Bad idea amid the H1N1 frenzy

I pray that I never see one of these in a Catholic church.

A company called Purity Solutions has developed a hands-free communion dispenser to cope with the H1N1 panic. While I can appreciate their good intentions and the practicality of this tool for Protestants who don't believe in the Real Presence, this would certainly be a no-no in a Catholic Mass.

The first picture on the right shows the device, which comes in gold, silver and "white" (whatever substance that is). Or maybe the "gold" and "silver" on their website only refers to the color of the device, not the metal it's made of.  Now gold and silver would certainly be suitable precious metals for a Catholic paten or ciborium, but if they are made of stainless steel and simply coated with gold or silver paint, that's a non-starter.  

Even if they were made of gold or silver, it gets more complicated.  As you can see by the second picture, the hosts are not directly placed inside the metal device. They are placed in plastic cartridges, much like Pringle potato chips, which are subsequently inserted into the aforementioned communion dispenser.  There they will remain remain throughout the consecration and during the distribution of communion. Somebody refresh my memory:  does plastic qualify as a valid precious material for the sacred vessels?  The company also sells hosts that are pre-soaked with wine, so that you can

Bishop Fred Henry has spoken out bluntly regarding pro-abort politicians and communion

In an earlier post, I congratulated Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island for his strong stand on refusing communion to Patrick Kennedy.

In Canada, the only similar example that comes to mind among active bishops is Fred Henry of Calgary.  Even though Bishop Henry supports the Winnipeg Statement, he nonetheless was very vocal on the issue of denying communion to Catholic politicians engaged in grave sin. For example:

• In 2004, he said John Kerry, the presidential candidate, should be denied communion because of his anti-life positions.  
  
• In 2005, he enunciated the same principle, without referring to any specific politician, during a testimony before the Canadian Parliament regarding the bill to legalize same-sex marriage.  An NDP member grilled him about it (no surprise) but Bishop Henry held his ground admirably.  
• In fact, in 2003, Bishop Henry had been so blunt as to suggests Mr. Chrétien was jeopardizing his "eternal salvation" by trying to change the definition of marriage!

Good show!  We need to celebrate these success stories and applaud them.  At the time, I remember sending an email to Bishop Henry to thank him for his strong witness.  We need more of this.

However, all is not sunny in Calgary.  Even as Bishop Henry was denouncing same-sex marriage in 2003, he didn't appear to realize that his approval of contraception, as per the Winnipeg Statement, is inconsistent with his

Is there a Canadian "Bishop Tobin" anywhere?

I've written a couple of posts about Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island, who told pro-abortion policitian Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted Kennedy) to not receive communion.  Bishop Tobin isn't making up some strict rules here.  He's just doing his job.  The Vatican ordered that such politicians are to be instructed not to receive communion, and if they present themselves at the communion rail they should be denied communion.  No ifs, buts or maybes.  No exceptions.  Read the key passages of Cardinal Ratzinger's instructions here.  It's sad that we have to cheer a bishop or priest when he actually complies with the minimum requirements of his job.  That's the sad state of the Church today. 

Canada has it's own "Patrick Kennedy".  His name is Justin Trudeau, son of the famous Pierre Elliot Trudeau.  He claims to be Catholic, like his father, yet he's vigorously pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality.   He's a Liberal Member of Parliament for the riding of Papineau.

So the burning question on everybody's lips is:  will any bishop tell him not to receive communion?  

Hmmmm... Let's see now.  The Parliament buildings are in the Archdiocese of Ottawa, which is part of the jurisdiction of Archbishop Terrence Prendergast.  The riding of Papineau is on the Island of Montreal, which falls under Cardinal Turcotte.  

I understand that these bishops need not make a public statement about this.  They only need to speak privately to Justin Trudeau and to the clergy in their dioceses to give instructions on not giving communion.  I just hope that

Spanish Bishops stand their ground against pro-abortion politicians

Here's another great example of bishops being faithful to their duties regarding the most precious treasure in the Church: the Eucharist.

The bishops have just announced that politicians who support a new abortion bill will not be eligible to receive communion. Awesome!

