Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 247

Cross, Altar, and the Right Way of Praying

Cross, Altar, and the Right Way of Praying | Fr. Stefan Heid | Homiletic & Pastoral Review
Recalling the rituals and rubrics of the past which retain their meaning today.

In the Vatican, and in the pontifical basilicas of Rome (formerly called "patriarchal basilicas"), a ruling has recently been made that a standing cross should be placed at the center of high or freestanding altars. No specification is given as to the kind and size of the cross. As a rule, the implementation of this request has been appropriate: a high-standing cross with corpus has been set in place facing the priest celebrant, such that he is able to look upon the crucified Jesus. Such a request, which articulates what should actually be a matter of course, may come as a surprise. But in Rome, for many years prior to this time, the bad habit had developed of pushing the cross to the corner of the altar, so that it would not "disturb," facilitating a "television friendly" liturgy, especially for papal Masses.

The cross is the focal point of salvation and of liturgical action. It should, of course, harmonize with the altar in style and proportion, but it should certainly not be low standing. The cross is supposed to disturb! The priest is not supposed to "overlook" it! However, the objection is sometimes made that a barrier is created by the cross between clergy and people, something on the line of an iconostasis (a wall of icons in Eastern rite churches, separating the nave from the sanctuary). But this is a specious argument as even the enormous altar cross in the Basilica of St. Peter does not really block the view. There are very few churches, after all, where the people face the altar straight on; more commonly, they face the altar from a lateral perspective, looking past the cross to the priest. Moreover, the higher the cross is placed, the less likely it will obstruct the people's view. It thus becomes for all a spiritual "attention-getter" (if it is aesthetically high-standing). Finally, it is further objected that an altar cross creates a doubling of crucifixes, in the case that a cross already hangs above or behind the altar. However, the cross on the altar is for the priest, facing him with its corpus, while the faithful look at their cross above the altar.

There will no doubt be some clashes with liturgical committees, when pastors, choosing to follow Roman custom, begin taking their altar crosses out of the closet. In order to forestall precipitous reactions in these debates, we would like to establish the larger context in which the discussion belongs. There are a number of liturgical practices that have disappeared from use over centuries. Without a reflective look at these rituals, however, it could easily happen that even the loveliest of liturgical directives would shrivel into meaningless formalism.

Read the entire essay on HPRweb.com...

Dr. Scott Hahn talks about the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible...

... on EWTN's "Bookmark" program with host Doug Keck (originally aired on January 8, 2012):

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament comes in three print formats and is also available as an electronic book:

• Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (Paperback)

• Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (Hardcover)

• Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (Leather)

• Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament (E-book)

The only Catholic Study Bible based on the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament brings together all of the books of the New Testament and the penetrating study tools developed by renowned Bible teachers Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.

This volume presents the written Word of God in a highly readable, accurate translation, excellent for personal and group study. Extensive study notes, topical essays and word studies provide fresh and faithful insights informed by time-tested, authentically Catholic interpretations from the Fathers of the Church and other scholars. Commentaries include the best insights of ancient, medieval and modern scholarship, and follow the Church's guidelines for biblical interpretation.

Plus, each New Testament book is outlined and introduced with an essay covering questions of authorship, date of composition, intended audience and general themes. The Ignatius Study Bible also includes handy reference materials such as a doctrinal index, a concise concordance, a helpful cross-reference system, and various maps and charts.

"With copious historical and theological notes, incisive commentary and tools for study, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament is outstanding for private devotion, personal study and Bible study groups. It is excellent for evangelization and apologetics as well!"
— Stephen Ray, Host of The Footprints of God series; Author of Upon This Rock

"Once a generation a truly unique Bible tool is given to the Church. The Ignatius Study Bible is a gift for our generation. This is the most important book since the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Every parish study group and every student of Sacred Scripture should own and use this Bible."
— David Currie Author, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic

"The Ignatius Study Bible is a triumph of both piety and scholarship in the best Catholic tradition: simply the most useful succinct commentary that any Christian or other interested person could hope for."
— Erasmo Leiva, Author, Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word

Happy Birthday, Father Georg Ratzinger...

... brother of Pope Benedict XVI, who turns 88 on Sunday, January 15th:

"The beginning of the Year of Faith coincides with the anniversaries ..."

