Automatic excommunication for FOCA voters?

Matt Hadro of CNSNews.com tried to get Cardinal George to say as much, but he wasn't biting. Jeff Miller adds some helpful comments and Deal Hudson outlines some reasons why it should.

I think this is an interesting question to raise, but will become urgent should FOCA be introduced.

Headline: "Vatican cracks down on attempts to ordain women"

I've been reading the headlines from last week, but suffice it to say that once again the media is trying to make a big deal about old news, or in this case, an old teaching that is simply being repeated.

Sometimes it helps to have a memory that extends more than a couple weeks. Like Carl Olson.

In fairness, something is new here, namely, how these things are treated by Rome:

As of today, though, all of that has changed: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has just decreed that those who attempt to confer holy Orders on women are excommunicated, as are the women who attempt to receive holy Orders. The decree goes into effect immediately.

Canon Lawyer Edward Peters gives us the details.

For a sociologist's take on this issue, see David Carlin at Inside Catholic.

Pigs Fly: Cardinal Mahony bars liberal Aussie bishop from speaking

Wonders never cease, and I'm glad they don't.

Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson was recently condemned for "doctrinal difficulties" by the Australian Bishops Conference, and when Voice of the Faithful invited him to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to deliver a lecture, none other than Cardinal Mahony decided to step in:

Cardinal Roger Mahony has denied an Australian bishop permission to speak in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles after the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference issued a statement warning of “doctrinal difficulties” present in the bishop’s writings. (CNA)

How Cardinal Mahony handled it:

Archbishop of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony in a May 9 letter asked Bishop Robinson not to speak in his archdiocese.

Saying he was “once again” writing regarding Bishop Robinson’s scheduled June 12 speaking engagement in the archdiocese, Cardinal Mahony said, “Your letter informing me of your coming appearance made it clear that you were not seeking my permission or approval, that you were planning to come regardless.”

In his letter, Cardinal Mahony said he had recently learned of the Australian bishops’ statement about the bishop’s book. He also said he had learned that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, has urged Bishop Robinson to cancel his U.S. visit.

Cardinal Mahony requested Bishop Robinson to cancel his visit, citing Canon 763 of Canon Law. The canon pertains to a bishop’s duty to safeguard the teachings of the Church in his diocese.

“Under the provisions of Canon 763, I hereby deny you permission to speak in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,” the cardinal wrote. He also urged Bishop Robinson to cancel his entire speaking tour and to work with the Australian bishops’ conference, saying he would expect him to “follow exactly” their recommendations.

[update: here is a link with the original full text of the Cardinal's letter.]

Let's ponder what this means: Cardinal Mahony has chosen to use his authority as a bishop under canon law to "safeguard the teachings of the Church in his diocese" when a dissenting bishop was invited to speak by a (dissenting) private Catholic group.

Even if the Cardinal was motivated by a fear that Bishop Robinson was being disrespectful of his authority, the bottom line is that Cardinal Mahony did the correct thing, and a brave one. He even managed to get on the bad side of Voice of the Faithful:

Dan Bartley, president of Voice of the Faithful, criticized Cardinal Mahony’s refusal of permission to Bishop Robinson’s Los Angeles lecture.

“Why is a loyal Catholic bishop prevented from asking honest questions in his search for the truth in the aftermath of the worst scandal in the modern Church?” Bartley said.

A statement from Voice of the Faithful said the ban would harm the Church, saying Bishop Robinson “obviously loves the Church.” The statement suggested that the Australian bishops’ statement was questionable in its conclusions about Bishop Robinson’s doctrinal stands.

Bishop Robinson is also scheduled to speak in Seattle, San Diego and Boston. It is possible to predict situation where Cardinal Mahony will end up acting with greater integrity than Cardinal O'Malley.

AmP readers have previously criticized my coverage of Cardinal Mahony, saying that I am too harsh and never have anything good to say about him. However, the fact of the matter is that I'm only happy to say good things about him provided I think he has acted for the best interest of the Church - which he is solemnly charged to safeguard. Sadly, most of the stories that cross my desk have not been of this sort. But here is one of those (rare) occasions where I can praise a decision of this Cardinal's.

What could account for this anomaly? It makes me think back to this post I wrote a few weeks ago, commenting upon an editorial that Cardinal Mahony published saying he was a "different disciple" after the pope's visit. Specifically he said that he had gained a realization of his "own mistakes and failures over the years" and that these represented a "weight that I failed to realize was holding me down."

At the time, I expressed my skepticism that such a realization might actually be the case, but I also said at the same time: "I dearly hope that Mahony's change of heart is authentic and bears fruit through internal and external reform." Well, The best sign of an internal change of heart is changed external action, and now we have one.

Time will tell, but let's hope this wonder never ceases.

(A little more backstory is available at CathNews. Photo credit: CNA.)

update: This author thinks Mahony acted more out of annoyance because his authority was being ignored than a true interest in safekeeping doctrinal integrity in his archdiocese. What do you think?

Developments on Lugo: contrite or obstinant?

The current president-elect of Paraguay is a suspended Catholic bishop. I blogged about the story here.

