Absolutely Wonderful and Insightful Analysis of Summorum Pontificum Dissidents by Archbishop Ranjith

It takes a special post to make me deviate from my policy of refusing to simply lift from another blog whole and entire, but Fr. Z scored with this one:

Archbishop Ranjith on bishops who resist Summorum Pontificum: “instruments of the devil”

CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 4:00 pm

A kind reader sent me this fascinating excerpt from a talk given by His Excellency Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

The talk was entitled “Faith, Obedience and Theology” and was delivered at the annual meeting of the Dutch Latin Liturgy Association (Vereniging voor Latijnse Liturgie) in ’s-Hertogenbosch (The Netherlands) on 6 October 2007.

He gave the talk in English, but the person who sent it to me translated it from Dutch. So, it probably varies a little from the original English, which perhaps someone out there can dig up for us.

Read this, with my emphases.

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

NB: His Excellency has made a connect between Pope Benedict’s decision to promulgate Summorum Pontificum and a remedy for ills in the Church, namely. empty churches, emtpy seminaries.

Thus, this is something willed by God, for it comes from Peter as something for the good of the church at its most critical points of attack by the devil, namely, what happens in a church (worship of God and sanctification through the sacraments, especially Holy Mass) and what happens in a seminary (men are formed to be alter Christus).

Thus, anyone who resists the provisions of the Motu Proprio, aimed at healing these problems of the Church, actually aids the Enemy of the soul and becomes the devil’s pawns.

___________________

Nail.

Head.

Direct hit!

Absolutely Wonderful and Insightful Analysis of Summorum Pontificum Dissidents by Archbishop Ranjith

It takes a special post to make me deviate from my policy of refusing to simply lift from another blog whole and entire, but Fr. Z scored with this one:

Archbishop Ranjith on bishops who resist Summorum Pontificum: “instruments of the devil”

CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 4:00 pm

A kind reader sent me this fascinating excerpt from a talk given by His Excellency Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.

The talk was entitled “Faith, Obedience and Theology” and was delivered at the annual meeting of the Dutch Latin Liturgy Association (Vereniging voor Latijnse Liturgie) in ’s-Hertogenbosch (The Netherlands) on 6 October 2007.

He gave the talk in English, but the person who sent it to me translated it from Dutch. So, it probably varies a little from the original English, which perhaps someone out there can dig up for us.

Read this, with my emphases.

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

NB: His Excellency has made a connect between Pope Benedict’s decision to promulgate Summorum Pontificum and a remedy for ills in the Church, namely. empty churches, emtpy seminaries.

Thus, this is something willed by God, for it comes from Peter as something for the good of the church at its most critical points of attack by the devil, namely, what happens in a church (worship of God and sanctification through the sacraments, especially Holy Mass) and what happens in a seminary (men are formed to be alter Christus).

Thus, anyone who resists the provisions of the Motu Proprio, aimed at healing these problems of the Church, actually aids the Enemy of the soul and becomes the devil’s pawns.

___________________

Nail.

Head.

Direct hit!

Latest From Colleen Campbell on the Abp. Burke/Giuliani Flap

From STLToday:

Giuliani could take a lesson in courage from Archbishop Burke

BY COLLEEN CARROLL CAMPBELL
10/11/2007

It’s déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say: In the 2008 presidential race, as in 2004, a leading Catholic candidate is struggling to reconcile his staunch support for legalized abortion with Catholic teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil. And St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke is facing intense scrutiny for saying that such a candidate should not receive Communion.

The 2004 candidate was Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, whose clumsy attempts to square altar-boy anecdotes with his 100 percent voting score from the National Abortion Rights Action League helped him lose the Catholic vote to President Bush. When Burke said Kerry should not present himself for Communion, critics accused Burke of partisan motivations.

That criticism was debunked last week, when Burke said he would apply the same principle to Republican Rudy Giuliani, who hopes to become his party’s first pro-choice nominee in 32 years. Writing recently in a prestigious Catholic journal, Burke — one of the world’s foremost experts in church law — reiterated his support for the longstanding practice of denying Communion to Catholics who publicly and persistently flout church teaching on serious matters.

