Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings,

each holding twenty to thirty gallons.

Jesus told them,

“Fill the jars with water.”

So they filled them to the brim.

Then he told them,

“Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.”

So they took it. 

And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine,

without knowing where it came from

— although the servers who had drawn the water knew —,

the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him,

“Everyone serves good wine first,

and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one;

but you have kept the good wine until now.”

Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs at Cana in Galilee

and so revealed his glory,

and his disciples began to believe in him. 

The usual sermon following this Gospel usually revolves around the unique roll of the Blessed Mother - even getting God the Son to do something he didn't want to do. In fact, it could be said she got him to do something that he wasn't supposed to do: "My hour has not yet come." 

Much can be said about this Gospel passage and much usually is. I particularly like this Gospel because it says so much about who the Blessed Mother is and what she can do for us poor creatures.

It was a few years ago when I suppose I finally matured enough to see something in this story that I've never heard before, and it's sort of a shame that we don't hear something said about this.

The key verse is when the headwaiter says to the groom: “Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.”

Of course, neither the headwaiter nor the groom knew at first what really happened, though I suppose later everyone found out because the gospel goes on to say "and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him."

As is usually the case, a single scripture passage or an account like this one can hold many meanings, and the great meaning for me is "you gotta stay at the party." 

When the wine ran out, probably some people left. There was obviously a disturbance in the party because the Blessed Mother was troubled enough to go to Jesus to fix the problem. And for those who stayed at the party, well, they got the best wine.

So, in short, and this is nothing new, God saves the best for last - for those who "endure to the end" as St. Paul tells us. And since this miracle occurs at a wedding, I believe it is a special message about marriage: endure to the end because God saves the best for last - for those who endure to the end. 

Stay at the party - even after the wine runs out. 

AUTHORITY THEY DO NOT HAVE

Recently, a visionary/mystic from the Philippines visited St. Anthony Parish in Tamuning Guam. She gave a talk and held a healing service during which she laid hands on and prayed over people. 

This may seem quite nice, but, for Catholics, it's problematic and even dangerous. Fr. Chad Ripperger, a well-known exorcist, explains:

Lay people can pray for you, teach you to pray, encourage you to pray, and pray with you but they should never be praying over (laying hands) because that implies authority that they don't have. Imposition of hand is actually a manifestation of authority that is why we discourage lay faithful to imposing hand over faithful. (Some lay people find a degree of success but since they don't have the authority, they are getting attacked, retaliation from demons because they are protected, most of the time the demon will afflict the person's family) ~Fr. Chad Ripperger (Exorcist)

And also here.  

And this from Msgr. Charles Pope:

"It is certainly permissible and encouraged for laypeople to pray for one another. Indeed, the charism to bring physical or spiritual healing and consolation to others is not exclusive to the clergy. When praying, however, the laity should not use priestly gestures such as the laying of hands upon a person’s head or making the sign of the cross over them similar to the gesture of priests when giving a blessing. If hands are imposed when praying with someone, it is better to place them upon the shoulders." 

And this also goes for people raising their hands, usually after Mass and at the priest's invitation, to pray for or bless someone (on their birthday or some other special occasion). 

 

THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP

By Tim Rohr

Today is November 2, and the Feast of All Souls or All Souls Day: the day when we as Catholics particularly remember and pray for the faithful departed. 

The Divine Office for the day begins with this Scripture:

“But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep,” (1 Thess 4:13-14).

It caught my eye as another place in Scripture where Purgatory is alluded to. As we know, the concept of an intermediate place or state of purification, Purgatory, is not only not accepted by most, if not all, non-Catholic Christians ("NCC"), and even many Catholics these days, but was the central point of division which led to Luther's protestant revolution.

The typical NCC attack is based on the point that the word "Purgatory" isn't found in the Bible. The usual Catholic response is that the words "Trinity" and "Incarnation" are not found either but the concepts are clearly inferred.

The challenge with Purgatory is that the usual Catholic scriptures to support the reality of Purgatory are found in New Testament parables or a couple places in the Old Testament, one of which is the 2 Maccabees, a book non-Catholics don't have in their Bibles. 

