Homily for the First Sunday of Advent, 2021

Jeremiah 33:14-16

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13, 4:1-2

Luke 21:25-28, 34-36

If you are one of those who take the time to follow the daily readings of the Church each day (and I sincerely hope that you do) or you attend or watch daily Mass each day, you know that the readings this past week have taken on what can best be described as a kind of apocalyptic theme. We've been hearing the discourse of Jesus as described in the 21st chapter of St Luke's Gospel, which is Luke's account of Jesus' discourse to the disciples on the times of trouble that they would experience in their journey to spread the good news of Jesus Christ to the ends of the Earth, and that the whole world would experience before the Lord's final return at the end of time as we know it. It's easy to see why the Church would direct us to those kinds of readings at the end of the liturgical year, because it's the end of the cycle that we use to mark sacred time, so at the close of the year the Church wants to draw our attention to the reality that the day will come when Jesus returns in glory and this world as we know it will also come to a close. 

When we hear the more apocalyptic passages in the Gospels at the end of the liturgical year, they also serve as a personal reminder to each of us that even if we don't live to see the end of days and the final return of Christ in our lifetime, it is a sure and certain reality that we will personally meet the Lord and stand before him, and we should always be ready for that moment, it could come any day, we do not know when, where, or how.

We've come now to the first Sunday of Advent, it's an entirely new Liturgical Year, and yet here we are on the first Sunday of Advent and the Church has us in Luke 21 again, with Jesus speaking near the end of that discourse reminding his hearers to pray for the perseverance to see their way through the various tribulations that they will have to undergo as his followers, and prepare to meet Him at any time.

We've just celebrated Thanksgiving (I'm still full!), and the secular world is already ramping up for Christmas. We can find twenty-four hours a day and 7 days a week Christmas music on our radios or our favorite music streaming app. We are currently living through one of the worst inflationary cycles I can remember in my lifetime, but that doesn't seem to stop the pursuit of holiday profit, or the obsession with many to make sure they have the right number of gifts or that everything is perfect for Christmas, and yet the Church is reminding us in our readings today that these worldly things with which we are concerned - things which are not sinful in and of themselves - can be made sinful when we make those things the purpose of this season or the purpose of our lives. Jesus is reminding us that as surely as we celebrate the first Advent and we begin to focus our minds on the reality of the Incarnation of the Son of God, that there is and will be a Second Advent, and that Advent will be the one when the Son of God returns in glory. The reason that Advent is a wonderful time to reflect on that reality is precisely because we need the reminder every year (and certainly this year) that the things of this world are passing things, we cannot take them with us at the end of this Life or at the end of all things.

It is easy for us to forget in our everyday world the reality of the end of life and of the end of things. We don't often tend to dwell on this because Jesus himself told us we did not know the day or the hour that he would return, and we are repeatedly warned in the New Testament for us to carry on our lives. Before the Ascension, when the Apostles asked the Lord if he was going to restore the Kingdom, the Lord's response was that it was not for us to "know the times and the seasons which the Father has under his own power." (cf. Acts 1:7)

It bears remembering, however, that at every Mass we proclaim the mystery of faith, and we say just as St. Paul did that when we partake of the Eucharist, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again. You might even recall that some years back before our current Roman Missal came into use, we often proclaimed at the Mystery of faith the words "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again."

We don't know when that will be, but that is really the point. Whether it is our own death or the Final Consummation of things at the end of the age, all of us will someday meet the Lord face to face. In the end, at the Last Judgement, He will either tell us "well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Master's house," (cf. Matthew 25:21) or he will say "depart from me you worker of iniquity, I never knew you." (cf. Matthew 7:21-23) 

Advent provides for us a very wonderful and special opportunity to truly deepen our relationship with Jesus who is God become Man. This truly wonderful season allows us to enter more deeply into the mystery not only of the Incarnation and the First Advent of Our Lord, but also the reality that he will return in glory, there will be a Second Advent of Christ, and even now the holy spirit is trying to prepare our hearts for that reality.

We can be open to that preparation, both to celebrate the Incarnation at Christmas and anticipate the Lord's return by looking for Christ amongst our neighbors. We know that this time of year there is need and want all around us, but especially this year when so many people are experiencing the effects of some very hard times in our country. Jesus asked his disciples "when the son of man comes, will he find faith on Earth?" We might also ask ourselves that if he came today, would Jesus find that we are spending our time going about the Lord's work, of spreading the Gospel, and loving and caring for our neighbor?

It's a wonderful time of year to renew our commitment to doing exactly that.

Homily for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time - The Sacrament of Matrimony

Genesis 2:18-24

Hebrews 2:9-11

Mark 10:2-16

Those of you who have listened to my preaching for quite some time now know that it tends to providentially happen that I very often find myself preaching on some of the things in scripture which are known as the "hard sayings of Jesus," things which are very important parts of the Christian Life and which have always been very difficult to live out, but especially so in the world in which we find ourselves living in this hour of history.

Today's Old Testament reading and today's Gospel are meant as an illustration for us of God's plan for humanity and the human family. God made humanity male and female, and he did so for a reason. It has been the plan of God from the beginning of all time that the human race should be perpetuated in the family, and that families are themselves perpetuated when men and women come together as husband and wife and become one flesh. That plan is so important to humanity that Jesus reminds us that it has always been the intent of God that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is indissoluble, and that has always been and remains today the teaching of the Church.

The plan of God for the human race from the very beginning, as Jesus reminds us in the Gospel today, is that God made humanity male and female, and that God intended a man to leave his Father and Mother and cleave to his wife and with her to become one flesh. It was thus from the very beginning, and that is made clear to us both in Genesis and in more than one place in the Gospels. This was a difficult thing when Jesus said it over 2,000 years ago, it was difficult for the Pharisees that heard it, because they were used to the religious laws of that time which said that they could simply declare that they "put their wife away," that's what they called it "putting her away." I could only imagine how dehumanizing such a pseudo ritual must have been for the women who were on the other side of it in those days.

Yet in this day and age in which we live, not only has divorce become commonplace in society at large, but we see it and its effects in the very heart of the Church today. We understand that part of this is because of human sin and brokenness, that is true, but a huge part of the reason that we see the effects of divorce in the Church today is because so many people have forgotten what matrimony is and it is supposed to be. Pope Francis himself has warned that a big part of the reason why the number of declarations of nullity are so high is because so many young people enter into marriage with a false idea of what this institution is, and what it is about.

Jesus gives us a real lesson on what marriage is about because immediately after he tells his disciples not once, but twice about the permanence of Holy Matrimony, we then see in the same Gospel text that people brought children to Jesus for him to touch them and the disciples tried to rebuke the people who brought the children. Jesus rebuked the disciples instead, he reminded them and all of his listeners that we all have to receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, that is to have the faith of a child- or we can't enter into it. We are told that Jesus blessed the children who were brought to him. In doing this, and in placing the blessing of children in this context in the Word of God, Jesus is showing us one of the critical reasons why the institution of marriage was created and the Sacrament of Matrimony instituted, and that is for the well-being, and the safety, and the good upbringing of children, right along with the good and well-being of both spouses.