On Monday, he asked for pardon from Pope Benedict:

Fernando Lugo asked forgiveness particularly to Benedict XVI on Monday after having been elected Sunday as Paraguay's next president. "If my attitude and my disobedience of canon law caused sorrow, I sincerely ask forgiveness to the people of the Church. In particular, I ask pardon to Pope Benedict XVI," Lugo said on the radio channel Fe y Alegria (Faith and Joy). According to canon law, clerics cannot run for political offices.

Lugo told the radio station that he is ready to dialogue to find a "satisfactory solution" for himself and the Church. Sources in the Holy See confirmed that the unique situation is being studied, though time is needed. (Zenit)

Rocco reports that "other sources held out the possibility that the onetime provincial of the Divine Word Fathers could return to ministry following the end of his five-year term in office."

Unfortunately, things are not so simple. In Cardinal Re's words as quoted by Zenit:

Lugo was named a bishop in 1994. He had since asked Benedict XVI to be able to "renounce his ecclesial ministry […] to take up again the condition of a layperson in the Church."

The petition was not accepted because, as Cardinal Re noted, "the episcopacy is a service accepted freely forever."

If Lugo wants to return to ministry, he needs to give up his political office first. It's hard to argue that he is truly contrite and obedient to the discipline of Rome if he is only willing to give it up the presidency when it is taken from him by the next election process years down the road.

"Vatican defrocks convicted priest Donald McGuire"

A long time coming, and now here. Chicago Tribune:

A Jesuit priest convicted of molesting students at a Chicago-area Catholic school in the 1960s was officially defrocked Friday.

Donald J. McGuire has been permanently removed from all clerical functions, said a statement from Rev. Edward Schmidt, the head of the Chicago order of the Society of Jesus to which McGuire belonged.

"We are outraged and saddened that any abuse ever took place," Schmidt said. "[McGuire] has terribly abused the trust [the victims], and we, put in him. And the church, by the action taken today, has demonstrated that same belief."

I haven't followed this story too closely. Is there any context to add?

Pope asks if outdoor Masses what "the Lord wanted", takes steps to reform

A fascinating topic broached by Damian Thompson, citing material presented by Fr. Z here.

Thompson first, quoted at length because there is little fluff about it:

Pope Benedict XVI has serious reservations about presiding over the huge open-air Masses pioneered by his charismatic predecessor John Paul II, it emerged this week.

He has no choice but to take part in them during his forthcoming trips to America and Australia – but he has told the priests of the diocese of Rome that these liturgies are “a big problem” that has yet to be resolved.

Benedict is so worried by the prospect of hundreds of priests distributing Holy Communion in the middle of crowds of over-excited pilgrims that he is sending his new Master of Ceremonies, Mgr Guido Marini, to America and Australia to check in advance that the dignity of the Mass will not be compromised.

“If a thousand priests are concelebrating, we don’t know that this is the structure the Lord would have wanted,” Benedict told his priests and deacons during a private question-and-answer session. That’s a pretty forthright way of putting it: the implication is that the vast Eucharistic jamborees favoured by former papal MC Archbishop Piero Marini, who was sacked to make way for his traditionalist namesake, may have been contrary to Christ’s wishes.

Some frank comments about ex-master of papal ceremonies Marini conclude his treatment:

Incidentally, I gather that the archbishop is trying to distance himself from his book on Vatican II whose US tour was mysteriously cancelled after it was widely interpreted as sticking two fingers up to the current papacy.

Marini is now apparently telling people that the book was largely the work of his editors. How very, very embarrassing for any prelate silly enough to have hosted a lavish launch for the volume in his throne room.

Now head over to Fr. Z who has the documentation and expert commentary about what the Pope said.

My quick observations:

• Outdoor Masses stem from the desire of large numbers of people to worship with the Pope
• Pope Benedict is concerned about a) the scandal of treating the Mass as a spectacle and b) the difficulties associated with maintaining the sanctity of the liturgy and c) the challenges which accompany, for instance, distributing communion in these contexts and d) unwiedly numbers concelebrants
• In response to these problems "the Pope decided not to delegate any longer the organization of celebrations to third parties." To that end, he will be sending the new master of papal ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, to both the U.S. and Australia for the purpose of taking on "direct responsibility for carrying out celebrations in those spaces." Note: the pope wishes to reform these liturgies, not cancel them.

One should not take from the Pope's comments a criticism of those who desire to attend large outdoor papal liturgies. Rather, in keeping with the Pope's trustworthy observations, those attending these liturgies in future should do their very best to address in whatever ways they can the issues that the Pope mentions. I'm very happy to see this sort of thing being said and to find out that something concrete is being done about it.

We are blessed to have Pope Benedict as our wise shepherd.

Dominican Leaders rebuke problematic proposal of Dutch Dominicans

Dominicans in The Netherlands (which today made AmP news for having one its chapels converted into a "modern and stylish apartment") today received a firm rebuke from their leaders in Rome:

World leaders of the Dominican order have issued a correction to three Dutch Dominican theologians who issued a popular pamphlet arguing that parish communities could celebrate the Eucharist without a priest, the French newspaper La Croix reporters.