I wrote about that extensively here and proffered what I think is a more clear reference to Purgatory as found in Revelation, however, the above Scripture gives another reference to Purgatory that I haven't seen used, at least not in the Catechism or Apologetic circles. So let's take a look.

“But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.” (1 Thess 4:13-14).

The words "those who are asleep" means those who have died. For NCC's who do not accept Purgatory, those who have died either go to Heaven or Hell, and for NCC's, the fate of the dead is clear: if they accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior the dead go to Heaven, and if they didn't, they go to Hell. And for most NCC's, the fate of the dead is usually assured because the confession of faith must be a public thing.

However, if this is the case, then there is no reason for Paul to speak of "hope." There is no reason for us to hope the faithful departed is in Heaven if salvation was assured by a confession of faith while still alive. And there is no reason for hope if the person is in Hell, since Hell is an eternal sentence with no possibility of parole.  

"Hope," as used here by Paul can only refer to those who have died and who may still gain Heaven as those would be the only souls we could "hope" for. 

There is also more to be said about the term "fallen asleep." The above Scripture says: "through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.”

We know that those who are with Jesus in Heaven enjoy the beatific vision and are very much alive in Christ. They are not "asleep." 

NCC's will argue that "sleep" only refers to the body and not the soul, but this is out of whack with "through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." Of course we believe in the Resurrection of the body, but clearly Paul isn't speaking of that here. He is speaking of those who have died, here and now, not the end of time.

Thus, "those who have fallen asleep" can only refer to souls who are waiting for Jesus to "bring with him." The only possibility for "waiting" after death is the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. 

THE LITURGICAL MISHMASH OF JANUARY 1

By Tim Rohr

For anyone still sweating over having to go to Mass this past Sunday Dec. 24 and Christmas Dec. 25 (two days in a row!) you can breath easy now that the Archdiocese of Agana has issued a statement "abrogating" Jan. 1 as a Holy Day of Obligation. 

The following was shared on the Facebook Page of the Umatuna:

Dec. 29, 2023

Message clarifying Holy Days

of Obligation and Solemnity

of Mary, the Holy Mother

of God on January 1, 2024

---

The joy of Jesus Christ, our Savior be with you all! The beautiful celebration of Jesus Christ and Christmas continue in our churches throughout the island. Many have asked if the upcoming commemoration of the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God on Monday, January 1, 2024 is a Holy Day of Obligation.

To alleviate any confusion, our Apostolic Administrator, Father Romeo Convocar has asked the Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission (ALC) to issue this clarification derived in part from Archdiocese of Agaña AVISO, Protocol No. 2023-53 issued on March 23 of 2023:

Per AOA Protocol No. 2023-053, because the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God falls on a Monday on this January 1, 2024, the Holy Day of Obligation is removed.

This is not to say that this beautiful Solemnity of Our Blessed Mother is not important. In fact, the Solemnity is still celebrated as we honor our dearest Mary, the Holy Mother of God. The Church always encourages the faithful to attend Mass whenever they can and to give honor to Mother Mary.

For those who prefer the more formal, precise language, here are the exact words of the March 23, 2023 AVISO, Protocol No. 2023-53:

NOTE: Whenever January 1, the Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God; or August 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption; or November 1, the Solemnity of All Saints; or March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation falls on a Saturday or a Monday, the precept of the Holy Day of Obligation is abrogated. However, the proper of the Solemnity/Feast is still celebrated. In this context, “abrogated” means removed.

Joy to the World, Our Savior is Born,

/s/Father Paul Gofigan

Chairman, Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission

=====

For context there is this at The Catholic Thing:

The Next Three January 1’s

January 1, 2022 was a Saturday.  January 1, 2023 is a Sunday.  January 1, 2024 is a Monday.

Only one of those January 1’s will be a holy day of obligation – 2023 – and that’s only because it falls on Sunday.

The mishmash is a result of the “Complementary Norm” adopted by the United States Catholic Conference back in 1991 which abrogated the obligation for the holy days of January 1, August 15, and November 1 if they fell on a Saturday or a Monday.