Muchas gracias queridos obispos!

.

Another great witness by Bishop Tobin on denying communion

Watch the video below.  Some very courageous and bold statements by the bishop, yet very balanced and charitable.  Bravo to Bishop Tobin!

I wish our bishops and priests would step up to the plate and follow this example. In fact, it is their obligation to do so, because the Vatican has spoken clearly on this matter several times in the last few years. The most explicit document was a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004, a year before he became Pope.  It's a short letter but very rich in teaching about a number of important issues.  Paragraphs 5 and 6 are so explicit on this issue that even a child would grasp them:

5.  Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

 6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive

Eagerly awaiting CCCB action on pro-life promises

Today, November 23, marks one month since the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) completed their plenary assembly.  At the end of this meeting, the bishops expressed their desire to be more involved in pro-life work.  Isn't that wonderful?

Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro (London) was part of a panel presentation on the topic.  He emphasized the importance for bishops to assume greater leadership in pro-life activities.

Referring to the recent debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide, as well as debates on other life issues, Bishop Fabbro noted the importance of being pro-active in framing the questions. “If Bishops don’t step up,” he said, “others will who may present a distorted view of the Church’s teaching. We need to inform our people on the foundations of our faith.”  

In his presentation, Archbishop Blanchet noted the tensions and difficulties that have emerged among individuals and groups involved in defending the right to life from conception to natural death. He stressed the importance being united in thought and action, and proposed a dialogue involving all parties in the “pro-life movement”. Such a dialogue, he said, would help lessen difficulties within the movement and also help establish common ground. 

In their reflections, the Bishops stressed there was an important link between the sacredness of human life and the quality of life. They also noted the importance of activities for life at the diocesan level.  (Source)

So just to recap, they seem to have three broad areas where they've committed to act:

1. More proactive teaching on life issues
2. Dialogue with pro-life groups
3. More activities at the diocesan level

I'm very curious to see how all this will unfold. It sounds so promising, yet we haven't seen any action during the month that has elapsed since this commitment.

The bishops need to do more than issue a letter or press release condemning euthanasia and assisted suicide.  That's a start, but it's not nearly enough.  No offense, but very very few people read the press releases issued by the CCCB.  Moreover, the mainstream media often won't provide any coverage and most parishes won't mention them.

If the bishops are serious about this, they need to take more concrete actions from a pastoral perspective.  Here are some concrete examples:

• They should reform marriage preparation courses so that the Theology of the Body becomes mandatory teaching.  They should also instruct engaged couples about the evil of contraception and abortion.  
• They should encourage their parishioners to be active in the pro-life movement by volunteering their time and by making donations to good ministries like LifeSiteNews.  
• Every bishop should participate in pro-life marches across the country each May because it isn't very difficult to book off 2 hours per year for a good cause. 
• They should take a public stand against politicians who support abortion, telling them that they cannot receive communion. 
• They should publicly rescind the Winnipeg Statement.
  

You think I'm too demanding? I don't.  Anything short of such actions will just be the same old, same old.  Anything short of such actions won't make a dent in the growing apathy among Canadian Catholics.  The CCCB made some strong statements on pro-life issues at the end of their plenary assembly and now they must follow through with some strong actions.  They've created big expectations; they shouldn't disappoint.

.

22,000 youth in a Eucharistic procession!!!

This is absolutely amazing!  You have to see the pictures!  Click here.

Praise be to Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar!

Dear clergy: please fulfil your calling

It's true that our Church is in bad shape. But God doesn't abandon His children. There are always some faithful shepherds who will give a good example. Today's news brings us another such instance.