The Dominican officials criticize the Dutch theologians for promoting views that contradict fundamental Church doctrines, according to La Croix. But the report issued from Rome stops short of disciplinary action against the theologians involved in the Dutch pamphlet.

... The report from Rome, dated January 23, does not call for disciplinary action against the Dominicans responsible for the pamphlet. But it directs the Dutch Dominicans to publicize the response in all the parishes where the original pamphlet was circulated last year-- as many as 1,500 parishes.

Personally, I wish these sort of disputes were settled the way things were done back at the University of Paris in the 13th century - public debate between chosen masters where they would employ their best arguments.

Or, in place of that, a cage match with hard-bound copies of the Summa.

The final paragraph leaves something to be desired, however:

The author of the Roman response, the French Dominican Hervé Legrand, does express some sympathy for the Dutch Dominican theologians on one issue: the question of priestly celibacy. On that issue "there must be a debate," the document says, noting that "the current situation for priests is not the only one possible."

Actually, the current situation for priests *is* the only one possible in the Roman rite.

But at least this is some progress.

Now to address the far more serious causes of the vocations crisis in Europe....

To provide an informative counter-point on this issue and related ones, see In the Light of the Law today:

In the course of answering some questions about "presiders" at liturgies, Fr. Edward McNamara, LC, made an interesting, but I think controvertible, statement: "Only an ordained minister can, strictly speaking, preside at any liturgical act." That sounds inconsistent with the language used in several authoritative sources.

...

Obviously [well, not to some Dominicans in The Netherlands. - AmP], certain liturgies can only be presided over by the ordained [i.e., Mass! - AmP]. Even in those liturgies that can be led by laity, however, ordained presiders, being more closely configured to Christ the High Priest, bring to their role a greater disposition for liturgical ministry, they offer a more perfect sign of our communion with one another under a hierarchic governance, and they are usually permitted a greater degree of solemnity in the celebration of the liturgy than are lay celebrants.

[Read the rest.]

Hint: The Book of Blessings!

Niederauer complains about blogging "bullies" while Pastor of MHR tries to sidetrack issue

This post could alternately be titled "On finding yourself in a hole, and resolving to dig."

The earlier CNS article that I wrote about today has since been expanded to include more quotations from the pastor of MHR parish as well as a revealing comment made by Archbishop Niederauer. To wit:

Father Meriwether told Catholic San Francisco that parishioners have told him it did not appear the two "sisters" "were trying to grandstand at all." Parishioners were, however, "upset by the people roaming around filming and taking pictures," he said.

The pastor of MHR has decided to make the unfortunate - but not unforeseen - decision of diverting the argument away from the sacrilege that occurred to the Eucharist on October 7th, and focusing instead on the folks who photographed and videotaped the event.

He's a bit smarter than the co-chair of the parish liturgy council and master of ceremonies, David Differding, who had this to say:

[critics] "can't get over the fact that God created gay people. That's my impression. They want to put up every roadblock they can."

Riiiiiiight, because that's the issue we've been discussing for the past 10 days. Why no desire to talk about the Eucharist? Is that a moot point? [ed.] Again, my mistake, Mass is a celebration of diversity in the community, not the worship of God by his loving members.

But the truly unfortunate addition to the debate was made today by the Archbishop himself:

Asked about reaction he had received, Archbishop Niederauer expressed concern about the impact of Web logs, or blogs."

The blogosphere is a kind of dangerous, endless recess in a global schoolyard," he said, "where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want."

Let me make something clear: nothing would make me happier than to see this whole sorry affair put to rest. At the same time, the only way it can truly be put to rest is if the underlying attitudes and failures in duty are rectified. I prefaced my first lengthy-commentary about this issue with the words "I regret having to do this, but I think it must be done...."

I really meant those words. This isn't a "fun" subject and I don't relish controversy. Least of all do I relish seeing abuse take place against the Sacraments of the Church, or witnessing the truth of Christ being hid under a bushel by those who have sworn to proclaim and reveal it. As the Catholics must always keep in mind, the greatest thing we have to offer to humanity is the truth of Christ. A truth not of our own but one rather that is freely and graciously given to the Body of Christ for the salvation and redemption of the world.

(Jeff Miller has already written about the crucial need for charity in matters such as these. I would only add that too often folks criticized in posts such as my own attempt to hide behind protestations of "charity!" when what they truly dislike is being reminded of what they ought to be doing in justice. Fair enough - by all means, keep us charitable. Such admonitions themselves are charitable, and must be equally phrased in charity. But let none of us in doing so forget about the truth being debated. But to resume....)

Why exactly should the Archbishop be concerned about the impact of blogs? Can't the truth survive even when subjected to free debate? If blogging about this topic - on the whole - was malicious, isn't this about the state of affairs any Archbishop should expect to endure as part of his ministry? Isn't it an honor to suffer for the Church? And finally, if blogs have been writing in error, isn't it his duty to teach the faithful? I'm awaiting the Archbishop's firm, public and reasoned rebuke. Offhanded comments about bloggers being "bullies" neither enlightens the observers nor helps the (supposed) offenders.