CONTINUED

CLING TO JESUS

By Tim Rohr

Okay. In the spirit of Pope Francis, I am going to "make a mess," and address this crazy stuff in a way I have not seen anyone else do. 

By "crazy stuff," I mean the pope's recent full frontal shot between the eyes of traditional Catholic orthodoxy, aka Fiducia supplicans: the pope's declaration authorizing public blessings of same-sex unions and so-called "irregular situations" of every kind.

It's easy to point fingers at what many call "the lavender lobby in the Vatican" and other homosexual stuff going on in the highest halls of power in the Catholic Church that many of us have been aware of for years, nay, decades. 

However, the real culprit is not the usual suspects: homosexuals and their supporters. The real culprit is sacramentally married men and women whose marriage is not "open to life." 

And beyond that, the "really real" culprit is the teachers and preachers within the Catholic Church who not only authorize, but also promote sexual sterility within a sacramental marriage. 

You may want to stop reading at this point, but I'll go on anyway.

I ain't making this up, so I'll quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church at this point.

 "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil..." (CCC 2370)

It is important to note that while the Catholic Church condemns every form of contraception as "intrinsically evil," it stops short of doing so when it comes to homosexual acts and instead labels said acts as only "intrinsically disordered:"

"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (CCC 2357)

There's a big difference between intrinsically evil and intrinsically disordered, and the Church's choice to distinguish the two is critical to anyone who cares, not just about the current controversy, but about the eternal destination of his or her soul.

Contraceptive acts between sacramentally married couples is EVIL (not just disordered) because the Sacrament of Matrimony confers on the man and woman the grace to conform to God's will which is to "accept children willingly and lovingly from God," which are the words each spouse is required to say "I do" to before God and men at the marriage ceremony. 

Homosexuals, specifically persons in a homosexual relationship, take no such vow and receive no such grace. Their sexual unions are naturally sterile which is why the Church labels them "disordered." 

However, sacramental marital unions between a man and a woman are not only not naturally sterile, but are ordered to procreation. Thus, the deliberate, intentional frustration of the natural consequence of the "marital act" is to spit in God's face because not only do we say "NO" to God, we say "I am God...We are God...We will decide when and where our act shall bear fruit."

This is why the Church labels contraceptive marital acts between sacramentally married persons "intrinsically evil" while pronouncing the much lighter sentence of "disordered" on homosexual acts. 

In His Mercy, God sees that persons who engage in homosexual acts do not have the same sacramental grace to resist such acts as do sacramentally married persons.

In short, persons who engage in homosexual acts are less mortally culpable than sacramentally married persons who engage in contraceptive sex.

As terrible as this all is, it is not really even the fault of sacramentally married couples. 

It is the fault of pastors who 1) sanction, promote, or otherwise turn a blind eye to contraception, or 2) sanction, promote, support, and teach a contraceptive mentality in their so-called "pre-Cana" classes, aka "marriage prep."

Here's what I mean.

Most Catholic "pre-Cana" classes include at least a module or two of how to "chart" fertility, aka Natural Family Planning. 

The short course is this: a sexually mature female is usually fertile for only about seven days of a 28 day "cycle." The idea is to identify the bodily markers before and after those 7 days and refrain from sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy. 

This is taught to all Catholic couples preparing for marriage within usual diocesan prescriptions. 

Promoters of "NFP" like to counter that NFP can be used to "get pregnant" as well. And that is true. But no one is fooled. 

The real import of the NFP module is to teach couples how to avoid pregnancy "naturally." However, teaching couples about to be married flies in the face of the vow they will publicly pronounce at their wedding: "to accept children willingly and lovingly from God."

If a couple is not ready to "accept children willingly and lovingly from God" then they have no business getting married, at least not in a Catholic marriage.

Tying this back to the point of this post. 

If sexual intercourse is not ordered to procreation, whether it be frustrated by homosexual sex or contraceptive sex, then both acts are "disordered," with contraceptive sex between sacramentally married persons being "intrinsically evil," aka "mortal sin," i.e. you are eternally damned unless you repent and swear to "sin no more." 