Catholic theology regards few matters as more serious than the defense of innocent human life from its beginning. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, emphasized that point in a letter to Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick during the 2004 Communion controversy. He wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. . . . While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Such clear teaching would seem to leave little room for Catholic politicians to paint abortion-rights advocacy as consistent with their faith. But politicians such as Giuliani — who frequently refers to theology courses he took during a brief flirtation with the priesthood — typically respond by saying they personally oppose abortion but can’t impose their religious and personal beliefs on others.

That claim raises more questions than it answers. The argument that respect for the sanctity of innocent life constitutes a purely religious conviction with no place in public policy would surprise the authors of our Declaration of Independence, which describes the right to life as “unalienable” and “self-evident.” Similarly puzzling is the reluctance of pro-choice Catholic politicians to impose their “personal beliefs” with regard to abortion, since most show no such reticence on other issues.

The personally-opposed-but-publicly-supportive argument logically leads to one of two conclusions: Either such politicians agree with the church and consider abortion to be intrinsically evil but they lack the courage to act on their convictions; or they disagree with the church but lack the integrity to honestly proclaim their beliefs and accept the consequences that follow.

Giuliani’s record suggests the latter. As the Village Voice has reported, his newly declared abhorrence of abortion was unknown in his tenure as mayor of New York, during which he repeatedly hosted celebrations at City Hall of the Roe v. Wade ruling and received 100 percent ratings from NARAL for his rejection of parental-consent measures and his support for taxpayer-funded and partial-birth abortions.

Giuliani may not have the courage of his convictions, but Burke does. Catholics concerned about the integrity of the faith and all voters concerned about truth in political advertising should be grateful for that.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television host and St. Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is http://www.colleen-campbell.com.

Latest From Colleen Campbell on the Abp. Burke/Giuliani Flap

From STLToday:

Giuliani could take a lesson in courage from Archbishop Burke

BY COLLEEN CARROLL CAMPBELL
10/11/2007

It’s déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say: In the 2008 presidential race, as in 2004, a leading Catholic candidate is struggling to reconcile his staunch support for legalized abortion with Catholic teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil. And St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke is facing intense scrutiny for saying that such a candidate should not receive Communion.

The 2004 candidate was Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, whose clumsy attempts to square altar-boy anecdotes with his 100 percent voting score from the National Abortion Rights Action League helped him lose the Catholic vote to President Bush. When Burke said Kerry should not present himself for Communion, critics accused Burke of partisan motivations.

That criticism was debunked last week, when Burke said he would apply the same principle to Republican Rudy Giuliani, who hopes to become his party’s first pro-choice nominee in 32 years. Writing recently in a prestigious Catholic journal, Burke — one of the world’s foremost experts in church law — reiterated his support for the longstanding practice of denying Communion to Catholics who publicly and persistently flout church teaching on serious matters.

Catholic theology regards few matters as more serious than the defense of innocent human life from its beginning. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, emphasized that point in a letter to Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick during the 2004 Communion controversy. He wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. . . . While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Such clear teaching would seem to leave little room for Catholic politicians to paint abortion-rights advocacy as consistent with their faith. But politicians such as Giuliani — who frequently refers to theology courses he took during a brief flirtation with the priesthood — typically respond by saying they personally oppose abortion but can’t impose their religious and personal beliefs on others.

That claim raises more questions than it answers. The argument that respect for the sanctity of innocent life constitutes a purely religious conviction with no place in public policy would surprise the authors of our Declaration of Independence, which describes the right to life as “unalienable” and “self-evident.” Similarly puzzling is the reluctance of pro-choice Catholic politicians to impose their “personal beliefs” with regard to abortion, since most show no such reticence on other issues.

The personally-opposed-but-publicly-supportive argument logically leads to one of two conclusions: Either such politicians agree with the church and consider abortion to be intrinsically evil but they lack the courage to act on their convictions; or they disagree with the church but lack the integrity to honestly proclaim their beliefs and accept the consequences that follow.

Giuliani’s record suggests the latter. As the Village Voice has reported, his newly declared abhorrence of abortion was unknown in his tenure as mayor of New York, during which he repeatedly hosted celebrations at City Hall of the Roe v. Wade ruling and received 100 percent ratings from NARAL for his rejection of parental-consent measures and his support for taxpayer-funded and partial-birth abortions.

Giuliani may not have the courage of his convictions, but Burke does. Catholics concerned about the integrity of the faith and all voters concerned about truth in political advertising should be grateful for that.