Holy Mother Church teaches us and has always taught us that a family with a mother and a father and siblings (if God gives children) is the normative means by which God gives humanity to bring up children and to advance society and human flourishing. In saying this and in being reminded of this today, we are not saying that good and holy young people cannot come from a single parent home, or from an alternative situation over which they had little control. No, what we are saying is what Jesus says, and that is that the plan of God is, and has always been, for children to be brought up in families made up of mothers and fathers, and both mothers and fathers are of equal importance, even though they have different and distinct roles. Even the raw statistics tell us that God set down his plan and his way for a reason, some of the best social scientists saw that many decades ago.

However, rather than acknowledge in humility that God's plan is really for the best and that humanity in our brokenness and sinfulness are the ones who screw that up, and seek repentance and healing and reconciliation, in our culture today we think we know better than Jesus Christ, and the culture seeks to redefine what marriage is, what family is, and even today what constitutes male and female, which is now a matter of choice rather than divine appointment according to some.

Holy Mother Church teaches us clearly that the Sacraments are the ordinary means by which our Lord confers Grace on humanity and that there are seven of these Sacraments. Three of the sacraments are Sacraments of Initiation or acceptance into God's family, the Church. (Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist), that two of the Sacraments are Sacraments that Jesus gives us for healing our bodies and our souls, (the Anointing of the Sick and the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession), but then we are given two Sacraments that are Sacraments of Service. The Sacraments of Service are Holy Orders, or ordination, and the Sacrament of Matrimony. Holy Matrimony is so important in the plan of God that the relationship between Christ and his Church in Sacred Scripture is described as the relationship between a Bride and a Bridegroom. In the parable of the ten virgins, Jesus reminds us to be watchful like a bride for the bridegroom because the bridegroom could return at any time.

St. Paul in Ephesians Chapter 5:22-32 lays out the way in which Christian married couples should behave, he reminds couples that Matrimony is a great Sacrament, and that it is a reflection in this world of the mystical bond between Christ and his Church. St John Paul II repeated the Church's traditional teaching that the family is a domestic Church.

Rather than accept God's definition of a family as a model for what his eternal family is like, the world redefines family to fit the definition that is convenient for the priorities of the world. The married relationship is often defined in today's culture by Hollywood. People's idea of married love comes from the movies, or television, or popular books, or the internet, rather than the timeless and correct definitions given to us by the Church from God's own Word. 

Those of us who have been married for any length of time know that real marriage and love within marriage is not Hollywood (where's my late Grandfather used to call it, Hollywierd!). We need to love and cherish our spouse, and doing that right means doing it when it is easy, and when it is hard. Loving our wife or our husband when it's hard, and loving our children when it's hard is what God asks from us, because loving us in that way is exactly what Jesus did for us. If you want to know how much Jesus loves us, all you need to do is look at the Cross behind me. That is how we are called to love our wives and our husbands, our families, our children. Permanent and lasting Love is how he loves us, and it is the way in which he expects us to love one another.

Homily for the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time

 

1 Kings 19:4-8

Ephesians 4:30-5:2

John 6:41-51

For the third consecutive week, Holy Mother Church places us in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St John, in what many Catholic scholars consider John's Eucharistic passage.  John's Eucharistic detail comes in the 6th Chapter of his Gospel, because it is here that Jesus recounts what the Eucharist really is and what it really means.

The Gospel of John, like the other three Gospels, contains an account of what happened at the Last Supper. In the other three Gospels, however, there is an account of the institution of the Eucharist, and Saint Paul reaffirms that account in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Interestingly, John's account of the Last Supper doesn't contain an account of the institution of the Eucharist itself on the first Holy Thursday, but instead it contains this lengthy exposition from Jesus in what we know today as the Sixth chapter of John. It's known as the Bread of Life discourse, and we've just heard in this passage why it's called that. Many Catholic biblical scholars believe that this is John's Eucharistic account, his passing along to us one of the most doctrinally important passages in the entire New Testament.

Jesus makes very clear what he means, and his listeners understood it also, which is why we will hear in a couple of weeks time in the Gospel at Sunday Mass the end of this chapter when so many of the people who are listening to Jesus here say "Lord, this saying is hard and who can hear it." (cf. John 6:60-71) Jesus said it very clearly in the Gospel today in our own hearing. "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, and if any one eats of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Many of our separated brothers and sisters will take this entire passage of Scripture, indeed the entire 6th chapter of John to mean something purely symbolic. I won't spend time today giving the cliche arguments against that position, I'm going to presume you're familiar with them. If you are not, I will say that even though those arguments are very true, I don't think they're the most effective to prove the point that Jesus wasn't speaking symbolically. The reason that we can tell that Jesus was speaking literally was the reaction of the crowd, many of whom, the larger chapter tells us, had been disciples of Jesus before that day, they understood exactly what he meant, and many of them walked away. 

The reality of the Eucharist is so central to our faith that when he was teaching about it, Jesus was more than willing to lose followers over it, people who probably otherwise would have been fine disciples of the Lord. But the teaching of the Eucharist was too much for them, it was that serious for Jesus. At the end of the chapter we even get a hint that maybe the remaining 12 didn't entirely understand what Jesus meant, because he asked them if they would also go away, and you have to love Peter's response when he said "Lord, where shall we go, you have the words of eternal life." Considering the situation in the Church today, there have been many many times in recent years when I have had to remind myself of Peter's words, I would say that many of us probably have.

Our Lord took the teaching of the Eucharist so seriously that when we look at it in the Sacred Scripture today it takes up an entire chapter of the Bible with him explaining it and explaining it again. If it was serious enough to Jesus to spend that much time on one particular teaching of our faith, if we are going to live the way we are called to live and be like Christ then we need to take the Eucharist as seriously as Jesus did and does.

Some three weeks ago on July 16th, there were two Church documents released on the same day. One of those documents received a whole lot of attention in the Catholic media and it's continuing to receive attention. The other one should have gotten much more attention, because the contents of the second document are far more immediately important for the welfare of our immortal souls. The document that should have gotten far more attention and didn't was a pastoral letter by our own Bishop Richard Stika on the matter of sin and the worthy reception of Holy Communion. The Bishop released it to everyone, and you can find it on our diocesan website, but it didn't get a whole lot of coverage in the media. Because of that, you can be forgiven for not knowing about it, but if you want to see everything the bishop had to say, you can look on the website or you can email me. 

The topic of worthiness to receive Holy Communion is sometimes called Eucharistic cohesion. Those words have been in the Catholic news in recent months because the US Bishops are working on a document about it, but our own Bishop's pastoral letter highlights a number of things about worthiness to receive the Eucharist that Catholics ought to know and about which there should be no argument. The Bishop reminds us that of course no one is truly worthy, but that when we approach the altar of God to receive Holy Communion we should be in a state of grace. Unless we are exceptionally saintly, that means availing ourselves of sacramental confession as often as possible. I often remind myself that among humanity, only the Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived. (In his letter, the bishop recommended confession at least once a month or more).