There is much debate as to how many Catholic couples contracept. The accepted number is 90%. But we don't need a census to figure this out. We only need to look at the empty pews and the empty schools. 

Meanwhile, I am not going to end here. I am going to lay the blame on a pope. No, not Francis, but the already sainted Paul VI, and specifically his encyclical Humane Vitae (HV).

HV upheld traditional Church teaching regarding the evil of contraception, however, and this is a big HOWEVER, no defender of HV or Paul VI that I know of has ever pointed out that Paul VI, via HV, left contraception up to a vote. Here is what HV says in its opening:

...within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed (HV, Par. 6)

The "commission" is the Birth Control Commission, initially established by Pope John 23 and later expanded by Paul 6. John's commission consisted of 7 prelates, Paul's expansion jumped the number to 72 inclusive of a wide array of "lay experts."

And here's what happened:

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed. This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting.

In other words, the vote was a staggering majority in favor of birth control. 

Paul 6 had few options. In fact, he only had one. He already knew he could never overturn God's plan for marriage, so he blamed it on the vote, saying that, umm, well, the vote was not unanimous ("complete agreement"). 

This is where the real mess started. So apparently all that's really needed to upend immutable moral doctrine is "complete agreement" (a unanimous vote) by some "commission" established on a papal whim. 

NOT.

To conclude. Paul VI, like it or not, opened the door via HV for FS. If a pope, via a commission or a letter can upend God, then what?

The short answer is cling to Jesus. 

CRUSHING SATAN'S HEAD

I have written about this several times before. (Just type "Immaculate Conception" in the above search bar.) 

However, the issue, the same issue, a modern error, can - in my mind - never be stressed too much, since the error (I believe) is at the root of so much of what has lately gone wrong with our Church.  

Today, December 8 (or December 7 if you attended the Vigil Mass as I did) is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. 

And, in the first reading, you are supposed to hear the words from Scripture which are the very foundation of this Dogma. But you won't. 

Instead you heard, or will hear:

Then the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; on your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Prior to the Novus Ordo revolution (1969), you would have heard (in Latin):

et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem quia fecisti hoc maledictus es inter omnia animantia et bestias terrae super pectus tuum gradieris et terram comedes cunctis diebus vitae tuae inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

[In English]

And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and the beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

I will set out the difference here:

After 1969:

...he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

Before 1969:

...she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

In these few words there are some major differences

First, there is the obvious change from "she" to "he." And as this is the main point, I will come back to it. 

Next there is the difference between striking and crushing. 

Post 1969, Satan is "striking," thus apparently alive and well and obviously not "crushed." Pre-1969, Satan is "crushed," which of course is exactly the object of Christ's salvific mission.

Lastly there is the difference between "while you strike at his heel" and "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." Ignoring the "he" and "she" for the moment, Satan, post-1969, is still powerful, and pre-1969 is already defeated and can do nothing but "lie in wait for her heel."

Before I get to the "he" vs "she" thing, it's important to understand what was going on in post-Vatican II 1969 and thereafter. 

Post-Vatican II - 1969

If Vatican II did anything, (and forgive the dumbed down version) it sort of said "can't we all get along?" to the rest of the world's non-Catholic religions, with the primary culprit being the 16th and last document of Vatican II, Dignitas Humanae, which, in effect, leveled all the world's religions to "I'm Okay, You're Okay" (the title of a book many of us were made to read in Catholic high school religion classes in the 70's). 

The idea was "let's celebrate our similarities and ignore our differences." 

Nice, but one of the BIGGEST Catholic differences with most non-Catholic Christian religions ("Protestants") was MARY, and just about everything the Church holds true about her. 

In short, what the Church holds true about Mary is too much to summarize here, so it's easier to summarize what Protestants believe: the Mother of Jesus was functionally a vaginal conduit for the Christ, and who may be acknowledged via quaint Christmas stable scenes (since that's hard to avoid), but who matters little before or thereafter. 

NOTE: For anyone who cares to read, and all determined Catholics should, the very best summary of what the Church holds true about Mary is the very promulgation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as set forth by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, otherwise known as INEFFABILIS DEUS. 