... of two great events which have marked the life of the Church in our days: the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, called by Blessed Pope John XXIII (11 October 1962), and the twentieth of the promulgation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, given to the Church by Blessed Pope John Paul II (11 October 1992).

The Council, according to Pope John XXIII, wanted "to transmit doctrine, pure and whole, without attenuations or misrepresentations," in such a way that "this sure and immutable teaching, which must be respected faithfully, is elaborated and presented in a way which corresponds to the needs of our time." In this regard, the opening words of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium remain of primary importance: "Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature, (cfr. Mk 16:15) to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church." Beginning with the light of Christ, which purifies, illuminates and sanctifies in the celebration of the sacred liturgy (cfr. Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium) and with His divine word (cfr. Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum), the Counil wanted to elaborate on the intimate nature of the Church (cfr. Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen gentium) and its relationship with the contemporary world (cfr. Pastoral Constitution, Gaudium et spes). Around these four Constitutions, the true pillars of the Council, are arranged the Declarations and Decrees which address some of the major challenges of the day. 

After the Council the Church – under the sure guidance of the Magisterium and in continuity with the whole Tradition – set about ensuring the reception and application of the teaching of the Council in all its richness. To assist in the correct reception of the Council, the Popes have frequently convoked the Synod of Bishops, first instituted by the Servant of God, Paul VI, in 1965, providing the Church with clear giudance through the various post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortations. The next General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to be held in October 2012, will have as its theme: The New Evangelization for the Transmission of the Christian Faith.

From the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI has worked decisively for a correct understanding of the Council, rejecting as erroneous the so-called "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" and promoting what he himself has termed "the 'hermeneutic of reform', of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in this same vein, is both an "authentic fruit of Vatican Council II" and a tool for aiding in its reception. The Extraordinary Synod of Bishops of 1985, convoked on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council and to measure its reception, suggested the preparation of a Catechism in order to offer the People of God a compendium of all Catholic doctrine and a sure point of reference for local catechisms. Pope John Paul II accepted this proposal as a desire which "fully responds to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches." Compiled in collaboration with the entire Episcopate of the Catholic Church, this Catechism "truly expresses what could be called the symphony of the faith."

That is the opening of the recently released "Note with pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith", from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Certainly worth reading sometime in the near future as it contains a lot of practical suggestions and notes about events during the Year of Faith.

Cardinal George reflects on approaching retirement, his successor, more

From an interview with Francis Cardinal George by Catholic New World's editor, Joyce Duriga:

CNW: There's a rumor going around that you've been told you have two years until they will accept your retirement.

Cardinal George: I don't know how anyone can assume that, because I've not discussed my retirement with the Holy Father. Much depends, of course, upon health and the demands of the local situation.

CNW: You've often said that one of your goals is to live to see retirement, since the other archbishops of Chicago haven't. God willing that happens, where would you go from there?

Cardinal George: I would stay in Chicago. I would do what my successor wants me to do. I would hope that I could return to some of the things that I really wanted to do as a priest: hearing confessions, helping in parishes, giving some conferences, perhaps. Work with the poor. I've always done direct work with poor peopl e in places I've been, except in Chicago. I would like to be able to do that again, serving in soup kitchens and things of that nature.

CNW: You mention your successor. Looking back at your experience, what characteristics do you think your successor should have?

Cardinal George: A bishop has to be able to preach, teach and hand on the Catholic faith in its integrity. He has to see to it that the seven sacraments are available to the faithful. And he has to see to it that the faithful are pastored by well-prepared priests, deacons and others so that they are loved in Christ's name as they gather into parishes. Those are the three things he must do: the bishop governs, the bishop teaches, the bishop sanctifies.

Part of seeing that the sacraments are available means that he himself confirms, he ordains, he does the sacramental functions that a bishop is supposed to do. After that, each bishop brings particular interests and particular skills and all the rest. But as long as he can do those three things, that's what counts.

Governing also, especially in a big diocese, means contact with a lot of other people. There is a lot of administration. There are a lot of corporate, legal and financial concerns. You have to have somebody who can grapple with that. You have a lot of help to do that, of course, but it can be complex.

It comes essentially, however, to three tasks — he governs, he teaches, he sanctifies. He's shepherd, prophet, teacher, priest, because that is what Jesus is: shepherd, teacher and priest.