LifeSiteNews reports that Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin instructed a pro-abortion politician, Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted Kennedy) not to receive communion because of his dissenting views. Now there are elements in the Church who think that such a statement by a Bishop is un-Christian, uncharitable, unloving, etc. If we had eyes to see the truth as God has revealed it, we would realize that such a statement by a Bishop is an extreme act of virtue and is of immense benefit to the Church in many ways:

1. First and foremost, this directive by the Bishop sends a clear message to the recipient that he or she is endorsing a grave sin and that their eternal salvation is in peril. It is therefore a strong call to repentance and conversion, which is what the Gospel is all about.
2. In cases where such a directive is made public, as in the current case, it also instructs the other faithful of the gravity of the sin that is being endorsed by the politician. It therefore gives them reason to pause and rethink in their own positions.
3. It protects Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament from sacrilege.  Jesus gave us a priceless gift in the Eucharist.  Do we want to repay Him with love and worship or by offering Him a dwelling place that is full of filth and corruption?
4. It prevents further sin by the politician by protecting him from the opportunity to commit sacrilege.
5. It ensures the salvation of the Bishop's soul, because it is his responsibility before God Almighty to instruct the faithful and to call sinners to repentance. If he were to shun away from this responsibility, his own salvation would be in peril.  As St. John Chrysostom once said, “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

I sure wish that other bishops and priests would realize the benefits of this type of fraternal correction. It need not

The Catholic Church's Salvation: Tell it Like it Is

A great article by Suzanne Fortin highlighting the core of the problem with the Catholic Church in Canada and our bishops. Here is a key excerpt:

But the modernistic dissent doesn’t end at abortion. The weak response on the pro-life issue is symptomatic of the widespread reluctance to abide by and preach rudimentary Catholic philosophical beliefs, such as:

  • The ends do not justify the means.
  • The order of creation (e.g. men and women are complementary).
  • The hierarchy of truths.
  • The principal of non-contradiction.
  • Natural Truth can be known by reason alone.
  • The intrinsic evil of certain acts, and how they must always be rejected.

This has resulted in church elites distorting Catholic moral doctrine and sanctioning things like:

  • Inductions for post-viability fetuses who are terminally ill.
  • Legal recognition for same-sex unions.
  • Leaving the issue of contraception up to “one’s own conscience.”
  • Treating issues like the environment and poverty as equally important
    to fetal rights.

Read the whole article here.

.

Canadian Bishops ask dissenter to give them inspiration

Have you heard?  The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has invited a well-known dissenting theologian to give two talks at their annual plenary meeting in Cornwall in October. His name is Richard Gaillardetz.



You will find the details of his dissent in this excellent post by John Pacheco and additional details in this article by LifeSiteNews.com.  Here's a brief summary of his "credentials". 

• He says it's okay for couples to co-habitate before marriage and to use contraception if their  conscience doesn't complain (sounds Winnipeg-Statement-ish)
  
• The ordination of women is okay.
• He teaches a distorted version of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
  
• Public revelation by God continues today.
• His respect for life is very suspect since he's part of President Obama's "Catholic Advisory Board," which the Catholic Civil Rights League said does not have a single member that agrees with Church teaching on life issues.
  
• He wonders whether the concept of divine revelation might be extended to the Islamic or Hindu scriptures (!!!!)

Moreover, his view of the Magisterium and the infallibility of Church teaching is extremely confused:

1.  It's possible for the Magisterium to err in matters of faith and morals. 
2.  He believes that an article of Faith can become tentative if it becomes “controversial."
3.  The degree of “reception” of Church teaching by the faithful is a “sign” of its infallibility.
4.  He says that the consensus of theologians is the determining factor for the discernment of the infallibility of the Magisterium.
5.  The obstinate denial of a definitive doctrine would not necessarily place one outside the Roman Catholic communion (very self-serving, don't you think?)

Does it disturb you that the CCCB would invite this man to give two lectures at their plenary?  What kind of message does it send to the faithful?  What does it tell you about the bishops?

If the CCCB invited him, they clearly don't object to his dissenting views.  Actually, it makes a lot of sense to me.  You see, the CCCB is mostly composed of dissenters.  We've observed this for many decades.  Tragic, but true.  

Of course, not all bishops are dissenters.  We have some very good bishops in this country.  However, they are few and far between.  Unfortunately, their minority status means that the overall direction of the CCCB is decided by the majority of dissenters. 

Gaillardetz brings a sense of legitimacy to the dissenting views of the CCCB majority, like a comforting reassurance that someone else thinks like them. 