His Excellency also spoke to the controversial issue of public figures who give grave scandal by making a very public profession of their Catholic faith before the world while supporting, promoting, and even publicly funding the terrible Holocaust of abortion. Bishop Stika very rightly says that those who use their public position to promote abortion "cannot be admitted to Holy Communion." (Pastoral 17)

The Church does not tell us these things in order to be unwelcoming or uncaring. It is for the good and the salvation of our own souls that the Church reminds us of the conditions whereby we can and should receive Holy Communion. St. Paul put it perhaps most bluntly of all when he said that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily "will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord." (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27).

Jesus tells us that He is the living bread who comes down from Heaven, and that if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever, and the bread that Jesus will give is his flesh. Many of us might have heard of the consistent surveys which tell us that only about 30% of Catholics claim to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I have always prayed that those numbers are untrue. It is not unreasonable, however, to say that many more people would believe in the truth of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist if more of the world could see us treating the Eucharist as if the Eucharist is the Second Person of the Trinity, God who is Holy. The Blood shed for us and the Body given up for us. For if we behave in such a way that shows the world that the Eucharist is Christ, we will understand what it means to receive Jesus worthily, and we will all want to do so.

Traditiones Custodes is less about Liturgy and more about Legacy

Yesterday I happened upon a social media post from the great lay theologian, Catholic thinker, and Catholic Work Farm manager Dr. Larry Chapp. Dr. Chapp-who, like many of us, has lamented the promulgation of Traditiones Custodes-linked to an article in which I found the larger conclusions somewhat troubling, but nevertheless true. The article is by Shaun Blanchard in Church Life Journal, which is the premiere ecclesiastical publication of the University of Notre Dame. 

I'm not going to rehash Blanchard's article, but in order to understand the context of this post, readers really do need to click on the article as linked in the text and read it. Blanchard is correct that there is a group within the Church that is reacting to Traditiones Custodes with very uncharitable glee, even celebration. However, the rest of the people who really care about this issue are reacting in three other ways. Some very good liturgists and theologians see the Motu proprio as a matter of unfortunate necessity. A great many practicing Catholics find themselves in the place where I am, which is the posture of "mourn and move on" as Blanchard puts it, especially those of us who are priests and deacons. We don't have to like this Motu proprio and we can believe that it is a very big mistake (I believe it is a historical example of a Papal heavy hand being used to deal with a relatively small problem where the universal Church is concerned, which has happened before), but we are duty bound to obey. This is especially true since we understand that the Pope has ultimate authority over the Church's liturgy. For many observant and practicing Catholics, finding a way to deal with the new situation in light of Traditiones Custodes is something that they understand that they have very little choice but to do, especially when we consider that many Bishops are making (often generous) provisions for those in their dioceses attached to the Tridentine Mass. The fourth posture Blanchard says that we often see now in response to Traditiones Custodes is "refuse and resist." This is most often the posture that we find in many places on Catholic Social Media today, and those who take this posture don't do anything but confirm those who support Traditiones Custodes in the idea that the Holy Father was correct to issue it.

Traditiones Custodes is only about liturgy on the surface, as Blanchard points out in his article, and it's certainly not about Latin. What Traditiones Custodes is really about is the power of the Pope to control the narrative and the legacy of the Second Vatican Council, and every post-conciliar Pope since St. Paul VI has been preoccupied with affirming the Second Vatican Council and controlling the narrative surrounding it. That is not unusual historically, it tends to happen for decades and even centuries after all ecumenical councils, and controlling the narrative and legacy is exactly what Pope Francis is attempting to do.

I also think that it's unfortunate that the analysis of where the camps are is largely correct (and mind you, I think the world of Raymond Cardinal Burke, and he's one of the best canon lawyers if not the best canon lawyer in the Church today. I cannot help but note, however, that in his argument that the Holy Father doesn't have the authority to issue Traditiones Custodes, which I have read, I do not recall one single instance where he actually quotes previous canon law or liturgical law to prove his argument. I can only conclude that this is because canon law does not support his argument and he believes that this is deeper than a canonical argument, he thinks that it is a moral one.)
⁠
I would like to believe Cardinal Burke's argument myself, but I understand that the Pope is the chief liturgist in the Church, especially in the Latin Rite. There is no question that he had the authority to do what he did (CIC 331-333), even if I believe that it was a very dangerous act where unity is concerned.
⁠
There is also the reality that this is largely a First World Problem, with the majority of parishes offering the Tridentine Mass existing in five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, and Germany). When one adds in the parishes that offer the Usus Antiquior in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, one sees that the matter of the Usus Antiquior, while not exclusively confined to the First World, is dominated by it, and within the First World is largely dominated by the Anglosphere. As Blanchard cites, 40% of all parishes which offer the Usus Antiquior are located in one country, the United States, which only has about 4% of the world's Catholics. The Usus Antiquior is going to become even more of a First World issue as we see Traditiones Custodes implemented. There are large swathes of the world where the Tridentine Mass is largely unknown, as Shaun Blanchard hints at. I don't think that reality has ever helped advocates of the Old Rite, especially as practical power in the Church is increasingly moving away from the First World. The reality is that the Catholic faith on a worldwide level is the faith of the Third World, and in many of those places the allowances of Summorum Pontificum have never been at the top of the Church's priority list.
⁠
I will say that I don't think that the Usus Antiquior is going away, and I believe that it will continue to grow in the Developed World. I do not think that Traditiones Custodes is going to kill it, despite the intentions to do so, and it will likely continue to grow in the places where it is already more available. I don't think the Tridentine Mass is going away... But I also don't think that it's going to expand far beyond the parts of the world where it already is more widely available.
⁠
I suspect that a future Pope will loosen many of the restrictions in Traditiones Custodes, but we will likely never return to the days of Summorum Pontificum.

An excellent sermon delivered during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Usus Antiquior by Father David Carter, Pastor of the Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This was delivered the Sunday following the release of Traditiones Custodes.

The thing that the Holy Father gets very right.

Nearly all of the talk in the world of Catholic social media and Catholic discussion over the last week has centered around the latest Apostolic Letter issued Motu proprio by Pope Francis. That letter, Traditiones Custodes, effectively reverses the provisions of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum issued by his predecessor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Francis places restrictions on the celebration of the Tridentine Mass which many people believe border on the draconian, and which some commentators believe are designed to eventually eradicate the old Latin Mass from the face of the Earth. Reading the Motu proprio, it is very easy to see why some people would get that impression.

Lots of people have engaged in personal commentary on this document, but I have refrained from posting about it until now, partly so that I could read some educated commentary about it, rather than merely the impassioned views of a few from Facebook and Twitter. I also refrained because I have no desire to appear in any way to disparage or disrespect the Holy Father, I wanted to reserve what comment I do have on this until my own passions could subside enough that I could speak with both clarity and charity. The reality is that some people who fancy themselves to be traditional Catholics have spent an awful lot of time since 2013 saying many bad things about our current Pope in public forums, and in this day and age when even the Vatican monitors social media, that reality is likely one of the things that has brought us to this present situation.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with the Holy Father on this thing or that. It's not going to change the fact that he is the Pope and he has the authority of the Pope. I have increasingly learned that when it comes to the Church it does me little good to worry about the things that are out of my control, but does much spiritual good to concern myself with the things which are in my control.