As I was "around" the pre and post-Vatican II era, I very much remember the eradication of everything MARY from our parish church. 

As a young boy, I not only attended Sunday Mass with my parents, but, as an altar boy, served at least one weekday Mass per week.

As most Catholics my age will recall, in those days, there was a very prominent Crucifix with the Suffering Christ placed directly over the Tabernacle which was cemented at the center of the Altar upon which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was Offered...facing the Suffering Christ. 

To both sides of the main altar there were side altars. To the left there was an altar with St. Joseph holding the Child Jesus, and to the right, there was the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

The Mary altar was always very prominent because it was at this altar that Catholic brides knelt, prayed, and offered flowers at the end of their wedding Mass. But it was also a place where we spent at least a few minutes after every Mass thanking Mary for the gift of Her Son. 

It's just what we were taught to do...before 1969.

At the risk of sounding "old fashioned" and repetitive, I, everyday - as I grow older, grow ever more thankful to have been born when I was and where I was...even if it was at the bitter end of pre-V2 Catholicism.

And though my beautiful Catholic childhood was cut short by the aftershocks of Vatican II (some of which I detail here), I had enough "inculcation" of true Catholicity by then to last me a lifetime. 

Thank you Jesus and Mary...and the Benedictine nuns of that day -  before they joined the revolution.

On to the "he" vs. "she" thing

It should be obvious by now - which is why I shared the foregoing, that the real impetus to convert centuries of that first reading where "she" crushed Satan's head to "he" was motivated by the post-V2-ecumenical drive to rid the Church of MARY. 

BTW. I should add, that even though my parish church rid the main sanctuary of every image of Mary, the then-pastor (mid 1970's) spent many thousands of dollars to build a side chapel for Our Lady of Guadalupe. Apparently, the pastor - an old white guy - was fearful that the Mexican ladies would turn on him. LOL. 

That Mary crushes the head of Satan is the very center of the DOGMA of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. And how sad that on this day our modern "Catholic" Mass translation does not use the critical words from Scripture as affirmed in the Dogmatic Declaration of the Immaculate Conception.

Here's the whole paragraph. (See "Interpreters of Sacred Scripture")

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind — words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed”[13] — taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.

So what's the problem?

Why, on this day, can we not give Mary the praise and gratefulness that is her due? As the Woman of Genesis 3:15 who's heel CRUSHES the head of the SERPENT!

According to a local Friar, to whom I once pressed this question, the issue supposedly has to do with the translation of the Latin word "ipsa:" 

...et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem quia fecisti hoc maledictus es inter omnia animantia et bestias terrae super pectus tuum gradieris et terram comedes cunctis diebus vitae tuae inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

"Ipsa" is a Latin pronoun which can mean "himself," "herself" or "itself." 

Modernists, anxious to rid our Church of Mary,  pounced upon the supposedly uncertain meaning of "ipsa" and happily re-translated Genesis 3:15 to say "his" vs "her." 

However, modernists have a problem: history. 

For nearly 2000 years, just about every depiction of the Blessed Virgin Mary, be it on canvas, stone, mosaic, or whatever conceivable medium, the Mary of Genesis 3:15 is not only standing on a serpent...but CRUSHING its head. 

Of course it is Christ Jesus who ultimately crushes Satan's head and opens Heaven for us. But ultimately it is "through Mary to Jesus." 

God so ordained it. 

TAMMY PETERSON - WIFE OF JORDAN PETERSON - BECOMING CATHOLIC

"When I became sick, I was told that I only had a few months to live. I came home to see my son and I told him. When I saw the grief on his face, the grief in his eyes, I realized that, for him, to lose his mother was a profound loss, much more than I would have imagined. I didn’t hold my own life as precious as he held it. And in that moment of realization, of seeing that in him, I could physically feel all kind of cynicism and self-doubt lifted off my shoulders. I felt filled with God’s love for the first time in my life. And I felt completely at peace. I wouldn’t say that I’ve felt completely at peace ever since; life is not always easy, but I have strived to keep this inner peace through prayer. I’ve practiced self-reflections and examination in order to try to recognize when self-will is getting the best of me again. And I pray to be able to get on my knees, and it works. And then I move forward that way, just doing the next great thing. And that is a so much better way to live, that I’m now completely convinced of the faith. I’m convinced of the Bible; I’m convinced of God’s love which fills me up, right from my boots to the top of my head."

