UPDATE: The Purpose of the Law

UPDATE: According to Rorate Caeli, the letter from PCED is discussing a chapel not affiliated with the SSPX, which would explain the PCED's position today vis-a-vis the previous position.  It would appear that this is a case that is distinguishable from the prior PCED ruling - that is, as we stand today, the SSPX Masses do indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation according to the PCED's opinion.  Anyway... I will leave my original post because I think it is still pertinent and, quite frankly, it took me a bit of time to write it, so I do not want to delete it!

If you keep up with news on Traditionalist Catholic blogs, you are probably aware that a private letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to a particular person was released publicly (not by PCED) today.  One possible reading of that letter is that the faithful do not fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at Masses of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.  If today's letter says that, it is a reversal of an earlier letter from the PCED that said precisely the opposite.

At any rate, in addition to all the other comments one could make about that, I would like to focus on the logical conundrum into which today's letter leads (which I think is pretty funny, by the way).  Bear with me while I throw down some logic...

1. Under Canon Law § 1247, the faithful may fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation "by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic Rite...."
2. The PCED has determined the faithful do not meet their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at an SSPX Mass.
3. The PCED has therefore determined the SSPX do not celebrate the Mass according to a Catholic Rite.
4. Therefore, the SSPX is not Catholic. 

1. Normally, in order for absolution to be valid during the Sacrament of Penance, the absolving priest must have jurisdiction from the local bishop.
2. However, under Canon Law § 844.2, the faithful may receive the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of Penance, from a non-Catholic minister whose Sacraments are valid (that is, a schismatic). 
3. Therefore, schismatic priests require no jurisdiction from the local bishop to validly absolve. 

1. The SSPX has valid Sacraments, but according to the PCED are not Catholic.  Therefore, they are schismatic.
2. Since the SSPX priests are schismatic, they need not have jurisdiction from the local bishop to validly absolve.
3. Therefore, confession to an SSPX priest is valid and the priest validly absolves.

Of course, I am saying this somewhat in jest to point out that the law loses meaning when the ultimate purpose is forgotten.  In this case, the purpose of the law is the salvation of souls.  Does it not behoove the PCED to say that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation because then more people are meeting their obligation and avoiding sin?  Does it not make sense for SSPX priests to validly absolve so that more people have their sins forgiven?

Anyway, some pointed out that the PCED is not even the proper authority to make determinations about the intricacs of Canon Law.  That right belongs to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  Frankly, I have not looked deeply into the issue and I do not really care to do so. 

One thing is certain: the Holy Father is the earthly lawgiver, so he has the final say on this and every other Canon Law issue.  He has said nothing either way.  Since the law is construed for the benefit of souls... well, I think the SSPX Masses meet the obligation.  But, I am not going to bet my eternal salvation on my logic skills!

Let us pray that His Holiness Benedict XVI will step in to clarify whether the faithful fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at SSPX Masses. 

Islam: The Religion of Peace

I'm so glad the political Left has got the number of those crazy religious fundamentalists.
Wait a minute--they're Muslims? Oh, that makes it OK. (I thought they were Catholics.) Disregard.

We Need to Pray for the Pope

His Holiness the Pope - Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ - Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles - Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church - Patriarch of the West - Servant of the Servants of God - Primate of Italy - Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province - Sovereign of Vatican City State -  Benedict XVI

According to the accounts of those closest to the Holy Father, he is "saddened" by recent events and betrayals by those in the Curia.  We need to keep the Holy Father in our prayers!  We can do so particularly during the Whit Embertide, in which we currently find ourselves. 

Orémus pro beatíssimo Papa nostro Benedicto.

Dóminus consérvet eum, et vivíficet eum, et beátum fáciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in ánimam inimicórum ejus.

A Word about Battleships

On a subject that has nothing to do with Catholicism or the Gothic, but which is very historical--and because I'm a battleship fan--USS Iowa is underway for her new home at San Pedro. Click the links below for the story and for some great photos.

http://www.pacificbattleship.com


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0527-iowa-20120527,0,3477701.story

http://framework.latimes.com/2012/05/13/battleship-iowas-final-journey/#/0

Catholic Bishops

I know you can't judge a book by its cover, but I was struck by this photo of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX.  Doesn't His Excellency just look like a Successor of the Apostles should look?  

The SSPX does not have a monopoly on exuding this sort of demeanor (Did anyone catch the FSSP ordinations I posted about?).  But, many bishops seem to have forgotten that they are custodians of an office that demands they act the part, which certainly includes the outward signs of respect and regality.  Perhaps if the SSPX is "reconciled" with the Church, they will be the leaven that leavens the batch in this and many other regards.