Colleen Carroll Campbell is an author, television host and St. Louis-based fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her website is http://www.colleen-campbell.com.

Vatican Directive on Summorum Pontificum Implementation Possibly Forthcoming

If you don’t read Rorate Caeli, you really should:

Vatican directive on Summorum Pontificum

Echoing the information reported by Isabelle de Gaulmyn in La Croix on Tuesday, Andrea Tornielli reports today in Il Giornale:

The Pope himself would have been very displeased due to some “resistance” displayed even in Italian dioceses, and it is probable that interpretative norms for the correct application of the document [the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum] in the sense willed by Benedict XVI may be issued soon.

Vatican Directive on Summorum Pontificum Implementation Possibly Forthcoming

If you don’t read Rorate Caeli, you really should:

Vatican directive on Summorum Pontificum

Echoing the information reported by Isabelle de Gaulmyn in La Croix on Tuesday, Andrea Tornielli reports today in Il Giornale:

The Pope himself would have been very displeased due to some “resistance” displayed even in Italian dioceses, and it is probable that interpretative norms for the correct application of the document [the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum] in the sense willed by Benedict XVI may be issued soon.

A Pox on Both Their (Political) Houses!

This blog has long been on record concerning the hypocrisy of a “pro-life” governor who rests comfortably in the pocket of the clone-and-kill-babies-in-the-name-of-science crowd. One major reason a solidly pro-life state like Missouri finds itself in the unexpected position of having one of the most favorable pro-cloning CONSTITUTIONS in the nation is due to the support that those who conduct immoral medical experiments on children without their consent have received from Governor Matt Blunt.

The Blunts are a well-known and powerful political family in Missouri, and Matt’s father, Roy, holds a position of prominence in Congress. In nearly all areas, the Blunts are a solid, conservative Republican pair who vote pro-life on abortion consistently. That does not excuse Governor Blunt’s betrayal of the innocent when it comes to killing them for research– it makes it all the more perplexing.

However, because this is not a partisan blog, let us not forget the other well-known and powerful political family in Missouri– the Carnahans. The Carnahans are so solidly pro-abortion that NARAL and Planned Parenthood fund them with great largess. Old Mel drew loads of Hollywood actors and famous musicians to campaign for him, despite that none of them probably ever heard of Rolla, MO, from where the Carnahans hail. Why? Because they support the grave moral crime of the killing of innocent babies in the womb.

The nepotism train has a full compartment of Carnahans: Jean kept Mel’s U.S. Senate seat warm; son Russ somehow got elected Congressman; and, last but not least, Robin occupies the office of Missouri Secretary of State.

At least there is no hypocrisy with the Carnahans when it comes to human cloning and embryonic stem cell research– they support all forms of killing innocent babies who are not yet born.

Now, Robin Carnahan gets to add to the proud family history on this subject because as Secretary of State she gets to draft the short summary of the “Cures Without Cloning” initiative proposed for vote in the upcoming election.

You remember the power of the short summary, don’t you? In the execrable Amendment 2, that passed with the narrowest of margins (if we can ever trust the accuracy of electronic voting machines–but that is another topic), there wer several blatant lies in the ballot summary. To wit: The summary stated that Amendment 2 bannned human cloning, and that no woman could be compensated for the donation of human eggs. Both lies, of course, and there were others. But it created the surreal situation that, if someone who would have been against human cloning but who paid more attention to Will and Grace episodes than to becoming an informed voter walked into the booth, they could in good conscience vote FOR Amendment 2 and think they voted to ban human cloning.

Who wrote that summary? You get two guesses, and the first one doesn’t count.

So, on the new initiative seeking to actually ban human cloning, what hath Carnahan wrought? I will let you read for yourself. From STLToday:

Group blasts wording for ballot summary of stem cell proposal

By Matthew Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
10/11/2007

JEFFERSON CITY — A group seeking to limit embryonic stem cell research in Missouri says Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has provided an inaccurate summary of its ballot initiative, misleading voters on the issue of human cloning.

A spokesman for Cures Without Cloning said the group may take the matter to court, triggering a legal battle similar to one last year.

“Obviously we have some concerns about it,” said Curt Mercadante. “That’s putting it mildly.”

But Mindy Mazur, Carnahan’s chief of staff, said the wording is accurate. “We’re absolutely confident that the summary language for this initiative is fair,” she said.