There's another reason why I don't savor continually writing about this issue - I genuinely want to think the best about the Archbishop. I mentioned in my first commentary that I believed he might truly have been unprepared for the presence of the two transvestites in his communion line, panicked, and therefore went against his better judgement when he gave them the Eucharist.

Further still, I wanted to believe that his initial denial of culpability was in good faith, as unlikely as I could find such an hypothesis. Still further, I published his apology in full, without noting any of its grave deficiencies (e.g., that it lost a perfect teaching moment for the presentation of the Church's position on the sinful and harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle. He is in San Francisco, after all, and it is probably the main challenge of the Church there).

I think there's really only one way to accurately describe the nature of the Archbishop's "concern" about the impact of web logs, namely, that the Internet is accessible from Rome.

Pope Benedict is widely known to possess greater awareness of the problems plaguing dioceses than his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. In the two years I've been blogging, I've heard several reports that a bishop's ad limina visit is no longer a simple exchange of pleasantries and exhortations under the new administration of Pope Benedict. Pointed questions are asked, questions about specific events, places and persons. If I were the Archbishop of San Francisco, I'd find the youtube clip of him giving communion to a couple of transvestite individuals very uncomfortable, especially if it's playing on the Pope's laptop at the meeting.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic with this hypothetical (Diogenes, in his typically-astute observations posted today, presents a similar image) Most major Catholic blogs possess a regular Roman and Vatican readership. Speaking personally, they are my 5th and 10th most popular countries-of-origin respectively - and I don't think they're only here to chuckle over the PPOTD.

Looking at the landscape from this new perspective, doesn't the line given by Archbishop Niederauer ("The blogosphere is a kind of dangerous, endless recess in a global schoolyard where the bullies with the biggest bullhorns can shout whatever they want.") almost sound like a trial-run for the account he will be eventually asked to give for this whole affair to his brother bishops and superiors in Rome?

I hope not. I hope this is an external protestation of his which is hiding a genuine change of heart and a new resolve to teach what the Church teaches and has always taught, long before the first blog tooted its horn.

Update: From the comments, a particularly edifying contribution from Fr. Brian Stanley:

Would [Christ] have dined with [sinners]? Yes. But it would not be to their credit, as Our Lord pointed out in all three synoptic accounts that the one who dined with Him, and even shared the dipped morsel of bread with Him, and who would in a few moments betray Him, would have been better off not being born [let alone dining with Him in that Last Supper]. Judas did attend the Last Supper, but he had a different agenda than the others who attended. I think that it is self-evident that the men in drag had an agenda that differed from the others in the congregation who dressed modestly and appropriately.

Paul has an instruction concerning the proper reception of the Eucharist in his first letter to the Corinthians, in the eleventh chapter, beginning at the 27th verse:

"Whoever, therefored, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself and drinks judgment upon himself."

Just my observation, but a man who dresses as a woman, including make-up and flowers on one's head, has not, in my humble opinion, discerned his own body enough. Men who dress as women and present themselves for the Eucharist are not only inviting comment from others, but calling God's judgment upon themselves. Perhaps I'm [being] simple-minded, but the thought struck me: shouldn't men dress as men, and women dress as women?

It behooves pastors to point out the consequence to which St. Paul refers, so that profanation of the Eucharist does not occur. It is more than merely regrettable that neither the pastor nor the archbishop pointed this out to the men dressed as women. It is to the credit of the videographer that this incident has been recorded, so as to serve, as Fr. Jungmann writes of the celebration of the Eucharist, as a "teachable moment." What is ironic [and not just a little sad] is that the pastor and the archbishop are the ones being taught.

Pastor of MHR parish just not getting the point

From CNS:

Pastor: Reaction to archbishop giving Communion to 'nuns' overblown

Reaction to San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer giving Communion to two men in mock nuns' garb during an Oct. 7 Mass has been overblown, said the pastor of the church where the Mass was celebrated. "It is most unfortunate this incident has clouded the fact the archbishop came to meet with his people and celebrate a beautiful and reverent Mass together -- and that is what really happened," said Father Stephen Meriwether, pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Parish. "This incident has been blown way out of proportion," he told Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper. Reaction has run the gamut from some who insist the "sisters" had set out to embarrass the church and the archbishop to others who felt the unannounced visitors who videotaped the Mass were more of an intrusion than the costumed men.

Honestly, reactions to most events "run a gamut". But which position is correct? Are frustrated parishioners who are trying to get the word out about the liturgical abuse and the abuse of the sacraments going on at their parish and diocese "more of an intrusion" than "costumed men" (this non-descriptive phrase is really a euphemism for "transvestites dressed to mock nuns")?

Gee, I dunno, opinion on that question "has run a gamut."

This also just re-emphasizes my point that Pastor Meriwether does. not. get. it.

Blasphemous "sisters" release "press release" about receiving communion, etc.

Why isn't the light of truth meant to be kept hidden under a bushel? Because the forces of darkness are always on the move....

Today, in the latest sad episode related to Abp. Niederauer giving communion to a couple of "queer sisters" at Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco, the organization "sisters of the perpetual indulgence" (SPI) - a sham organization of transvestites that take systematically (and irrationally) mocking everything about Catholicism, religious orders and Christ to offensive new extremes - released a press release today entitled "Sisters Upset Communion Being Turned into Political Issue".