As for my personal opinion of Traditiones Custodes, I dearly wish that the Holy Father had not issued it, and I pray that he would reconsider some of its harsher provisions. I share the concern of good men of God like Monsignor Charles Pope that this document is taking into consideration the words and views of extremists (many to be found on social media), but that the overwhelming majority of people who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form are there for the right reasons and they need spiritual care. Perhaps the most harsh provision of Traditiones Custodes is that when the Mass of Trent is celebrated, the Holy Father does not want it to take place in ordinary parish churches. It can take place in chapels and oratories and parishes specifically designated for that purpose, such as parishes staffed by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) or The Institute of Christ The King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP). 

However, those places make up a very small percentage of places where the old Latin Mass is celebrated. Most places where it is celebrated are ordinary diocesan parishes, and it is offered by everyday diocesan priests. That is why in the Diocese of Knoxville, Bishop Richard Stika has invoked Canon 87 Sec. 1 of the Code of Canon Law in our diocese and dispensed from this requirement, at least temporarily, the priests and the faithful of this diocese. What this means is that the schedule of Latin Masses will continue as normal in East Tennessee for the time being. It is almost certain that there will be some changes to that at some point in the future, but I am equally as certain that the celebration of the Extraordinary Form will not go away in the Diocese of Knoxville.

It would be easy for us to spend time lamenting that the Holy Father has issued Traditiones Custodes, but he has done so and he is the Vicar of Christ. Hence, we are obligated as best we can to give heed to what he has told us, and the clergy are obligated to act in obedience as best we possibly can. In such a time as this, we can also be reminded that "all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose..." (cf. Romans 8:28). One way that we can see that all things work together for good is that the Holy Father at least seems to see one of the major reasons why people are initially drawn to the Tridentine Mass, liturgical innovation which can lead to banality in our worship, and even liturgical abuse. In the introductory letter which accompanies Traditiones Custodes, the Holy Father writes:

"At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that 'in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions.'"

This passage means that, at the very least, Pope Francis understands one of the most critical realities that has driven many people- especially younger people - into the embrace of local Latin Mass communities is the reality that in many parishes today, there is a whole lot of liturgical innovation going on, much of it in the name of trying to make the Mass somehow more appealing or participatory than the rubrics, the texts, or the Church documents themselves do. When this is done, what ends up happening instead is that the Liturgy can become a kind of personal entertainment, whether that is the intent or not. What's more, in some cases if people actually bring up this problem they are told that the Second Vatican Council authorized a lot of this innovation. The Council authorized texts and liturgical activity in the vernacular, it didn't authorize people to turn the Liturgy into some form of contemporary schtick. 

If the end result of Traditiones Custodes is that the Missal of St. Paul VI as modified by St. John Paul II (and released in the English speaking world at Advent of 2011) becomes in fact as well as in law "the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite," (Traditiones Custodes Art. 1) then we should revisit afresh the ultimate liturgical document which governs this rite, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. SC 36 tells us that:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

In other words, yes the liturgical texts may be translated into the vernacular language and used, but this doesn't do away with the Church's patrimony of Latin. We in the Western Church are part of the Latin Rite. Parts (or even conceivably all) of a Mass in the Rite of St. Paul VI could be said or sung in Latin. Realistically, the parts most likely to be in Latin would likely be major chants such as the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and perhaps even the Gloria, especially for major feast days. Related to this is what Sacrosanctum Concilium said with regard to the use of Gregorian chant:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in our liturgy? In many parishes today, you wouldn't even know that the document said this, you'll be hard-pressed to find chant in many places, even though there are beautiful anglicized versions of Psalmody and musical chants in the Gregorian style for the Mass. Yes, they can be had, some parishes use them. Many do not. 

The section I mentioned above mentions Article 30. That article talks about the full and conscious and active participation of the people, but what exactly does it say?

30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence. [Emphasis mine]

Many of our parishes in the Diocese of Knoxville clearly get this part of the message of Sacrosanctum Concilium. If you come before Mass you can find the naves of many of our parishes observing an appropriate level of silence. However, I have visited many parishes over the years in many places in various States and localities, and there are plenty of parishes where the period immediately before and immediately after the liturgy becomes Social Hour in the presence of the Tabernacle. I have written about this particular problem before. I'm a big believer in parish fellowship and in the communio of brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. But the nave of a church and the area near the sanctuary is not a place of conversation, God's House is a House of prayer. Most Parish grounds have plenty of places where people can go to carry on fellowship, conversation, and enjoyment of each other in the Lord. We should make better use of those places more often.

Many people have made their way to the Latin Mass because they are desperately looking for the reverence and awe in the worship of a Holy God that they should be able to find at their parish of residence. Sadly, I have known priests over the years who have faced great persecution from parishioners and even people in authority for attempting to do nothing more than the things that Sacrosanctum Concilium encourages us to do in our worship.

The Church has the liturgical and musical heritage to be able to give parishioners who have become attached to the Latin Mass-and to all of God's people-the reverence and awe of worshiping the Thrice Holy God within the Ordinary Form of the Mass itself. Nowhere in the documents of the Second Vatican Council is it even suggested that traditional behavior such as sacred silence in the presence of the Tabernacle, Communion rails, kneeling, chalice palls or chalice veils, fine vessels for the elements of the Eucharist, Sanctus bells, or Gregorian chant should be done away with. Some of the things on that list are more required than others, but all of them bespeak an atmosphere of reverence and holy worship for Our Lord.

In addition, both clergy and the People of God at large should comport themselves appropriately for Divine Worship. The hymns used ought to be more traditional in their composition, not simply because they are old (for we know that things that are old are not always necessarily good), but because more traditional hymnody often reinforces essential Christian doctrine in the lyrics, and we all know that for some people, often through no fault of their own, the Liturgy will be the only Christian education they get this week. Psalmody should be simple, preferably in some mode of chant (remember that bit about pride of place). [For more about the Church's teaching on the use of music in liturgy, it is helpful to read the Church document from the Second Vatican Council Musicam Sacram given to us by Pope Saint Paul VI.]

 The clergy ought to wear beautiful and reverent vestments as their Parish can best afford, because this is for Jesus, and that's Him on the altar. A Byzantine Catholic priest friend of mine wisely says that our vestments should be seen as a form of sacred iconography. They should not look like something out of That 70's Show. Yes, use Latin from time to time at points in the liturgy, and we should teach the people some of the simple Latin chants so that they know and understand what they mean, such as the Sanctus, the Agnus Dei, and even the Gloria. Sometimes Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are necessary in the Mass, but the number should never be a great many because deacons ought be prepared to make themselves available to distribute Holy Communion if needed, and priests should never be afraid to use their deacons, that is why we are here. If your parish has a Communion rail, use it.

Priests and deacons should be unafraid to preach the Word of God, and even to wax theological or doctrinal in their sermons/homilies. The people of God can take the Truth, and if they can't, they need to examine their consciences, and yes, brother clergy, that includes us as well, sometimes we need to be preaching to ourselves. To that end, increased time should be made for confessions on the part of priests, and priests and deacons should figure out how to schedule more time for Eucharistic adoration and Benediction. 