Read the entire interview on the Catholic New World site.

"Ring, ring, ring!" Pant, pant, pant. Predictable, predictable, predictable.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov would be proud. And jealous. While he used bells, whistles, and even electric shocks to test his theories about "conditioned reflex"—the notion that many actions are merely instinctive reactions rather than the culmination of critical thinking—the World of Silly, Secular Opinion can be moved to hysteria by mere truth-trashing headlines. In this case:

"Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope"

The January 9th Reuters piece (of trash) states:

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.

I submit this provides further evidence for the supernatural character of the papacy, for it is apparently a stunning example of the Pope being able to miraculously say something without actually saying it. (It is a smaller version, I suppose, of the Catholic Church ruthlessly killing 100 million people during the "Dark Ages": a remarkable and miraculous feat considering there weren't 100 million people to be found or killed.) The article and headline were then picked up by hundreds of other papers, blogs, and pundits. Ring, ding, pant, pant, slobber, bark, and so forth.

Read the address. Note how many times "gay marriage" (a perverse term, even in quotation marks) is mentioned. Zero. The passage in question:

In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life ...

Does it need to be pointed out that up until a few years ago, this would be about as upsetting and controversial as a piece of toast and a glass of milk for breakfast? But now the conversation has changed and a higher consciousness has been attained as we are now constantly informed about how beautiful, sacred, lovely, and downright goose bumpy it is to be anything but heterosexual, monogamous, and married. Of course, all of those progressive folks who speak of rainbows and how families come in every shape, size, and configuration were appalled that the dark cloud of a family consisting of man, woman, and children was so rudely dropped onto the diversity party by the Pope.

Once the Reuters' bell had rung, predictable and unthinking reactions came from the LGBTHUH crowd, most following a basic template: Pope dumb. Pope hate us. Pope does nothing about child abuse. Pope hurt my feelings. There were rumors of grief counselors getting overtime pay in New York City and San Francisco. Oh, and Portland, Oregon.

My favorite headline, a reworking of the Reuters' falsefest, is: "Pope: gay marriage will create a baby-less world like 'Children of Men'" Why, don't you know that homosexual men can have babies (if a woman will bear them) and homosexual women can also have babies (if a man will kindly provide some of the primal ingredients)? Here's my simple challenge: let's have five homosexual male couples live on Deserted Island A (or "Sterile Island", for short), and five married couples live on Deserted Island B (or "Reality Island", for short), for about, say, thirty years. Then let's see which of the men actually have children, shall we?

One homosexual columnist, reflecting deeply on the Pope's words, confessed, "It is a mystery I fail to understand, but it is what it is." Yes, it is what is is: there has never been a civilization built upon homosexuality or so-called "gay marriage"; all civilizations and stable societies have a common feature: men and women being married, having children, and being committed to one another's well being. This isn't religious speak or Bible thumping, but the application of common sense to historical fact. But, yes, speaking in more theological terms, real marriage is a mystery, and it points to a greater mystery, as a certain St. Paul said:

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church... (Eph 5:31-2)

Meanwhile, the women of "The View" were mystified by the Pope's remarks (from what I gather, they are mystified by anything intelligent, and mesmerized by anything Hollywood):

"I think about my marriage and gay marriage doesn't affect my marriage," said Elisabeth Hasselbeck, considered the most conservative co-host on the panel. "You know what affects my marriage? Divorce."

I can see the headline already: "Host of 'The View' attacks divorced people; says they are the spawn of Donald Trump and the Devil." Kudos, however, to Hassellbeck for recognizing that divorce ain't so great. Oh, and guess what: the Church isn't keen on divorce, either: "Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law" (CCC, par 2384).

Sherri Shepherd called attention to the Catholic Church's child abuse scandals in her comments: "You've got a lot of people who are condemning things and they haven't cleaned house themselves, and they're doing the same things that they're condemning people for."

Let's see: the Pope condemned "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself" and the "prenatal selection on the basis of sex". I had hoped he would condemn "viewing talk shows hosted by people who know nothing save thier own opinions, which are essentially nothingness wrapped in emptiness and covered with vapidity." Granted, the Pope is more of a gentleman that am I.