As just a brief taste of the SPI's modus operandi, the "abbess" leader who leads the press release with a quotation is named "Edith Myflesh" (get it? That's supposed to be a pun on Christ's words "Eat my flesh", only it's just as crude, this-worldly and blasphemous as you would care to understand). Let nothing about this "press release's" correct grammar, 501 (c) (3) status and official letterhead fool you - this is a pernicious group which celebrates lifestyles deeply at-odds with human dignity and which, moreover, has for more than twenty years mocked the figures and realities of Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular.

Revealing the blatant errors present in this press release would be too easy. So, too, would uncovering the malicious intent behind it (though I might stray into that temptation from time to time below). Frankly, this organization doesn't deserve to be dismantled at an intellectual/theoretical level. Others may do so if they wish. I tend to save my bullets for fish not confined in barrels of their own making.

My purpose is merely to demonstrate that the ministry of Most Holy Redemeer parish directly, and I would also argue the recent decisions made by Abp. Niederauer proximately, have done nothing to actively and publicly disabuse this organization of its pathetic attempts to create a false reality for themselves (or in other words, to self-deceptively think that they are full members of the Catholic Church eligible to receive communion when they're motto is "go and sin some more!").

I read, therefore, through this document with one question to answer: how is this press release the result of receiving no catechises from their parish and little to no reprimand of their "lifestyle choices" from the Archbishop?

First of all, of course, this issues isn't a "political" one as claimed repeatedly by the press release. It is a theological, doctrinal and spiritual one, for starters. Sorry, we're not constrained by the narrow horizons of politics here. There's far more at stake, which is why we're concerned in the first place. Anyway:

While at Mass the Sisters joined other parishioners in respectful and sincere worship and received Communion from the Archbishop.

They were dressed like this. Has anyone ever told them how disrespectful that sort of dress is in Mass, how completely it works against "respectful and sincere worship"? Not just within Mass, but how their activities in such dress (i.e., participating in publical sex acts as part of gay pride parades, etc., etc.) similarly bar them from "respectful and sincere worship"?

Our hearts go out to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and to the Archbishop who have been unfairly stigmatized by these disingenuous campaigns for doing nothing more than following the welcoming teachings of Christ and administering Communion in keeping with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Has anyone told them that the "teachings of the Second Vatican Council" say nothing about distributing communion to those actively and regularly committed grave acts of scandal and sin? Do they think the Second Vatican Council renounced the Catholic Church's long tradition of condemning homosexual acts as sinful? Acts that the "sisters" participate in regularly? Did mocking the Church get its own document?

We would like to take this opportunity to state again that, contrary to the spin of right-wing fanatics, that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do not "mock nuns" but live "as nuns," taking vows that affirm the traditional compassionate and justice-seeking ministries of religious women....

Has anyone told them that they aren't nuns? That their anti-vows cannot be brought into harmony with living an integral virtuous human vocation?

We are open and supportive of all forms of spirituality that teach respect for human life, diversity, freedom and community, including those of the Catholic Church.

Again, just to give you a feeling for what content the "sisters" actually mean when they appropriate words: one of the sisters who was given communion by the Archbishop has been photograhed at pro-abortion rallies holding a wire hanger. That's what they mean by "teach[ing] respect for human life."! Again, see a problem?

It is no secret that our vows sometimes call us to challenge the dogmas and hypocrisies of the Catholic hierarchy....

This is an admission that the "sisters" do not accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith. This may seem elemental (and obvious), but we recite the creed before communion for a reason - the saving truths of the faith must be given our consent before we present ourselves for communion.

Final paragraph:

In keeping with our vows to expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence call on all people of good faith to oppose those who would desecrate the sanctity of a church and defile a moment of true communion for cheap political gain. In a world wracked by violence and fear, we have no time for such lies and will continue to serve our community by boldly proclaiming that joy is more powerful than shame. We extend our sincerest gratitude and affection to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and hope that their new Archbishop continues to walk with them in service to the gospel of joy and justice.

Okay, enough arguments. Just an observation: this is more mockery. This is a clear example of obstinate sin, of blithely desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ and going back to business as usual. This is continuing to spread errors in thought and errors in deed unopposed. This is a lie to support a lifestyle of lies and untruth. This is claiming to be what they are not, and in so doing, cheapening and further offending those who do act in service to neighbor and love of God. This is, finally, claiming the sponsorship and endorsement of Most Holy Redeemer Parish and the Archbishop who "walk[s] with them".

And to those responsible for this state of affairs (i.e., Most Holy Redeemer parish and it's pastor, Fr. Steve Meriwether): this is what you get when you don't teach, when you don't witness to the Gospel, and when you act upon a permissive, "everything-goes" attitude about sexual deviance. The "sisters" have grown up, and have been allowed to flourish at MHR parish for so long that - suddenly - when MHR is put in the spotlight, its pastor and staff find themselves continually embarrassed and abused by the individuals it has failed to teach.