These are just a few of the things that we can do to make the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy in the Latin Rite something that is filled with reverence, beauty, Truth, and the fear of God. There is much more that can be done, but I am convinced that if some of the things I have mentioned here were actually carried out with care and love of God, we might see some of those young people with families in our diocese who prefer the Extraordinary Form for the reasons of reverence be able to feel more at home in a regular Parish Ordinary Form setting. 

We should be able to go to Mass and truly feel an otherworldly experience, because it is otherworldly, it is meant to be a type of Heaven on Earth.


NOTE: It should be noted, as His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke and others have pointed out, Traditiones Custodes has apparently been prepared in such haste that a Latin typical edition of the document has yet to be prepared, and there are translation differences between the Italian and English documents that may prove significant. I myself note that the document does not even appear to be properly numerically divided, which is why I did not cite its sections in the way that I normally would any other Church document.

In making this weblog post, I feel compelled to point out that I am asserting my canonical rights under Canon 212 §2-3 of the Code of Canon Law.

The Irish Letter

Last week I happened across a column in The Irish News, I was alerted to it by a friend of mine on social media, Father Paddy McCafferty of Corpus Christi Parish in West Belfast. (Those of you who want to hear solidly Catholic homilies rooted in the faith need to check out Father Paddy, who fears nobody but God in his preaching.)

There are a few of you who read this blog who know me well enough to know that I have a political science degree in my secular training. Those very few of you who have known me for years are aware of the fact that I have strong views on a lot of things, both political and religious.  I even have strong views on Irish and British politics. However, aside from discussing the politics of Ireland and Britain with friends who may be aware of them over the years, wading into the discussion in the pages of the print media of Ireland is not something I have ever been keen to do. To wade into the politics of Ireland when one is unfamiliar with the ground or doesn't have to live there and have to deal with political outcomes is a very dangerous game. More than one political commentator has rightly said that Irish politics, especially the politics in the six counties of the North, is like something akin to Animal Farm in terms of the chaos that it can invite.

Opinions are one thing, but until we live it every day it's just that for us on this side of the Atlantic. I am always interested to hear and read what people on the island of Ireland have to say about their situation and current events, but I neither think it right for me to attempt to tell Irish people what they should think of their own situation, or tell my fellow countrymen what they should think about Ireland. It is for me to observe as an interested human being, a Catholic, a Christian... and if I comment on such things, it will be to others who I know who may have an interest.

However, my longstanding policy of reading the Irish papers (especially those in the six counties of Northern Ireland) but never opining in print about things to be found there came to a temporary halt last week when I read the column in question by Irish News columnist Tom Collins alleging (amongst other utter nonsense) that a large number of the U.S. Bishops are "in thrall" to former President Donald Trump. 

Just to place things into context for any readers who may be unaware, The Irish News is the major newspaper in Belfast that represents an Irish nationalist political perspective. (The Belfast Telegraph is its moderate Unionist counterpart.) In times' past, even in relatively recent times, the editorial line of The Irish News as a voice of moderate nationalism would have also meant a line of deference or at least positivity toward the teachings of the Catholic Church, since not so terribly long ago in an Ireland far far away, a lot of professing nationalists were also Catholics who went to Mass on Sunday. That Ireland and that deference are, of course, things of the past today for various reasons I will save for a post on some other day.

After reading Mr. Collins' column, however, what he said about the U.S. Bishops, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, abortion, and the Pope went from ridiculous on the one end, to the simply false on the other. After praying, I felt that I had to respond because Irish readers might read that column and they might actually think that what Collins was saying represented the way things actually are, and I don't believe that it does. So since Tom Collins decided to wade into the world of American politics and the Catholic Church in America, I decided to make an attempt to wade into the pages of The Irish News in response.

As always, my published opinion is just that, my own opinion. However, it is rooted in both Church teaching and reality on the ground here in this country. To my complete surprise, my letter in response to Mr Collins' column was published in The Irish News today, July 12th:

Editor;

I have read with utter astonishment Tom Collins' article in The Irish News (July 1st) insinuating that there is a large “pro-Trump” faction among the U.S. bishops and that the bishops are “in thrall” of Trump. I have not decided whether Mr. Collins is largely unaware of U.S. internal political affairs, or ignorant of American ecclesiastical affairs. I will not speculate about whether he understands Catholic doctrine regarding the worthiness to receive Holy Communion, though if he did, I have my doubts that he would have written his piece. 

Considering some of the things that came from U.S. Bishops during the Trump Administration about Donald Trump and his policies (including the Archbishop of Miami comparing him to the famed American television character Archie Bunker), as well as the near-daily denunciation of the Trump Administration’s immigration policy, the notion that the Bishops are-or ever were-in thrall of Trump is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Compared to the treatment given to professing Catholic Biden, the Bishops rode Trump, who is not Catholic and never pretended to be, harder than a wild bull at a Texas county fair. By comparison, the USCCB has had very little to say about the humanitarian crisis at the U.S. Border with Mexico since Biden took office, and Biden’s policies have grossly exacerbated the problem, which his administration has yet to address.

That is not meant as a criticism of American bishops, either individually or as a corporate body. As Bishops of the Catholic Church, it is their right and duty to address civic issues in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic faith as they best see fit, but they have not been in thrall of anyone, least of all Donald Trump.

The issue of Eucharistic coherence and the worthiness to receive Holy Communion is not a partisan political issue. Someone who professes to be a Catholic but who does not believe in the moral teachings of the Church, or who publicly promotes policy that is not in accord with the moral law or most basic moral teachings of the Catholic Church, such as the killing of the unborn through abortion, should not receive Holy Communion, regardless of their station in life or their political beliefs. In that regard, it doesn't matter if you're Joe Biden or Joe who picks up the neighborhood rubbish. 

Yours Respectfully, &c.

Deacon David Oatney

White Pine, Tennessee USA

Personal God, Personal Relationship (Bulletin Column 7/4/2021)

 

As we celebrate the 245th birthday of our country this weekend, I also want to personally welcome Father Jim Harvey to our Holy Trinity family. I know that you will all join me in praying for a joyful and fruitful pastoral Ministry for Father Jim here with us. Be sure and take the time to make him feel welcome, and let him put some names with some faces as we walk together on this journey to the fullness of the Faith and the Kingdom of God.

One of the things we are often asked by many of our evangelical friends and neighbors is whether we have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This isn't necessarily the best theological language, and it's important to remember that the phrase doesn't appear anywhere in Sacred Scripture, yet it does convey an important truth. We believe in and serve a personal God, and that God sent his Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, into the world to really live among us and to give his life as a ransom for us, so that we might be forgiven of our sins. Jesus loves us so perfectly and so completely that there is no way that we will ever be able to describe how deeply that he loves us. The God who loves us so much that he sent his son- both God and Man - to die for us created us out of love and he wants for us to love him in return for the good of our own souls. Jesus Christ "emptied himself and took the form of a slave" (cf. Philippians 2:7), and that means that we can enter into a personal relationship with Him, a relationship that He wants for us to have.