Father John Flynn, in a January 12th piece for ZENIT, said of the Pope's address:

That was it about marriage and he merely reiterated traditional Catholic teaching. By inference it could be seen as not approving same-sex marriage, but also single parenthood and cohabitation.

Moreover, the whole section on the family, including a reference to the European Union decision to prohibit the patenting of human embryonic stem cells, took up only 174 words of a speech which was 2,778 words long.

In its commentary on the Reuters article the very apt title of the Get Religion Web site's analysis was: "Gay marriage a threat to journalism's future."

It shouldn't really be news for a Vatican reporter to see that the Pope follows the Gospel teaching of Jesus that marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, the Get Religion commentary noted. It also pointed out that the second part of the article went way off tangent, talking about New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan's support of Catholic teaching on marriage.

Here is the GetReligion piece, written by Mollie Hemingway.

Gotta run, I hear the dinner bell!

UPDATE: A special award for Homosexual Hysteria Augmented By Brackets goes to Wayne Besen for his Huff-and-Puff Post piece titled, "The Pope's Latest Anti-Gay Rant Is Bigoted and Bizarre", which is refers to the "pathological homophobia of Pope Benedict XVI", and:

Now we learn that Pope Benedict XVI did his best Dobson imitation when he delivered an address to diplomats representing 180 nations. According to reports, the pontiff said that the marriage was "not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies [such as gay couples marrying] which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself."

The little screed also contains this bizarre remark:

Of course, his attacks on innocent LGBT families are not the pope's only notable gaffes: ... In 2009 Benedict decreed that Anglicans who leave their Church because they believed it was too liberal could join the Catholic Church, which would allow them to keep some of their traditions.

So it's a "gaffe" to have an open door for people who want to become Catholic? That's not a reach; it's simply wretched. I'd be happy to critique Besen's logic, but there is nary a speckle or spot of logic to be found, apparently as a way of upholding an ancient and venerable Huff-and-Puff Post tradition.

"Ring, ring, ring!" Pant, pant, pant. Predictible, predictable, predictable.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov would be proud. And jealous. While he used bells, whistles, and even electric shocks to test his theories about "conditioned reflex"—the notion that many actions are merely instinctive reactions rather than the culmination of critical thinking—the World of Silly, Secular Opinion can be moved to hysteria by mere truth-trashing headlines. In this case:

"Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope"

The January 9th Reuters piece (of trash) states:

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.

I submit this provides further evidence for the supernatural character of the papacy, for it is apparently a stunning example of the Pope being able to miraculously say something without actually saying it. (It is a smaller version, I suppose, of the Catholic Church ruthlessly killing 100 million people during the "Dark Ages": a remarkable and miraculous feat considering there weren't 100 million people to be found or killed.) The article and headline was then picked up by hundreds of other papers, blogs, and pundits. Pant, pant, slobber, bark.

Read the address. Note how many times "gay marriage" (a perverse term, even in quotation marks) is mentioned. Zero. The passage in question:

In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life ...

Does it need to be pointed out that up until a few years ago, this would be about as upsetting and controversial as a piece of toast and a glass of milk for breakfast? But now the conversation has changed and a higher consciousness has been attained as we are now constantly informed about how beautiful, sacred, lovely, and downright goose bumpy it is to be anything but heterosexual, monogamous, and married. Of course, all of those progressive folks who speak of rainbows and how families come in every shape, size, and configuration were appalled that the dark cloud of a family consisting of man, woman, and children was so rudely dropped onto the diversity party by the Pope.

Once the Reuters' bell had rung, predictable and unthinking reactions came from the LGBTHUH crowd, most following a basic template: Pope dumb. Pope hate us. Pope does nothing about child abuse. Pope hurt my feelings. There were rumors of grief counselors getting overtime pay in New York City and San Francisco. Oh, and Portland, Oregon.

My favorite headline, a reworking of the Reuters' falsefest, is: "Pope: gay marriage will create a baby-less world like 'Children of Men'" Why, don't you know that homosexual men can have babies (if a woman will bear them) and homosexual women can also have babies (if a man will kindly provide some of the primal ingredients)? Here's my simple challenge: let's have five homosexual male couples live on Deserted Island A (or "Sterile Island", for short), and five married couples live on Deserted Island B (or "Reality Island", for short), for about, say, thirty years. Then let's see which of the men actually have children, shall we?