FULL STORY 

LES CHIENS ABOIENT, LA CARAVANE PASSE!

By Tim Rohr

Here is an interview with an African bishop after the end of the Synod on Synodality.

I personally found the report of the interview, as presented by Vatican correspondent, Edward Pentin, very interesting given that Pentin chose to end his report with the African bishop relating a reportedly African maxim in French:

Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.

Translation: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

It struck a personal note with me because the same phrase was used by a motivational speaker (Charles Paul Conn) back in the day (more than 30 years ago) when I was a struggling entrepreneur and unaccustomed to rejection and the normal hardships of making a sale. 

For whatever reason, the phrase stuck with me; and while my entrepreneurial success is not the stuff of books, the image of dogs barking while the caravan moved on helped me overcome enough personal stuff to provide for a family of thirteen for the better part of thirty years. 

For readers needing a bit more explanation, the bishop himself sort of provides it:

Nobody is bothered about those things (challenges to defined doctrine). Christians understand their doctrine, the teaching of the Church, and they’re going on...We will get worried if the caravan stops. As long as the caravan does not stop, then the dogs bark.

This should be easy for us in Guam to understand. 

Dogs barking at our cars and nipping at our tires (if not our heels) is a common thing. But do we stop and try to educate the dog? Of course not. Even runners or walkers know not to pay attention to the dog, and if the dog insists on being a pest, to turn on it and it will usually go away. And we move on. We don't chase the dog or lecture its owner. 

LOL. 

Well, anyway, here's a few other things the African bishop said:

As a synod council member, … I understood, listening to the arguments, that this synod is not about change of doctrine. This synod is about journeying together, whatever journeying together means.

My Note: The bishop's quip: "whatever journeying together means" is significant because this "journeying" appears to be the object of the Synod...but journeying where? 

Whether we’re talking to 'LGBT' people or we’re talking to polygamists or we’re talking about ourselves, there must always be the call to conversion, conversion to the Gospel.

John Paul said “Enough,” Francis says “Talk,” but the important thing is that we are teaching what the Church says and we’re moving on. The Church remains. For me, this is a consolation.

In Africa, we understand marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and anything short of that is witchcraft. This is something we said very strongly. We cannot be talking about sensitivities and orientations within the Church setting when this is what the Gospel says. This is what the teaching of the Church has said all along and this is what various cultures believe.

...spiritual poverty is what is leading us a lot into material poverty.  

THE SYNOD AND THE FLOOR OF HELL

Well, it appears the Synod on Synodality is over. And while the final session was a monthlong meeting (this month), the whole process took three years and caused a serious ruckus in the Catholic Church (the Church) from all sides. 

However, in the end, at least as the New York Times reports, Francis has "kicked the can down the road."

...progressives who had high hopes that the meeting would create real momentum for change said the final document had failed to move the institution at all. Before the meeting, a variety of sensitive topics were on the table, including the blessing of same-sex unions, reaching out to L.G.B.T.Q.+ Catholics and the possibility of allowing married men to become priests. Those basically vanished.

The only major issue which seemed to remain alive in the final document was the increased role of women in the workings of the Church, but even this is far short of what progressives were shouting for: a female diaconate. 

Instead, the document said that it was urgent for women to have more responsibilities and more say in the workings of the church. When it came to female deacons, though, it said more “theological and pastoral” study was necessary. It suggested that the work of two commissions created by Francis to study the female diaconate be re-examined and the results be presented when the assembly reconvenes next year — “if possible.”

After all the huffing and puffing over the last three years wherein it very much appeared that Pope Francis intended to radically change the very structure of the Church from a monarchal hierarchy (the Kingdom of God) to a "can't we all get along" democracy, Francis pulled the ultimate head-fake.