Perhaps the most obvious and critical way to do this is through our prayer life. The Lord knows everything, so he understands how busy our schedules are. He knows that we won't always meet our personal prayer goals, but the purpose of prayer is to build our relationship with God in the most personal way we can, by talking to Him just as we would a friend. If you aren't coming to Eucharistic adoration or Benediction once a month, set aside an hour of your time on a Saturday for Jesus, or come to Mass a few minutes early for Benediction on the first Saturday of the month and share prayer with your fellow parishioners. 

Are you taking the time for a daily Rosary? There's no better way to get to know the Lord than through his Mother. If your daily grind makes it difficult for you to pray the Rosary in the ordinary way, Bishop Robert Barron has led a wonderful Rosary with meditations on the mysteries of the Lord's life, and you can find it on YouTube by simply searching "Bishop Barron Rosary." Perhaps you are ready to enhance your prayer life by including the Prayer of the Church, the Liturgy of the Hours, in your daily way of talking to Our Lord. If you'd like to learn more about the Liturgy of the Hours, feel free to email or call me or any of the other deacons (and Father Jim I'm sure), and we will be happy to get you started. The internet makes the process easier than it has ever been before. With Father's permission, I might even be willing to lead a public celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours in the parish again; we have done it a couple of times before. However you might be working to better your prayer life, know that the Lord loves you and He wants to hear from you, He looks forward to it every day.

Another way that we can deepen our relationship with Jesus Christ is by being Christ to others. A few weeks ago, I shared with you how wonderful it was to again see so many of your smiling faces. The pews are beginning to look full on Sundays, and things are slowly getting back to normal in our Parish life   Over the last several weeks, I think the hospitality for which our parish is well known has been on full display for everyone to see. Nevertheless, there are some parishioners who still have not felt comfortable rejoining us in community for the Eucharist. If you know of a parishioner who hasn't been with us for a good while, consider giving them a call. Invite them to return to Mass and to other Parish events. Consider offering a ride if one is needed, and don't be afraid to ask if there's anything you can do to help. Often, during the prayers of the faithful, many of you will note that I remember the sick and the homebound of our parish, but we should all do the same, remembering especially those who have been with us but haven't yet returned.

As we continue on our journey with the Lord in a time of change for our Parish, let us commit to ourselves and to one another to grow in our relationship with Christ, and in doing so, to be examples of Christ to one another.

Homily for the Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Wisdom 1:13-15, 2:23-24

2 Corinthians 8:7, 9, 13-15

Mark 5:21-43

Our readings today-most especially our Old Testament reading and our Gospel for today- speak to one of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and that is that death was never originally in God's will. The passage from the book of Wisdom reminds us that God didn't create death for humanity, he made man to be imperishable, that is not to die. God made man in his own image, and originally this didn't include death. Death entered the world as a consequence of sin. Indeed, all evil entered the world as a consequence of sin and the fall of humanity. God warned Adam and Eve what the consequence would be if they disobeyed Him, not because God is cruel, but because God is Holy. Sin can't live in the presence of God. The very definition of sin is "the willful transgression or disobedience of God or His laws."

We are delivered from original sin by virtue of our baptism, but that doesn't mean we are free from the consequences of original sin, and that means that death is a reality for the human race until the Lord returns and history is brought to its consummation. However, in the Gospel we are given the ultimate antidote to the reality of death that we inherited from our First Parents. Jesus Christ came, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, to give us victory over sin and death. This was the reason Our Lord came, and it was the reason He died for us, and the reason that he rose again. He died in atonement for our sins, but he did so that we might have victory over our sins. He wants us to be in Heaven with Him, and in His death and Resurrection, He provides us with the means whereby we can restore a right relationship with God, and our sins be forgiven.

In the Gospel we see that Christ is the Lord of Life who has power over life and death. The woman afflicted with hemorrhages (or as some translations render it, the issue of blood- meaning that she had parts of her body or sores that had been constantly bleeding for years) believed in faith that Jesus could heal her, and she was so convinced that that she thought that all she needed to do was touch the hem of His garment, a small part of his clothes, and that would be enough. We hear all kinds of television preachers today preaching a "name it and claim it" false Gospel of prosperity. This woman was living the real "name it and claim it." She was healed because she believed that Jesus was who he said he was, and she trusted that he had the power to heal her. Jesus' very response tells us that this woman's faith is what has brought about her healing.

Our Lord has told us in Scripture that his power to heal is as much about forgiveness of our sins as it is about physical healing. Remember the paralytic man whose friends dropped him through the roof so that he could have an encounter with Jesus? (cf. Mark 2:1-12) What was Jesus' initial response? At first, it wasn't to heal the paralytic, it was to announce to him and to the people around him that his sins were forgiven. People then accused Jesus of blasphemy because only God had the power to forgive sins. Jesus shows us that the power of forgiveness was far more important than physical healing. But he knew that many of the people thought he was doing something that only God could do, and they were right, so he told the paralytic "so that you may believe that the Son of Man has power on Earth to forgive sins, rise, take up your bed, and walk." The healings of Our Lord were to show that he had the power to forgive and the power to make us whole and he has that power today, even if we don't always experience physical healing. The Lord wants to bring us spiritual healing through the Sacraments, and he wants us to be open to receive those Graces.

Then there was the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue official. Jairus believed that Jesus could heal his daughter, likely because he had seen or heard the evidence of Jesus' healings of others, but when Jesus learned that the little girl had died, he said "she isn't dead she's only sleeping," and he was roundly mocked. But he went in and he raised the little girl from the dead. Christ showed that he had power even over life and death, something that only God has. Because Our Lord rose from the Dead, he can give us victory over death. 

Unless we happen to live to see the Lord return, we all have an appointment with death, but it doesn't have to be the end for us. Just as the Church's funeral liturgy tells us, in death we know that "life is changed, not ended." Christ wishes to give us the rewards of Eternal Life, he wishes to restore God's plan for all of humanity that was taken from us because of Original Sin.

There is only one catch… we have to live a life for the Lord, we have to keep His commandments, because salvation and victory over death can be given to anyone, but ultimately it is given to those who choose it. The choice is a very clear and stark one… we can have "the pleasures of sin for a season," we can live consumed by worldliness and the things of this world which are passing away, and God will honor that choice, and it will be our Eternal choice… Or we can reject a life of sin and worldliness and the things which pass away and win victory over death and an Eternity with God. The choice is really up to us.

Have You No Fear of God?

Because of the nature of the material in this particular post, it is likely that I need to begin the post by reminding my readers and what is posted on this blog is my view on what is happening in the Church today, although this opinion is firmly rooted in the established teaching of the Catholic Church, and I'm about to restate that teaching as part of this post.

This past Thursday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted by an overwhelming margin to draft a document on what is called Eucharistic cohesion, basically it will be a document reminding Catholics about the Church's teaching on what is required in order to receive the Holy Eucharist. It is widely expected that as part of that document there will be a reminder that public figures who openly support and promote abortion should not receive the Eucharist, since the Church teaches very clearly that abortion is murder, and that if a public figure is going to openly promote abortion and pass laws which not only keep it legal, but actually encourage the practice, to receive the Eucharist under the circumstances is to endanger their soul.