One homosexual columnist, reflecting deeply on the Pope's words, confessed, "It is a mystery I fail to understand, but it is what it is." Yes, it is what is is: there has never been a civilization built upon homosexuality or so-called "gay marriage"; all civilizations and stable societies have a common feature: men and women being married, having children, and being committed to one another's well being. This isn't religious speak or Bible thumping, but the application of common sense to historical fact. But, yes, speaking in more theological terms, real marriage is a mystery, and it points to a greater mystery, as a certain St. Paul said:

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church... (Eph 5:31-2)

Meanwhile, the women of "The View" were mystified by the Pope's remarks (from what I gather, they are mystified by anything intelligent, and mesmerized by anything Hollywood):

"I think about my marriage and gay marriage doesn't affect my marriage," said Elisabeth Hasselbeck, considered the most conservative co-host on the panel. "You know what affects my marriage? Divorce."

I can see the headline already: "Host of 'The View' attacks divorced people; says they are the spawn of Donald Trump and the Devil." Kudos, however, to Hassellbeck for recognizing that divorce ain't so great. Oh, and guess what: the Church isn't keen on divorce, either: "Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law" (CCC, par 2384).

Sherri Shepherd called attention to the Catholic Church's child abuse scandals in her comments: "You've got a lot of people who are condemning things and they haven't cleaned house themselves, and they're doing the same things that they're condemning people for."

Let's see: the Pope condemned "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself" and the "prenatal selection on the basis of sex". I had hoped he would condemn "viewing talk shows hosted by people who know nothing save thier own opinions, which are essentially nothingness wrapped in emptiness and covered with vapidity." Granted, the Pope is more of a gentleman that am I.

Father John Flynn, in a January 12th piece for ZENIT, said of the Pope's address:

That was it about marriage and he merely reiterated traditional Catholic teaching. By inference it could be seen as not approving same-sex marriage, but also single parenthood and cohabitation.

Moreover, the whole section on the family, including a reference to the European Union decision to prohibit the patenting of human embryonic stem cells, took up only 174 words of a speech which was 2,778 words long.

In its commentary on the Reuters article the very apt title of the Get Religion Web site's analysis was: "Gay marriage a threat to journalism's future."

It shouldn't really be news for a Vatican reporter to see that the Pope follows the Gospel teaching of Jesus that marriage is the joining of a man and a woman, the Get Religion commentary noted. It also pointed out that the second part of the article went way off tangent, talking about New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan's support of Catholic teaching on marriage.

Here is the GetReligion piece, written by Mollie Hemingway.

Gotta run, I hear the dinner bell!

And the leading contender for Clueless, Oafish Op-Ed of 2012...

.... is "For Priests' Wives, a Word of Caution", by Sara Richey, assistant professor of medieval European history at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, which appeared in yesterday's edition of the award-winning journal of religious thought and Church history, The New York Times. It's difficult to do justice to Richey's historical hit piece in a single sentence, but it is easy to bluntly identify what she gets right: almost nothing. Dan Brown would be proud if he weren't so jealous.

Okay, enough praise; let's look at a few of the low lights. The piece opens: "What will life be like for the wives of Roman Catholic priests?"

By "Roman Catholic" I take she refers to "Catholic", as is the common practice. The problem is at least two-fold:

1) she is more accurately referring to Catholic priests of the Latin Church, one of several rites within the Catholic Church;

2) the majority of those rites have married clergy—and have had them for centuries. The Catechism identifies the Latin (which includes the Roman and Ambrosian rites), as well as Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean (par 1203). The Byzantine, the largest of the Eastern rites, contains the Ukrainian, Ruthenian, and other rites.

The Catechism explains:

All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord," they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.  Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry. (pars 1579-80)

The significance of all this is obvious: if the Catholic Church has had married clergy for, well, two thousand years, Richey's question surely should be put to the wives of some of those married priests. It also reveals how misleading is this statement by Richey: "The Vatican has stressed that the allowance for married priests is merely an exception (like similar dispensations made in the past by the Vatican) and by no means a permanent condition of the priesthood." This might be acceptable and understandable if she used more precise and accurate language within the larger context—theologically and historically—but, alas, the point of the op-ed is not to illuminate or educate, but to disparage the Church for not treating priest's wives with sufficient respect.