This is why the light of truth isn't meant to be kept hidden under a bushel, because the forces of darkness are always on the move....

How much longer will the light of Christ only shine dimly at Most Holy Redeemer?

Related:

• Speroforum: Archbishop Niederauer team spinning damage control
• AMDG: The amazing (and frightening) demographics of MHR parish
• LSN: Jesuit Prof. Says Abp. Was Correct in Giving Communion to Transvestite 'Nuns'

Previous posts on this topic:

• Follow-ups to three important current stories
• Update: MRH parish Removes Thank-you of transvestite from online bulletin
• A little gem found on the MHR parish website
• Breaking: Blasphemous "Sisters" given space in Church's bulletin today!
• Text of public apology from Abp. Niederauer
• Abp. Niederauer makes a second bad decision (and here's why)
• Why Abp. Niederauer's Giving of Communion to "Queer Nuns" is a big deal
• Video: Abp. Niederauer giving Communion to gay cross-dressers

Follow-ups to three important current stories

In reference to this post about the continued public disagreement among certain bishops regarding the practice of Canon 915 (on denying the Eucharist), Jimmy Akin suggests its high time the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts gets involved.

In reference to an earlier report that Pope Benedict might officially announced the next Consistory tomorrow morning, Rocco finds the rumors reliable enough that he's going to wake up early tomorrow (530am EST) to cover the General Audience live. You can watch it streaming on Vatican TV here.

Finally, after earlier coverage of the MHR parish website deleting a previously-published 'thank you' note from an offending transvestite individual, I've since noticed that LifeSiteNews also reported that the action by the MHR parish was taken at the behest of Abp. Niederauer:

Maurice Healy, spokesman for Archbishop Niederauer, said that the note was removed after the Archbishop called the parish about the matter.

"We did see it, and the parish has removed it from the website," said Healy.

"The archbishop talked with the parish and they saw the wisdom of not including that letter."

Again, why did the spokesman refuse to take this decision as an opportunity to explain why there was no wisdom in publishing the letter. Or for that matter, the Archbishop?

Why can't we ask him to take this opportunity as a general teaching moment ... (?)

Update: MRH parish Removes Thank-you of transvestite from online bulletin

Instead of candidly admitting they were in error, or publishing a retraction/apology, the editors of the MHR parish website have simply tried to erase the online presence of the infamous 'thank you' emailed to the bulletin by one of the offending transvestite "sisters" and then published:

[LifeSiteNews:] The parish bulletin of Most Holy Redeemer church carried a message this weekend from the one of the gay activists behind the communion scandal thanking the parish for its continued support. The message from ('Sister') "Delta Goodhand" praises Archbishop George Niederauer for the "wonderful Mass" and the congregation for being "so welcoming". "It was great to be able to participate in the Mass."

The parish bulletin is approved in most Catholic churches by the pastor and cannot be distributed without his express approval. The message continued, "Afterwards, one of the parishioners offered us a blue "MHRC: An Inclusive Catholic Church" pin that I was proud to wear through the Castro Fair. You are a wonderfully inclusive church!"

After news broke on the bulletin yesterday, the parish removed the note from the online versions of the bulletin. Copies of the original and revised versions of the bulletin are available on LifeSiteNews.com [here].

Like LifeSiteNews, I saved copies of the PDF file of the bulletin as evidence should they try to remove it. It's not easy to reformat a PDF file. It's certainly more time consuming than deleting a section from an HTML page. So they went through some effort to expunge the offensive material.

I re-iterate what I said before about this:

Those responsible for the publication of this letter are guilty of providing a public forum for an individual named by the Archbishop as having "made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular", of being "deeply offensive" and who have "mock[ed] what we hold sacred" and who have "place[d] themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion."

Therefore, because Abp. Niederauer has stated that it is "not appropriate ... for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them [the Sisters]" so also it is completely inappropriate for an employee or Pastor of MHR parish to published an email from one of the "sisters" without any clarification, critique or disclaimer.

At minimum, the pastor should publish a retraction and apology as soon as possible. Get the word out.

Again, removing the 'thank you' from the online version is a start. But after everything that has come to light in the past week, it is pitifully little to make up for the growing catalogue of offenses one continues to read about.

The evidence at present leaves little doubt that the MHR parish has been running a loose ship for some time. It is thus not surprising that it is taking them awhile to redirect course, with many false steps. And I pray that do redirect course, for the good of the souls it has been commissioned to serve. Otherwise it is time for someone in authority to help them out.

As far as I can tell, AMDG deserves thanks for breaking this story, which I then covered at-length here.

Text of public apology from Abp. Niederauer

Column by Archbishop George H. Niederauer, to be published Oct. 19th in the Catholic San Francisco:

A recent event that greatly concerns me needs some additional explanation -- and with it an apology. On Sunday, October 7, 2007, I celebrated Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Parish here in San Francisco, during my first visit there. The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. I noticed no demonstration, no protest, no disruption of the Eucharist.

At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. As I recall one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. I did not recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb.

Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors, Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it.

In the year and a half since I arrived in San Francisco, there have been several instances of offensive attacks on Catholic faith and devotional life. Only two weeks ago Catholic San Francisco carried my remarks condemning the derisive use of the image of the Last Supper on a poster printed by another local group.