Fr. James Martin, S.J., the hero of the LGBTQ's who played a major role at the Synod, said it best in saying (in the NY Times article): “I am disappointed, but I’m not surprised.”

Martin is a very smart man. And I suspect he is not surprised for the same reason I am not surprised: Pope Francis, in fact no pope, has the authority to change even the dot on an "i" on matters of defined faith and morals. 

The Synod and the 1960's Birth Control Commission

The whole thing reminds me of a similar scenario played out by Popes John 23 and Paul 6 in the 1960's with their Birth Control Commission. (See here for a more thorough account.)

On Birth Control, the Church's teaching is ancient and clear: NO! 

However, in the 1960's John 23 instituted a commission to look into the matter to see whether or not Catholics might be permitted to contracept with this new thing called "The Pill." John died about a year later and then Paul really did the damage. 

Here's what I mean.

John's original commission consisted of seven clerics - who could pretty much be counted on to say "yah, we looked at it, but no."

When Paul inherited the commission upon John's death, Paul expanded the commission to 72 members and included many lay persons. 

The expansion of the commission, both in numbers and the inclusion of lay persons, was enough to incite all who heard of this to believe that Paul was gearing up to permit chemical contraception (The Pill). 

However, what really got the clergy going in that direction was what Paul said upon his expansion of the commission:

"We say frankly that so far we do not have sufficient reason to consider the norms given by Pope Pius XII on this matter [of contraception] as out of date and therefore as not binding. They must be considered as valid, at least until We feel obliged in conscience to change them." - Paul VI Acta apostolicae sedis (AAS) 56 (1964) 588-59, 1964 address to the special papal commission on the use of contraceptives.

As the foregoing is pope-speak, I highlighted the key words. 

First whenever a pope uses "We," he is speaking magisterially for the whole Church. Had he said "I..," things might have been quite different. But he didn't. He said "We." He then uses "We" again when his says "until We feel obliged...to change them." 

In short, Paul 6 was stating very clearly that he had the authority to change the Church's ancient teaching on contraception, and that he only needed to "feel obliged" to change it. 

An electrifying thrill

As every other major Christian denomination had already permitted contraception (beginning with the Anglican Church in 1930), Paul's announcement sent an electrifying thrill through the Catholic population already caught in the throws of the sexual revolution of the 1960's; and Catholic prelates and clerics everywhere - but especially in the U.S and Europe - began (quietly) counseling Catholic couples that it was okay to contracept because the Church was going to change its teaching soon. 

If anything could cause Paul to "feel obliged" to change Church teaching on contraception, it would be the final vote of the Birth Control Commission he expanded and shepherded; and in 1966, two years after Paul took the reins, his commission voted 65-7...IN FAVOR of lifting the Church's ban on contraception. 

Back to Francis and his Synod

And this brings us back to Francis and what will become his infamous "Synod." 

Paul knew he had no authority to change the Church's teaching on birth control the same as Francis knew he had no authority to bless same-sex unions, ordain women, or many of the other things his Synod proposed to do. 

In the end, Paul took the only way out when he penned Humanae Vitae - which upheld constant Church teaching against contraception. 

HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, Paul manufactured a reason for doing so that was never part of the equation. 

Instead of simply reaffirming perennial Church teaching on the matter, Paul claimed that he could not change the teaching because the vote of the commission wasn't unanimous:

However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement... (Humanae Vitae, Par. 6)

Thus Paul left the door open to change Church teaching on contraception to a vote - a unanimous vote - when in fact no vote, and no pope, can ever change it.

One might say that the whole idea of a vote on something as deeply doctrinal as the Church's perennial teaching on contraception was the first precursor to the whole idea of "synodality" wherein everything, from the definition of the Trinity to the Real Presence, would come down to a vote. 

Many Catholics lionize Paul 6 for his stance against contraception in Humane Vitae - and indeed Francis canonized him - but the fact is that it was Paul's own words - demonstrated above - which lie at the root of why most Catholic couples still contracept today. 