Now as then, the church's critics and defenders are rehashing arguments about the implications of having married priests in an institution that is otherwise wary of them. But in the midst of these debates, we should pause to ponder the environment that the priests' wives might expect to encounter. After all, the status of the priest's wife is perhaps even more strange and unsettling than that of her ordained Catholic husband.

That is a mighty big and broad claim, isn't it? How, exactly, is the status of a priest's wife strange? And unsettling? How so? To whom? Surely not to Eastern Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox); and probably not even to the Catholics who attend St. Mary Catholic Church here in Eugene, Oregon, whose associate pastor is married, as he is a former Episcopalian who was ordained a Catholic priest a few years ago. Does Richey interview any of these wives? No, she goes right to the heart of the matter: the First Lateran Council, held in 1123 (warning: don't read this while eating or drinking):

While the early Christian church praised priestly chastity, it did not promulgate decisive legislation mandating priestly celibacy until the reform movement of the 11th century. At that point, the foremost purpose of priestly celibacy was to clearly distinguish and separate the priests from the laity, to elevate the status of the clergy. In this scheme, the mere presence of the priest's wife confounded that goal, and thus she incurred the suspicion, and quite often the loathing, of parishioners and church reformers. You can't help wondering what feelings she will inspire today.

By the time of the First Lateran Council, the priest's wife had become a symbol of wantonness and defilement. The reason was that during this period the nature of the host consecrated at Mass received greater theological scrutiny. Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The priest who handled the body and blood of Christ should therefore be uncontaminated lest he defile the sacred corpus.

The priest's wife was an obvious danger. Her wanton desire, suggested the 11th-century monk Peter Damian, threatened the efficacy of consecration. He chastised priests' wives as "furious vipers who out of ardor of impatient lust decapitate Christ, the head of clerics," with their lovers. According to the historian Dyan Elliott, priests' wives were perceived as raping the altar, a perpetration not only of the priest but also of the whole Christian community.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. As Paul Moses writes on the Commonweal blog: "I wouldn't have expected an argument like this from an academic historian; it takes the ascetic Peter Damian's advocacy of clerical celibacy in the 11th century totally out of its historical context, and inserts it without qualification into a vastly different time." And the context, as always, is pretty darned important.

Phiip Hughes, in The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870 (Image, 1964), states that the "most flagrant, universally visible evils that afflicted religious life" at the time of the Council "were simony and clerical immorality." He outlines the problem in detail, noting that while priests in "the Latin church (though not in the East)" could not be married, many priests at the time were either living with concubines (or, in modern terms, "life partners" or "significant others"), or had "married" after receiving Holy Orders. This was, as we might imagine, quite scandalous, although some Catholics apparently accepted this sinful and illicit practice to be fairly normal. (Ah, for the good old days when Catholics were good Catholics!)

In this light, the disingenuousness employed by Richey is readily apparent. To say, as she does, "the priest's wife had become a symbol of wantonness and defilement", is to misrepresent the fact that those wives, so to speak, should never have been married to the priests in question. Those priests, in other words, were the Alberto Cutiés of their day. This is why the Council, in its third canon, stated:

We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to associate with concubines and women, or to live with women other than such as the Nicene Council (canon 3) for reasons of necessity permitted, namely, the mother, sister, or aunt, or any such person concerning whom no suspicion could arise.

I think most people with any basic understanding of Catholic teaching, vows, and morality will understand the problem: priests were committing the sin of fornication and living with women who were not their wives, and were thus rejecting the discipline of the Church, which they had freely accepted. (They, of course, did not cash in with a book deal, but their sins were big enough as they were.) That these sins were so strongly condemned might sound harsh and strange to our modern and ever-so-enlightened ears, but I suspect it has more to do with our society's widespread of acceptance of nearly any and every sexual sin, coupled with a disdain for anything resembling self-control, holiness, and obedience.

Richey's leaps of mispresentation grow even larger when she, in most bizarre fashion, writes that "Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ." Is she really saying that until the twelfth century, no one really believed that the Eucharist was the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Really? Quite the opposite: all Christians—Catholic, Orthodox, Ancient Oriental—accepted this belief; it was not even seriously questioned in the West until the decades immediately prior to the Protestant Revolution; it was never doubted in the East. At best, Richey is guilty of extreme sloppiness; at worse, she is guilty of embarrassing ignorance.