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake.

I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so.

The manner of dress and public comportment of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is deeply offensive to women religious and to the witness of holiness and Christian service that women religious have offered to the Church and to the world for centuries. The citizens of San Francisco have ample reason to be grateful to women religious for their unfailing support of those most in need, and to be deeply offended when that service is belittled so outrageously and offensively.

Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them.

Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture. In that moment I failed to recognize it as such, and for that, as I have said, I must apologize.

Update: Apologizing SF Archbishop Has History of "mistakes" Related to Homosexuality (LSN)

I'll be posting my comments over the weekend (once I get a solid block of time free).

Abp. Niederauer makes a second bad decision (and here's why)

Update (Oct 12th): Abp. Niederauer has issued a public apology. You can read it here.

I regret having to do this, but I think it must be done....

LifeSiteNews contacted the office of Archbishop George Niederauer to give him a chance to explain or respond to the recent accusations leveled against him:

A statement by Archbishop Niederauer sent to LifeSiteNews.com by Archdiocesan communications director Maurice Healy says that the Archbishop did not notice any "mock religious garb."

Here is what the Niederauer sent back:

"At Most Holy Redeemer Church Oct. 7, I noticed no protest, no demonstration, no disruption of the Sunday Eucharist," said Archbishop Nierderauer. "The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland."

The Archbishop has chosen to a) deny that he did anything wrong and even b) misses an opportunity to promise that, if faced with a similar situation, he would not do it again.

His statement, furthermore, seems illogical, indefensible and incoherent for these reasons:

• On the one hand, he claims to be aware enough of his surroundings to conclude that the entire celebration was conducted with reverence and devoutly, but at the same time he could not tell that two transvestites were staring him in the face one-after-the-other during communion time.
• He vaguely refers to these two transvestites as "strangely dressed persons." This is coming, mind you, from a man who ministers in San Francisco. Is he honestly trying to claim that he does not recognize what are clearly transvestite individuals? What does that say about his ability to minister? They have white chalk on their faces. They are wearing red lipstick. They were wearing heals. "Strangely dressed persons" is an untenable euphemism. Moreover, he is celebrating Mass at a well-known gay-friendly parish! Shouldn't he, so to speak, be more on his guard against this sort of thing?
• "I did not see any mock religious garb." This, again, coming from an Archbishop of the Catholic Church. Large black veils are not worn by the general populace. Shouldn't he admit at the very least that, given everything else he "missed" about these persons, they might also have been wearing religious garb?
• "As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland." Again, this apparently was no cause for concern - judging by the Archbishop's tone. Such nonchalance when administering the Body and Bloody of Jesus Christ is alone reprehensible. Where, exactly, is his mind at when he is administering the Eucharist that he only "vaguely" remembers a "flowered hat or garland" but can't remember lipstick, white-chalk faces, rainbow headdresses, men wearing skirts and high heels, mascara ... etc.!

And then, finally, there is the fact that the video further contradicts the Archbishop's explanation of the situation. If you watch it closely (as I have many times, and you can too), I think it is pretty clear that this is what happened. I've embedded the video below and then written up a timeline of what it shows actually happening in bulleted form with comments interspersed:




My play-by-play:

• The first transvestite presents himself for communion
• Instead of presenting communion, Niederauer stops and extends his hand and gives the transvestite a blessing

If there was nothing memorable about the transvestite, why didn't Niederauer simply give him communion? I think it is clear that Niederauer noticed something was different and initially chose to withhold communion and chose instead to give a blessing.

• At a crucial point, the camera view is obstructed by a passer-by, in the meantime, Neiderauer voices something to the transvestite, who nods, and Niederauer then gives him communion.

We can only speculate what was said (there is a rumor that another video of the event will be made available shortly). I don't think it's far off to guess that Niederauer asked the transvestite if he wanted communion, and he said yes. But, this we cannot know for certain. [Note: I also considered the possibility that the transvestite told Niderauer that he had been to confession. If that happened - and I doubt it - Niederauer should have said "Okay, now please come back when you are not so offensively dressed."] Either way, however, the Archbishop talked to the man! Is his memory so failing that he cannot remember having a conversation with a communicant? Can he talk to someone with a face like this and have no memory of something being ... "off"?!

• What is visible, however, is that Niederauer follows the transvestite as he walks away with his eyes. At the same time, his mouth is open in a state of either shock of confusion.

Again, if nothing about this transvestite was memorable, why follow him with your eyes? I think in the Archbishop's best defense, his expression would seem to suggest that he was taken aback by the situation, and failed to think quickly on his feet. If that is the case, however, he should discard the pretense and admit candidly that he was taken off-guard.

• Now the second transvestite approaches. This time there is no question and Neiderauer immediately gives him communion. Once again, however, Niederauer shoots a quick glance at the second transvestite with his eyes.

In my experience - and I'll admit that there are times when I'm in the front of church and watching the communion line while I pray - priests don't follow communicants with their eyes unless they are uneasy about whether the person is going to immediately consume the Host. Why did Niederauer look at not one, but both individuals if ... there was nothing unusual about them?