[…]

Mercadante said the summary wrongly implies that the proposed measure would repeal the state’s ban on human cloning. In reality, the initiative seeks to enhance the state’s cloning ban, he said.

[…]

Carnahan’s ballot summary states that the new ballot initiative would “repeal the current ban on human cloning” and “criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures.”

Carnahan, a Democrat who supports embryonic stem cell research, was challenged in court last year over her summary of Amendment 2. Critics said she overstated the nature of the cloning ban. But a Cole County Circuit Court judge ruled against the complaint, saying the secretary of state has discretion in crafting ballot summaries.

A Pox on Both Their (Political) Houses!

This blog has long been on record concerning the hypocrisy of a “pro-life” governor who rests comfortably in the pocket of the clone-and-kill-babies-in-the-name-of-science crowd. One major reason a solidly pro-life state like Missouri finds itself in the unexpected position of having one of the most favorable pro-cloning CONSTITUTIONS in the nation is due to the support that those who conduct immoral medical experiments on children without their consent have received from Governor Matt Blunt.

The Blunts are a well-known and powerful political family in Missouri, and Matt’s father, Roy, holds a position of prominence in Congress. In nearly all areas, the Blunts are a solid, conservative Republican pair who vote pro-life on abortion consistently. That does not excuse Governor Blunt’s betrayal of the innocent when it comes to killing them for research– it makes it all the more perplexing.

However, because this is not a partisan blog, let us not forget the other well-known and powerful political family in Missouri– the Carnahans. The Carnahans are so solidly pro-abortion that NARAL and Planned Parenthood fund them with great largess. Old Mel drew loads of Hollywood actors and famous musicians to campaign for him, despite that none of them probably ever heard of Rolla, MO, from where the Carnahans hail. Why? Because they support the grave moral crime of the killing of innocent babies in the womb.

The nepotism train has a full compartment of Carnahans: Jean kept Mel’s U.S. Senate seat warm; son Russ somehow got elected Congressman; and, last but not least, Robin occupies the office of Missouri Secretary of State.

At least there is no hypocrisy with the Carnahans when it comes to human cloning and embryonic stem cell research– they support all forms of killing innocent babies who are not yet born.

Now, Robin Carnahan gets to add to the proud family history on this subject because as Secretary of State she gets to draft the short summary of the “Cures Without Cloning” initiative proposed for vote in the upcoming election.

You remember the power of the short summary, don’t you? In the execrable Amendment 2, that passed with the narrowest of margins (if we can ever trust the accuracy of electronic voting machines–but that is another topic), there wer several blatant lies in the ballot summary. To wit: The summary stated that Amendment 2 bannned human cloning, and that no woman could be compensated for the donation of human eggs. Both lies, of course, and there were others. But it created the surreal situation that, if someone who would have been against human cloning but who paid more attention to Will and Grace episodes than to becoming an informed voter walked into the booth, they could in good conscience vote FOR Amendment 2 and think they voted to ban human cloning.

Who wrote that summary? You get two guesses, and the first one doesn’t count.

So, on the new initiative seeking to actually ban human cloning, what hath Carnahan wrought? I will let you read for yourself. From STLToday:

Group blasts wording for ballot summary of stem cell proposal

By Matthew Franck
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
10/11/2007

JEFFERSON CITY — A group seeking to limit embryonic stem cell research in Missouri says Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has provided an inaccurate summary of its ballot initiative, misleading voters on the issue of human cloning.

A spokesman for Cures Without Cloning said the group may take the matter to court, triggering a legal battle similar to one last year.

“Obviously we have some concerns about it,” said Curt Mercadante. “That’s putting it mildly.”

But Mindy Mazur, Carnahan’s chief of staff, said the wording is accurate. “We’re absolutely confident that the summary language for this initiative is fair,” she said.

[…]

Mercadante said the summary wrongly implies that the proposed measure would repeal the state’s ban on human cloning. In reality, the initiative seeks to enhance the state’s cloning ban, he said.

[…]

Carnahan’s ballot summary states that the new ballot initiative would “repeal the current ban on human cloning” and “criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures.”

Carnahan, a Democrat who supports embryonic stem cell research, was challenged in court last year over her summary of Amendment 2. Critics said she overstated the nature of the cloning ban. But a Cole County Circuit Court judge ruled against the complaint, saying the secretary of state has discretion in crafting ballot summaries.