However, the most bizarre part of Richey's op-ed is how she tries to apply these historical lessons (wrongly obtained and falsely construed) to the situation of women married to Catholic priests today:

Given this history, I caution the clerical wife to be on guard as she enters her role as a sacerdotal attaché. Her position is an anomalous one and, as the Vatican has repeatedly insisted, one that will not receive permanent welcome in the church. That said, for the time being, it will be prudent for the Vatican to honor the dignity of the wives and children of its freshly ordained married priests. And here, I suggest, a real conversation about the continuation of priestly celibacy might begin.

Until then, priests' wives should beware a religious tradition that views them, in the words of Damian, as "the clerics' charmers, devil's choice tidbits, expellers from paradise, virus of minds, sword of soul, wolfbane to drinkers, poison to companions, material of sinning, occasion of death ... the female chambers of the ancient enemy, of hoopoes, of screech owls, of night owls, of she-wolves, of blood suckers."

Considering that St. Peter Damian (a Doctor of the Church, by the way), was referring to concubines and "wives", Richey's advice is both hollow and condescending. Does she think that most Catholics are so stupid as to not recognize the difference between a legimately married priest and one running around and sinning with a hussy? Does she, to return to my opening point, even consider that the wives of Catholic priests (of whatever rite) might, in fact, love their husbands and their vocation? And spare us the patronizing silliness about "a real conversation" about priestly celibacy; give us a call when you get your facts straight.

Finally, is it not strange that the Catholic Church is criticized and damned for allegedly not allowing married men to be priests, but that when it is finally recognized (to a flawed degree) that the Church, in fact, does allow for married priests, the Church is then criticized and damned for it? One would almost conclude that folks such as Richey have an axe to grind. One only wishes such critics would work as hard at sharpening their knowledge of both Church history and discipline.

Secular liberals and traditional marriage

Russell Shaw ponders: Are some secularists starting to recognize the destructive consequences of undermining and attacking marriage?

The Catholic Faith Is Not a Noble Lie

The Catholic Faith Is Not a Noble Lie | Thomas Storck | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

What is needed is a real debate on religious questions providing a rational public apologetic for the faith.

For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his grandeur. – 2 Peter 1:16

The last few years have seen the appearance, in the English-speaking world, of several public and militant atheists.  Writers such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett have attacked, not only Christianity, but religion itself which they label a negative and divisive factor in the world.  This phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by Catholics.  To confine myself only to this journal, I alluded to the appearance of the new atheists briefly,1 while David Carlin had already discussed the question at length over a year earlier. 2  In this article, I do not intend to go over the same ground, but to call attention to something that, in my opinion, is even more worrisome.  This is manifested in the response of certain Protestant spokesmen to some of the activities of the atheists, a response that I think reveals a deep defect in much of American thinking about religion.  We will discuss, however, not the books written by those who aspire to appear as intellectual representatives of atheism, but a more mundane project that some atheist organizations engaged in.

What I am speaking of is the international campaign which placed ads in busses, and other public places in Europe and the United States, attacking belief in God.  They have appeared in Great Britain, Spain and other European countries.  They began to appear here sometime in 2008.  I first saw them on a bus in the Washington, D.C., area in the fall of that year.  Of course, such public promotion of atheism is unusual in the United States, where generally there is a stance of giving lip service to God, or at least of not attacking his existence explicitly, however far from obeying his law we may be.  As Carlin noted, the conventions of American discourse, our "rules of good manners," meant "that atheists and agnostics were not allowed to attack theism in general, or Christianity in particular."

Interesting and revealing as the cultural shift is that allows such public attacks on the existence of God, what I found more interesting about the ad campaign than the mere fact of its existence was the slant or angle of the atheists' message.  The ads pictured a (black) man3 dressed in a Santa Claus suit with the message, "Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness's sake."  This to me was interesting because the atheists did not attack the notion that God exists, they did not offer any arguments on behalf of the self-existing character of matter, or anything of that sort.  Instead, they exhorted one to be good without God's aid.  This would seem to me to be rather beside the point:  Are we debating whether God exists, or are we debating whether we can be good without his help?  Why would the sponsors of the ad campaign take the particular line that they did?

Read the entire article on HPRweb.com...