This entire sequence puts the lie to Abp. Niederauer's claim that the appearance of two transvestites in his communion line a) did not register in his mind as a reason to deny them communion and b) caused him no second-thoughts to the point that he has already forgotten what happened.

With all due humility to his office as an Archbishop of the Church, but equally inspired by a sincere concern that he dispense his office as the Guardian of the Sacraments properly ...

I don't think his response to LifeSiteNews is honest.

Update: CurtJester, with his distinctly withering style of irony, takes a look at the Abp.'s response. Also, Closed Cafeteria is a good place to find backstory on the blasphemous "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence".



Update 2: Thanks to everyone who has linked to this post. I've added an embedded youtube video to make it easier to see for yourself what I'm claiming.


Update 3: George Neumayr, editor of the American Spectator, has written a good editorial for Catholic World Report about this situation, and reminds us about the chance for resolution at the U.S. Bishop's upcoming meeting in November:

In November, the U.S. bishops will gather in Baltimore for their annual conference, and this unresolved scandal hangs over them. The choice they face is clear: either they adopt as a uniform policy the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will multiply without end.

...The Church's position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege is not up for debate. The only question left is whether the bishops will follow it. The fiasco in San Francisco makes this much clear: If the bishops don't get control over the sacraments, the Church's enemies most certainly will.

Here-here.

Why Abp. Niederauer's Giving of Communion to "Queer Nuns" is (and should be) a big deal

This story (blogged here and then here), is going to attract plenty of attention. While it involves many complex questions, a few points are objective and obvious, and therefore shouldn't be lost sight of:

Canon Law says that those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" are "not to be admitted to holy communion." Not "discouraged" - not admitted.

Two men dressed as nuns, who look like this, are objectively, manifestly supporting a culture of grave sin and openly mocking the Church.

This action represented a public challenge on the part of the "Queer nuns," a public choice made by Archbishop George Niederauer, and we have video evidence of what happened (available streaming here or WMP here). The fact that the objective situation is not open to dispute means the only question here is one of principle and norm.

To name one ramification, Abp. Neiderauer is the head of the San Francisco archdiocese. It goes without saying that his actions and attitude towards the gay agenda are closely observed. He is providing an example (for good or ill) to the rest of the Catholic Church in America concerning the appropriate response to make when gay activists present themselves for the Eucharist. His record was already questionable.

In this situation, I would submit that anything less than a sincere apology and firm public commitment to change course will not answer either the disservice he has done to his office and his flock, or to the objective sacrilege he is allowed to be visited upon the Real Presence entrusted to his care.

Conclusion: When the bleachers are full and everyone's watching, it's really time to step up to the plate.

Related links (I fully expect the mainstream media to pick up on this by tomorrow):

• "Queer nuns” get Communion - California Catholic Daily
• One bread, one body? - Off The Record

Video: Abp. Niederauer giving Communion to gay cross-dressers

From Quamdiu Domine, video of the story reported yesterday of George Neiderauer, Archbishop of San Francisco, giving Holy Communion to two gay-activists dressed up ostentatiously (and blasphemously) as nuns. The video is embedded below. To view the video in Windows Media player, click here.

The video:

More context and information at QD here.

Gerald explains what we are seeing:

... Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco [is] giving Communion to two "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence". It looks as if the archbishop was going to give only a blessing to the first "sister", then an exchange of words, then he gives it to the first, then, without further ado, to the second. As Diogenes shows, the same two sisters were at the Walk for Life in SF.....as counter-protesters! These "sisters" are very well-known in San Francisco and nation-wide. So, certainly the archbishop knows what they do. And even without knowing about them - the outfit alone should be enough to get kicked out of any decent church.

Outrageous.

Italian priest asks for permission to date, loses post

With typical AP aplomb:

An Italian priest who publicly declared his love for a woman has lost his job, the diocese said Tuesday.

The Rev. Sante Sguotti can no longer work as pastor in his Monterosso parish and cannot hear confessions from the faithful, the diocese of Padua said in a statement. Sguotti remains a priest and can celebrate Mass, however.

Sguotti made headlines in August when he went on national television to say he was in love with a woman and wanted to be her boyfriend publicly while remaining chaste.

The case reignited the debate over priestly celibacy, particularly because the woman in question has a young son, whom Sguotti said he had helped name. He dodged direct questions about whether he was the boy's father, saying only that he cannot have a child according to church law.

Bishop Antonio Mattiazzo issued a decree on Monday removing Sguotti from his pastoral duties, saying he was doing so because Sguotti "had been linked for some time to a woman and had asked for a dispensation to go out with her."

Men in the Eastern rite of the Catholic church who are married can become priests, and the Vatican has accepted into the priesthood some married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism.

But the Vatican has constantly refused to relax the celibacy requirement for Latin rite priests. The Vatican reaffirmed that last November, when Pope Benedict XVI convened a summit of clergy who rebuffed a crusade by Emmanuel Milingo, the renegade Zambian archbishop who was excommunicated last year after marrying a woman and launching a campaign for the Vatican to allow priests to marry.