In response, more than sixty Democrats who also claim to be practicing Catholics signed a letter demanding that the Bishops not interfere with their "right" to receive Holy Communion, and they said that the Bishops should not "weaponize the Eucharist." Every one of these people are also public supporters of abortion on demand. In drafting such a letter, these individuals have shown us that no one is threatening to weaponize the Eucharist but them. 

Among the many responsibilities of Bishops, the most important is to be a teacher of the Catholic faith and to hand on the deposit of faith as it was handed on to them. The bishops are the successors of the apostles, and thus have a duty to uphold Catholic teaching. Furthermore, a bishop is the Supreme liturgist in his diocese, and he is ultimately the one in charge of the conferral of the sacraments. He determines who receives the sacraments and who does not. Signing a letter to bishops attempting to tell them not to deny you the sacraments while you tell them that you are going to obstinately remain in opposition to Church teaching in a public way is not a good idea. It is, in fact, an invitation to be denied the Sacraments. 

These people believe that they should be able to receive the Eucharist while acting in public opposition to the Church on a moral issue of such gravity that if a Catholic woman receives an abortion with full knowledge and consent of the will, she is excommunicated laetae sententiae, that is by the very commission of the act. (CIC 1398) Now yes, if the same woman comes to the Church repentant, and, as are many women are in that situation, confused and frightened, the Church has made a way to easily lift that penalty for the good of souls, because the mercy of Christ is truly boundless. Nevertheless, excommunication is still the highest penalty that the Church can levy on any Catholic, and that is the penalty for knowingly procuring an abortion or assisting in one. Yet the "Catholics" who signed this letter somehow believe that they are above that, that those who procure or assist in abortions can be excommunicated while they ought to be able to receive the Eucharist with impunity while they not only tolerate legal abortion, many of them are promoting legislation, funding schemes, and organizations which promote and even encourage abortion. The executive actions of our current President have done more to promote abortion than any President in my lifetime (even the one under which he served as Vice President, and Obama's promotion of abortion was bad enough), but he can go to Mass next weekend and receive the Eucharist and not face any ecclesiastical sanction, while the young woman who takes advantage of the abortion funding that Mr Biden has promoted could face laetae sententiae excommunication if she willingly receives an abortion.

It is not weaponizing the Eucharist to demand accountability in one's faith and sacramental life. If you are a public figure, you cannot promote the taking of the most innocent human life as a matter of public policy and not expect to be called on the carpet by your co-religionists, and ideally by your religious leaders. 

Since the First Century the Church has condemned abortion. The Didache, which is the earliest manual of Church order that we know of, gives the instruction to the earliest Christians (Didache Chapter 2):

"[Y]ou shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill that which is begotten."

The Church's teaching is clear, yet these public officials persist in their opposition to that teaching and at the same time believe that despite their public promotion of abortion, they should simply be able to receive the Eucharist as if they've done nothing wrong.

Then there is this piece of work from California Congressman Ted Lieu:

Congressman Lieu appears to be in dire need of a corrective session on Catholic teaching from his bishop, who just happens to be the current President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles. Obviously, I can't make Archbishop Gomez have a little teaching conference with Congressman Lieu, that's up to the Archbishop to do... However, I am in a perfectly good position to explain to the Congressman that it is possible that he could be denied Communion, and because of the posture he is taking, Archbishop Gomez would be perfectly justified in denying it to him. He is not merely engaging in personal sin, he has chosen with his statement to publicly engage in obstinate defiance of Church teaching and authority. That is perfectly good justification to deny someone the Eucharist unless and until they repent of such obstinate defiance.

Sanctioning Congressman Lieu for this behavior is entirely up to his bishop, that would be the case even if the USCCB drafted a very specific document on the subject that was extremely clear about this problem... It is still a matter for the local bishop to handle. However, it is most important to be reminded of just why many of our bishops feel the need to have a discussion about this issue and draft a document about it that explains the circumstances under which a person should and should not receive Holy Communion, and which could make it clear that those who publicly promote abortion should not receive Holy Communion.

We have come to this discussion and this place because these supposedly "good Catholics" are refusing to be honest with us or with themselves. If you proclaim yourself a Catholic, one of the things you are supposed to profess as a matter of dogmatic Truth is that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) continues to have the outward appearance of bread and wine, but that when the elements are consecrated they become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Lord gives us His flesh to eat (cf. John 6:32-58). Secondly, to receive Holy Communion is both Communion with God and with the Body of Christ, the Church. In addition to receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Communion is an outward and visible sign not only of that belief, but of unity of faith. If you receive Holy Communion you are saying with your amen that you believe what the Church teaches, that you are in Communion with the Church. If you are not in a state of grace, you should not receive Holy Communion. If you are persistently, publicly, and obstinately opposed to a fundamental aspect of the Church's teaching such as the sanctity of human life at all stages, you most definitely should not be receiving Holy Communion, because in the most literal sense of the word you are not in communion with the Church or what she fundamentally holds to be true. If you are receiving Holy Communion under those circumstances, you are not being honest with yourself and you're certainly not being honest with those around you. When you receive Holy Communion, with your "Amen" you are saying "so be it," or "I believe," while you are literally telling the world in public statements that you don't believe.

This is not a partisan critique. I can think of two cases, one Republican (former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge) and one Democrat (former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius) who each got "the talk" from their local bishop about this issue during their political careers. To my knowledge, both of them respected the bishop's judgment that they should not receive Holy Communion until they had reconciled with the Church on this issue of abortion.

Of course that would be the right thing to do, to be honest with yourselves, with your fellow Catholics, and with your constituents. If you are so persistently and obstinately opposed to the Church on an issue upon which the Church has not changed since the first century, why on Earth would you receive Holy Communion if you really believe what we are supposed to believe about what- about Who - the Eucharist actually is? Respect for your own beliefs would demand that you did not receive Holy Communion, unless you are using that belief system or the Eucharist (or both) as a political prop, and if that is the case, may God have mercy on your souls...

Considering the poor state of catechesis in many places in our country today, it is always possible that some of the people on that list of signatories to the "letter to the bishops" were not aware of the Church's teaching regarding the Eucharist, or what constitutes worthy reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Let us all be reminded of the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, 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.

It should be noted here that the majority of the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians is devoted to correcting those who have disrespected the Eucharist.

Holy Communion is not a right, it is a gift. Specifically, it is a gift from Christ to the Church, not from the Church to individual members. If you are doing things which willfully promote grave or mortal sin (and certainly something which can excommunicate your brothers and sisters in the faith), this is also grave, and that would include not merely upholding existing law, but promulgating new laws which encourage, fund, and even promote abortion and other manifest public and apparent sin. 

If you publicly and willfully believe in things which are utterly contrary to the most basic teachings of the Catholic faith, the best thing you can do for yourself and the good of your own soul, as well as the good of your brothers and sisters in the faith, is to abstain from receiving Holy Communion unless and until you can reconcile your beliefs with what the Church teaches. 