In fact, Bishop Fellay said that very thing in his Pentecost sermon: "It seems clear that, if we are wanted, it is to re-introduce Tradition in the Church, if we can speak like this."  [Taken from the translation available on Rorate Caeli].

Important News! This Just In! Ecumenical Councils!

You might want to sit down for this: It has been recently discovered that there are 21 Church Councils accepted as ecumenical by the Roman Catholic Church.  Shockingly, only one of those councils is the one commonly referred to a Vatican II.  It does happen to be the most recent, but it is also the only one to have been deemed "pastoral" in nature.  It is the only Council ever to definitively not define any new doctrine.  It was not called in reaction to a crisis or particular heresy.  It did not anathematize anyone and any idea.

And yet... it is the only ecumenical council that can be simply referred to as "the Council."  If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will likely notice that "the Council" is the main source of citation. 

I would like to do more research about the history of ecumenical councils prior to "the Council."  There is no question that the first 7 councils were very important.  The First Council of Nicea in the 4th Century determined that the faithful should not kneel during the Liturgy on Sundays.  Heck, one Council (Constatinople III) even posthumously excommunicated the Pope!

It turns out, the first seven Councils, which sorted out important issues relating to, among other things, Christology, were not called by the Pope and really had no involvement from the Bishop of Rome.  In fact, the first seven Councils involved mainly bishops from the Eastern Churches.  The first Council called by the Pope was Lateran I in the 12th Century. 

After the first seven Councils, educated minds seem to disagree about their importance (and their ecumenicity - for the non-Catholics, anyway).  You have a few "pseudo-councils" and "robber councils."  You have a few ecumenical councils that really did very little and were never implemented.  There are ecumenical councils that dealt mainly with political issues about legitimate princes.  Councils attempted to heal the Great Schism between East and West, they discussed purgatory (or not), icons (or not), leavened bread for Holy Communion (or not)... 

Of course, the Council of Trent is the most important Council since the original seven.  The Council of Trent responded scholastically to the major tenets of Protestantism and set the course of scholasticism in the Western Church. 

The history of the councils is very interesting.  I hope to read more about it in the future.  Perhaps, when I have done so I will post more thoughts on this interesting subject.

Universal Healthcare?

I noticed this interesting article on today's Vatican Information Service.  I'm posting this specifically so our reader and my friend Gene (formerly pin) will notice it and comment on it.  I'll post it in its entirety below with some of my comments embedded Fr. Z style.

THE CHURCH IS COMMITTED TO UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE

Vatican City, 24 May 2012 (VIS) - Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski, head of the Holy See delegation to the sixty-fifth World Health Assembly, yesterday delivered an address before that gathering, which is being held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 21 to 26 May. Speaking English, the archbishop reaffirmed the Holy See's support for Resolution WHA64.9 on "sustainable health financing structures and universal coverage", which urges member States to aim for affordable universal coverage [Quod Apostolici Muneris and Rerum Novarum, where art thou?] and access for all citizens on the basis of equity and solidarity [and what about subsidiarity, the third pillar of Catholic Social Teaching?].

He also recalled how Benedict XVI has emphasised the importance of establishing "real distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all. [Absolutely - that is certainly one of the Church's goals.  However, it is a goal historically acheived through Church run hospitals and clinics, not through the State.] Consequently, if it is not to become inhuman, the world of healthcare cannot disregard the moral rules that must govern it".  [And what of the moral rules regarding Socialism?  Leo XIII had this to say about this sort of "equality": "Their habit (Socialists, that is), as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure."  That teaching is juxtaposed with the doctrine that "there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."]

Archbishop Zimowski noted that "more countries, especially those with emerging economies, are moving towards universal coverage", thanks also to "good policies that promote equity. ... Therefore my delegation strongly believes that in the endeavour to promote universal [universal = Socialist] coverage, fundamental values such as equity, human rights and social justice [ugh!] need to become explicit policy objectives", he said.

The archbishop made an appeal for high-income countries to show greater solidarity towards poorer nations in order to overcome funding shortfalls in health. In this context he quoted the Encyclical "Caritas in veritate" in which Benedict XVI writes: "More economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard".  [The Church teaches charity, not redistribution.  Again Leo XIII: "[T]he Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate."]

In conclusion the head of the Holy See delegation affirmed that "progress towards universal coverage [There's that word "universal" again] cannot be the effort of State machinery alone. It requires support from civil society. ... With over 120,000 social and healthcare institutions worldwide, the Catholic Church is in many developing countries one of the key partners of the State in healthcare delivery, providing services in remote areas to rural low-income populations, enabling them to access services that would otherwise be out of their reach. The efforts and contribution of such organisations and institutions towards universal access, merit the recognition and support of both the State and the international community, without obliging them to participate in activities they find morally abhorrent" [Well, there's something about conscience clauses at least].