The fact that virtually all Canadian bishops dissented from Humanae Vitae in writing is entirely consistent with Gaillardetz's point #1 above, namely that the Magisterium can make mistakes and therefore that the bishops don't have to follow the Pope.  This is especially true for controversial issues such as contraception, which was the main point of the dissent of the Canadian bishops more than 40 years ago.  Abortion is also quickly becoming optional teaching, as we've learned from the Development and Peace scandal and the Fr. Rosica rampage.  So Gaillardetz's view on #2 is also consistent with the CCCB's actions. 

Point #3 is also very useful for dissenters because they are well aware that most Catholics approve of contraception. Therefore, they like Gaillardetz's theory that a rejection of Church teaching by the faithful is a sign that that teaching was not infallible. It's like giving the faithful a special veto power over the Magisterium.

Point #4 gives the bishops their own special veto power over the Magisterium, since many bishops are theologians too.  Isn't that handy?

Finally, #5 makes dissenters feel comforted that they are not excluded from communion with the Roman Catholic Church for the extreme positions they've taken in points #1 to #4.

So, you see, it all makes sense. In these difficult times, where dissenting bishops are being questioned by Catholics who want to remain faithful to Rome, they have called upon a fellow dissenter for some reassurance.

Sadly, we rarely hear the good bishops speaking up these days.  They must feel very frustrated.  We must pray for their perseverance.  I hope they will gain the courage and strength to break their silence. 

That's the tragic state of our Church today. Please pray for our bishops.

The Mass: a sacrifice or a celebration?

There seems to be some confusion as to the nature of the Mass. Some people claim that it is a sacrifice, re-presenting the death of Christ on the Cross.  Therefore, we should be very serious at Mass and show no signs of joy.  Other say that it is a celebration of Christ's resurrection and that the Mass should have a more festive mood.  So what's the answer?  What does the Church teach?

In a nutshell:  all of the above.

The holy Mass is a sacrifice and a celebration. We commemorate the Passion and resurrection of Christ. 

The holy Mass is certainly a great mystery. Many volumes could be written about it and would never exhaust its richness. The Church and the Saints have written extensively about it over the centuries. I will not attempt to survey the entire literature of what has been said about the Mass. I will limit myself to a very short quote from paragraph 1330 of the Catechism, which provides the basic answer to the question posed in the title of this post. 

Paragraph 1330 is situated in a section of the Catechism that enumerates the various names given to this wonderful sacrament. In paragraph 1330, we read the following (italics are in the original text, additional emphasis added by me):

"[This Sacrament is called] the memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name."

As you can see, the Church has answered our question quite succinctly in paragraph 1330.  

I encourage you to read the entire section on the mass as explained in paragraphs 1322 to 1419 of the Catechism.


.

The Eucharist is the litmus test

The most precious thing in the Catholic Church is the Eucharist.  Why?  Because it is God Himself.  It doesn't get any bigger than that.

As John Pacheco points out, a clergyman's behaviour towards the Eucharist is a good litmus test as to whether he is following the true Faith and the true Church.  

Do not trust clergymen who won't deny communion to pro-abortion politicians.  Do not trust clergymen who don't show proper reverence for the Eucharist.  They will invoke clever excuses, such as not wanting to be judgmental or harsh.  Don't buy it.  That's a cop-out.

If they won't stand up for something so fundamental and primordial as the Eucharist, you can rest assured that there are other errors in their teachings.  Be on your guard.

Similarly, make sure to affirm and encourage those faithful clergymen who devoutly worship and venerate Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist.  They are beacons of hope in world gone mad.  Support them and love them.  You have found a precious jewel.

Archbishop Naumann understands

Thank you Archbishop Naumann for forbidding a pro-abortion "Catholic" politician from receiving communion.  It's the right thing to do.

The politician in question, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, says that being denied communion was very painful.  Well, Ms. Sebelius, the whole point of discipline is to instruct and to exhort for conversion.  If it wasn't painful, it wouldn't be effective discipline.  Now that the Archbishop has got your attention, it's time to rethink your life.

Read about it here.