Note that I am not telling you that you aren't Catholic or that you should not come to Mass and worship with us. I am saying that if you are not in Communion with the Church, you should not receive Holy Communion.

If someone knows that their beliefs are not in Communion with the Church, and they persist in receiving the Eucharist anyway under those circumstances, then it is fair to ask: Have you no fear of God? Do you have no belief in the Judgment of God? Do you have no respect for Jesus who died for you? This debate persists in the Church because some people persist in this public display of dishonesty about what they believe.

It doesn't have to be that way. As an act of love and charity, I beg of those who persist in these public errors: If you don't believe, don't receive.

A Farewell Reflection From the Parish

 Here is a reflection on thankfulness for his that I wrote for Father Patrick's farewell gathering yesterday. It was the most well-attended such parish gathering I have ever been to, which I think goes to show how much Father Patrick is respected, appreciated, and loved. He has earned that adulation because he literally emptied himself for the sake of Holy Trinity Parish... I am given to understand that it was given to him on behalf of the parish yesterday.

We have to ask ourselves: how does one say "thank you," other than to say "we are thankful."

We are thankful to God for the time and the energy that you didn't have, but you gave for the good of the parish anyway.

We are thankful to the Lord for all the times we called on you to bring us comfort, to anoint us, to bring us the Eucharist, and you were there.

We are thankful to God for the time and effort you gave to ensure that the people of our parish have been taught the Catholic faith. Because you cared about our souls, we are a better people and a better Parish.

We are thankful to God for the parish missions which you brought to us. Because you wanted us to know our faith, you brought us some of the finest Catholic missioners to be found anywhere.

We are thankful to God for the Eucharistic devotion you have brought to our Parish. Greater devotion to the Eucharist makes us better followers of the Lord Jesus. You wanted us to be better followers of the Lord Jesus, and so you brought more of Jesus to us.

We are thankful to the Lord for your undimmed pro life witness. You gave witness every month to the reality that every life is precious, no matter how small, and your willingness to be present at Cherry Street every month showed that to the world. We are thankful you supported the pro-life efforts of Holy Trinity with such devotion.

We are thankful to God that you loved our Parish so much that you even gave to it. Our collection of blue Saint Michael hymnals came from you. We have a gift we will use for some years to come because you cared enough to give it.

We are thankful to God that you have insisted upon proper liturgy and right worship. Because of your zeal for the Lord's House, our priests and deacons will wear beautiful vestments for years to come. Because of this zeal, you reminded us of what worship due to the Most High God is supposed to look like. Because of your persistence, our liturgies look like Catholic worship, not a Sunday version of Woodstock. Most importantly, you reminded us that worship is about Jesus, not about us.

You have been with us for a short time, but you have left us something priceless in the time you have been here. You have left us a spiritual legacy, and for that we are thankful to God.

Five Years

I have been feeling under the weather this week, so in an effort to recover so that I could keep my liturgical and parish schedule for the weekend, I didn't post yesterday on what would have been the fifth anniversary of my ordination. What few of you follow this blog regularly already know that it is customary for me to post something regarding that anniversary when it falls. I may be a day late and a dollar short (I'm usually a dollar short anyway), I do have a few things on my mind.

In reflecting this week on 5 years of ordained Ministry, there has been a scripture in my head which has repeatedly come to mind... Micah 6:8

He has showed you, O man, what is good;

    and what does the Lord require of you

but to do justice, and to love mercy,

    and to walk humbly with your God?

If it can be said that there is one verse in the Bible which encapsulates what the entire Christian life is about from the perspective of someone who is already a believer, I have long thought that it is  this verse. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that this verse also is a one verse description of what the diaconate is all about. The deacon is an icon of Christ the Servant, and the very essence of Christ's Ministry was the bringing of Justice and the loving of Mercy. 

It is often said by some theologians and others that the ministry of the deacon is to be a bridge (pontiff) between the people of God and the ministry of the altar, or the institutional Church. Normally I would be inclined to say that this is a very simplistic way of looking at the ministry of the deacon, since deacons are members of the clergy and are part of the hierarchy, and are thus intertwined with the very institution from which they are supposed to be a bridge to the people. However, the oversimplicity of this description does not necessarily mean that it is entirely wrong.

I have found that there are plenty of people who do, in fact, approach the deacon first on any number of pastoral issues, or even liturgical questions. This is most especially true when the issues involve marriage or family life. People often believe - sometimes correctly and sometimes mistakenly - that they will be able to talk to the deacon a bit more freely than they can speak to their Parish priest. I have been married for 18 years and have two young children, so it's easy to see why some parishioners might think they can speak more readily to me about family issues, I have to deal with some of the same ones that they do. 

One of the great joys of ministry personally for me is when parishioners ask me for a blessing, or to bless their holy reminders or holy objects. I will freely admit that I am an absolute "ham" for doing this... The reason is not because I like to draw attention to myself. (In reality, I have found that the longer I'm simply involved in Ministry, the less attention I draw to myself, and I prefer that.) Instead, I love to bless sacramentals because these holy items can be used to bring God's Grace to people in their prayers and remembrance, and I am deeply humbled and grateful to God that I am allowed to play some tiny role in helping to bring His peace and Grace to others in that way. 

Although there are many blessings to ministry as a deacon, another great personal blessing for me has been the fraternity of my brother deacons. Deacon Don Griffith and his wife Patty are the Godparents to my oldest daughter, and they and their family are fine examples, the kind of people you want your children to look at and be able to say to them "this is what a good Catholic ought to look like." I have developed wonderful friendships with many of the brothers I went through formation with, from Deacon Don and Deacon Steve Helmbrecht, who were in formation with me from the same deanery, to Deacon Scott Maentz (who is my infamous beer and conversation buddy, and on those all too rare occasions when I see him), Deacon Tom Tidwell, Deacon Steve Ratterman, Deacon Butch Feldhaus, and others too numerous to mention here, I fear if I continue to mention people I will leave too many more out.

The fellowship of Brothers is so important in Ministry, but one of the great difficulties with this is that I have found that we simply don't get to see one another very often when we actually get into the meat of life doing Ministry in the in the midst of the Church. That reality has been exacerbated, I think, by the recent pandemic, when so many things we might have done were canceled or put on hold.

I am most thankful for the support of parishioners, and the support of my wife, without whom I wouldn't be able to do this. Some wives of deacons like to be way out front, either participating directly in a part of their husband's Ministry where the world can see, or sometimes having a public apostolate of their own. I think that those are wonderful things, but my wife has always been more intent to lead from behind the scenes. She has never liked public attention, and she runs from it like the plague. There are so many ways in which she is my polar opposite, and I think that's probably what made us a good match for each other. In private, however, she will tell me exactly what she thinks, even if it is not always what I want to hear. Much of the ministry that I am able to do I'm able to do because she takes to make sure that all of my i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Some of you know that I don't drive, and in East Tennessee that often means that I rely on my wife to get me where I need to be when I need to minister to other people... So when people tell you that your wife's support for Ministry is necessary, I am living proof of that. Without my wife's support, it would simply have been impossible for me to serve.

But I am grateful that God has given me the opportunity, and every year that passes I will continue to be thankful.