Here is the teaching set forth quite plainly in Rerum Novarum:

[I]f a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth.  In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop.

The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

 My comments:

Basic healthcare is important and should be provided to those who need it.  Catholic social teaching indicates that such services should first be provided by those who are wealthy and own capital - that is, employers.  Indeed, in American society, this is the case.  Moveover, hospitals and doctors routinely offer their services for free or at a reduced rate.  That is the basic charity called for by that profession.  In America, if one needs healthcare, one gets healthcare even in the absence of a State-run system.

I am unqualified to say whether this is the case in developing countries, but I would guess that it is not.  Therefore, the State may have a duty to "force" such charity from employers and medical professionals. 

That said, universal healthcare as envisioned by Socialists (including those running America these days) is not in accordance with Catholic social teaching.  It may behoove those making public speeches on behalf of the Holy See to stop using phrases like "universal healthcare" because of its Socialistic implications... 

Pro-Aborts and Counterproductivity

Based on this Gallup Poll, two spikes have occurred in the past several years that have put pro-life supporters ahead of pro-abortion supporters numerically. One was in May 2009; the other is right now.


What happened in May 2009? President Obama's highly controversial (except among the mainstream media) commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, at which the university and its misguided president, John Jenkins, added injury to insult by conferring an honorary degree on the president despite the objections of a number of bishops.


And what's happening now? The legal battle over the HHS mandate issued by so-called Catholic Kathleen Sebelius heats up, together with a highly controversial appearance of said Sebelius at another dissident Catholic school, in this case Georgetown. And this time the bishop's smackdown of Georgetown, though slow in coming, had even more bite than the criticism of Notre Dame did (although it's still just talk; the bishops are still scared to do anything more than "view with concern.")


By the way, isn't it ironic that the second spike is a direct result of a policy that showed the president's speech about "common ground" during the first spike to be at best empty words and at worst a bald-faced lie? (I wonder if he'd have talked about finding common ground between abolitionists and slaveowners if he'd been president in 1861, or between the Allies and the SS in over the "Jewish Question" if he'd been president in 1943.)


It's also ironic that the HHS secretary had the temerity to discuss "separation of church and state" in her speech when 1) her insurance rule violates this concept that she says is so important and 2) she doesn't even understand the concept, by her own admission.


So, my request to leading political pro-aborts and their allies, so-called Catholic universities: Do keep up this high-profile assault on Catholicism and human rights, guys, in the name of your rage-driven Lebensunwertes Leben pseudo-feminism. Please. Be my guest. The more you do, the more people apparently catch on.


P.S. Democratic voters bring to this poll minds "not to be changed by place or time." Of Republicans, independents, and Democrats, the latter's numbers changed the least. At least the good Fr. Jenkins has finally seen what everyone else saw three years ago. Better late than never, although if he's listened at the time he could have avoided scandalizing the faith.


P.P.S. Oops, I just realized that I insinuated in this post that the president is a liar. I'd better be careful or I might get arrested for that, according to this high school teacher, who apparently thinks that you can make bad statements that include profanity about Republican Presidents  but that all criticism of Democratic presidents must be suppressed by state action. (I am no Republican, but I do believe in applying the law equally.) At least the school board suspended her, but only after a lot of bad press.

Latest on the SSPX

From this morning's Vatican Information Service email news brief:

Communique on the Society of St. Pius X

Vatican City, 16 May 2012 (VIS) - Early this afternoon, the Holy See Press Office issued the following communique regarding the Society of St. Pius X:

"As reported by news agencies, today, 16 May 2012, an Ordinary Session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith met to discuss the question of the Society of St. Pius X.

In particular, the text of the response of Bishop Bernard Fellay, received on 17 April, 2012, was examined and some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.

Regarding the positions taken by the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, their situations will have to be dealt with separately and singularly".

SSPX Internal Letter Removed

I have removed the previously posted letter from His Excellency Bishop fellay to the other three bishops of the SSPX in accordance with the wishes of the SSPX General House. The following is from the US District website regarding this leaked letter situation: "Its publication will encourage those who are fomenting division; the Society of St. Pius X asks its priests and lay faithful not to respond except by redoubling their prayers, so that only the will of God may be done, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls."

FSSP Ordinations Viewable on the Internet

Assuming the internet is still up and running on Saturday, May 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., the excellent site LiveMass.net will be showing the Ordinations to the Sacred Priesthood of the Fraternity of St. Peter from Nebraska.  This will also be available through the iMass App for iPhone and iPad.

His Excellency Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, part-time friend of Traditional Catholicism, will confer the Sacrament of Orders upon five candidates. 

I believe the assistant priest from St. Francis de Sales in Mableton, Georgia, Fr. Matthew McCarthy will be assisting at the Ordination.  For more information, check out the Fraternity's news feed.