So if Paul knew that he could NEVER change Church teaching on contraception and Francis knew that he could never ordain women and bless same-sex unions (etc.), why did these guys go through these years-long exercises only to - as the New York Times says - "kick the can down the road" - which is what they both did?

Well, because. 

Because, both men are "children" of their age. And that age began in the 1960's when "caring," or appearing to care, became more important than truth. 

Paul 6 probably was really not expecting his commission to vote as it did, so he probably felt safe in saying what he said. But when the commission did not vote per his expectation, Paul probably had one helluva night with the Holy Spirit beating him about his room. 

In other words, Paul, the very Vicar of Christ on Earth, KNEW he was in serious trouble - so he dashed off Humane Vitae, never wrote another Encyclical, and essentially went into hiding until he died about a decade later, lamenting to the end "the smoke of Satan" that he had let into the Church - though he never blamed himself.

Francis, probably the last pope who is a child of the 60's, seems to have wanted to do the same - in the sense of showing that he "cared" aka "I feel your pain." 

But Francis isn't stupid. He knows he is not far from death's door and that eternity is a very long time. And, like Paul, he also knows that not only does he not have any authority to change Church moral teaching, he also knows that "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." (Attributed to both St. Athanasius and St. John Crysostom)

ANOTHER NORWEGIAN CATHOLIC CONVERT NOVELIST WINS THE NOBEL

The 2023 Nobel Prize for Literature has been awarded to the Norwegian author and playwright, Jon Fosse. 

I had never heard of him until I came across a story about his conversion from atheism to Catholicism and how he was converted by his own writing.

CONTINUED at WHY I DON'T FEAR FRANCIS AND HIS WOLVES

THE VIRTUES OF CIGAR SMOKING

 LINK

AN ARCHBISHOP "CANONIZES" A FELLOW BISHOP - MORE CONFUSION IN THE NAME OF CHARITY

"We believe that Bishop Dave has received his recompense for his life and his ministry...We know that he is in heaven. Let us ask for his intercession..." 

- Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, at a novena for the recently murdered Bishop David O'Connell, quoted in Angelus, the official publication for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Mar. 10, 2023, Vol. 8 No. 5 (and also here on CNA). 

SOURCE

I didn't know that an individual bishop could canonize another one, all by himself. 

He can't of course. 

It appears that Archbishop Gomez has fallen victim to the mostly post-Vatican II penchant to place loved ones in heaven...and immediately. 

While that may make us feel better - which is what Archbishop Gomez may have been trying to do - it is probably the most uncharitable thing one (a Catholic) can do. 

As Catholics we believe the following:

Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Par. 1023

The key words are "perfectly purified," and only God can know that. 

In fact the command to "judge not" (Mt. 7:1) goes both ways. 

While we "use" the command to "judge not" mostly (and often wrongly) [1] to admonish others not to judge the sinfulness of others, we are also not to use it to judge the rightfulness of others - such as placing the dearly departed in heaven because he or she was a really good person, or we because we really liked him or her, or because we just really want to feel better. 

Other than canonized saints - which is an act of authority to "bind and loose" possessed only and ultimately by the Successor of Peter - no one can say what Archbishop Gomez said...about anybody. 

In fact, given what we Catholics believe about the Four Last Things (Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell), by believing or "placing" a departed soul in heaven, we may be uncharitably condemning that soul to a much longer term in Purgatory. [2]

Curiously, the Angelus article titled "Mourning a peacemaker," featured a picture of a crowd gathered in the parking lot of a local church on the second night of a novena organized by members of the Knights of Columbus "to pray for the repose of O'Connell's soul..." 

The picture includes Archbishop Gomez, rosary in hand. 

There is no point in praying for the repose of O'Connell's soul if, as Archbishop Gomez declares, O'Connell is already in heaven and we are to pray to him for his intercession. 

Just more confusion in the name of "charity." 

What a shame. 

Notes:

[1] While we can, and must, judge acts as to their sinfulness or rightfulness, we are not to judge "hearts" as "the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7 ) 

[2] See: "Greater than Any Pain of this Life: The Hard Truth About Purgatory" at Aletia.org