A parry is a fencing maneuver intended to deflect or block an incoming attack.
To execute a parry, fencers strike the opponent's foible, or the area near the tip of the blade, with their forte, or the part of the blade near the bell guard (or handle) of the weapon. This deflects the opponent's blade away from them, protecting them and placing them in a good position to strike back.
A fencer’s proficiency is often judged by the skillfulness and craft of his parries.
In the firestorm of debate which Amoris Laetitia has ignited, Pope Francis has shown himself to be expert in his ability to parry against the many and varied attacks aimed at the Exhortation istelf and him personally.
How so?
In November of 2016, four Cardinals openly disseminated a letter they had sent to the Holy Father earlier in the year consisting of five questions (dubia) regarding what they considered to be problematic inferences which could be drawn from the moral implications contained in the document.
A not-so-subtle and very public threat accompanied the publication of the dubia in the form of a promised “formal act of correction” should the Holy Father continue to ignore their questions.
Rather than publicly acknowledge the dubia and the thinly veiled warning, Francis parried by offering some pointedly critical remarks about clericalism in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where he lives, while celebrating Mass and marking the 47th anniversary of his Priestly ordination.
Francis parried the Cardinals’ attacks, not by addressing them directly, but by referencing clerics who are self-righteous and who so intellectualize faith that they ostracize sinners who wish to repent and experience the merciful forgiveness of Christ and His Church.
Such Priests uphold their own rules and “erase the law made by the Lord,” who told Abraham to “walk in my presence and be blameless,” the Pope said.
In his homily on the day’s Gospel, Matthew (21:28-32), in which Jesus asks the Chief Priests and elders which of two sons did his father’s will, Francis stated that Jesus warned the chief priests and elders that they were repeating the second son’s mistake of being unfaithful and that, like the first son, “tax collectors and prostitutes” were following the Lord and, therefore, entering God’s kingdom first.
“The men Jesus is talking about”, the Pope said, “had juridical, moral and religious authority” and “decided everything,” including to kill Lazarus because Jesus had raised him from the dead, and to make a deal with Judas to betray Jesus.
These Chief Priests and Elders demonstrated “bullying and tyranny toward the people” by exploiting the law, the Holy Father said. They used their intelligence to regulate everything, but they had forgotten God’s law to Abraham, the Ten Commandments given to Moses and the way of the Lord.
“They were always stuck in their own convictions and they were not blameless,” he said. Their victims, the Pope said, were “the humble and poor people who trusted in the Lord.”
With “vanity, pride, arrogance,” they treated those who had failed to follow the law, but later repented, with “injustice” making them feel “condemned,” “abused” and “rejected,” the Pope said.
Judas, for example, “was a traitor. He sinned badly,” but he regretted what he had done and returned the money to the chief priests and elders who had given it to him. However, the men did not protect or forgive him, but scoffed, turned their backs and told him to fend for himself, he said.
“Because they forgot what a pastor was,” the Pope said. “They were intellectuals of religion, those who had power, who carried out catechising the people with a morality made from their intelligence and not from the revelation of God.”
Even today, Francis said, there is this “spirit of clericalism” in those priests who “feel superior and distance themselves from the people,” who don’t have time to listen to the poor, the suffering, prisoners and the ill.
Jesus never played the same “game” as the elders, Francis stated. “Instead he went to the sick and the sinners, which was seen as a scandal to the faith of His time.”
Neither does Francis play the same game as the elders of today’s Church. Instead, he too extends a hand or welcome and comfort to sinners, seen as a scandal by some today.
I dare say, thus far, Francis' skillful parry of recent attacks upon Amoris Laetitia and his Pontificate have been quite successful and effective. The Church has not witnessed this caliber of artful defense since the time of Pope Julius II, who parried attacks against the Church not with words, but by gleaming edge of the sword itself.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Monday, February 6, 2017
CARDINAL WUERL'S EXTRAORDINARY PASTORAL LETTER
On Pentecost Sunday, 2016, Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., issued a pastoral letter to Catholics in the Archdiocese.
The letter is remarkable indeed. Remarkable for the clarity of its teaching about the essential nature, mission and responsibilities of the Church.
Cardinal Wuerl explains that the letter, Being Catholic Today: Catholic Identity in an Age of Challenge, “is about who we are as Catholics.” It is a reflection “on our identity as disciples of Jesus – followers of Christ – adopted children of God."
The Cardinal continues: “As Christians, we believe that there are deep and reliable answers to the perennial questions of self-identity as well as how we should live and what values grow out of our identity and form the basis for our choices.”
At the core of this understanding, Cardinal Wuerl makes reference to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican Council II.
He states: “ The Church is not a business, a club, or a special-interest group. The Church is not the result of like-minded people coming together and deciding to form an organization, nor are her moral teachings decided by popular vote or societal trends. The Catholic Church is not a man-made institution at all. Her origins are found in the will and actions of Christ. The Church, a people gathered into the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ as a sacrament – a sign and instrument of communion with God and of unity among all people.” (Lumen Gentium, 1)
“To be a Catholic is to recognize the role of the Church as the very means created and given to us by Jesus so that his work, accomplished in his death and Resurrection, might be represented in our day and applied to us.”
“The purpose of our parishes, schools, ministries and other Catholic entities – and the task of those who work for them – is to lead people to Jesus,” the Cardinal insists.
Thank you, Cardinal Wuerl, for reminding me and all of us that the true mission of the Church is to manifest the Redemptive Love and Forgiveness of Christ Jesus, Our Savior.
May we never distract ourselves from this mission by adventures into social engineering as well as other tempting adventures which have nothing whatsoever to do with the proclamation of the Gospel and the sanctification of the world.
May we give witness to His Grace by living lives of compassion, pardon and peace.
The letter is remarkable indeed. Remarkable for the clarity of its teaching about the essential nature, mission and responsibilities of the Church.
Cardinal Wuerl explains that the letter, Being Catholic Today: Catholic Identity in an Age of Challenge, “is about who we are as Catholics.” It is a reflection “on our identity as disciples of Jesus – followers of Christ – adopted children of God."
The Cardinal continues: “As Christians, we believe that there are deep and reliable answers to the perennial questions of self-identity as well as how we should live and what values grow out of our identity and form the basis for our choices.”
At the core of this understanding, Cardinal Wuerl makes reference to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Vatican Council II.
He states: “ The Church is not a business, a club, or a special-interest group. The Church is not the result of like-minded people coming together and deciding to form an organization, nor are her moral teachings decided by popular vote or societal trends. The Catholic Church is not a man-made institution at all. Her origins are found in the will and actions of Christ. The Church, a people gathered into the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ as a sacrament – a sign and instrument of communion with God and of unity among all people.” (Lumen Gentium, 1)
“To be a Catholic is to recognize the role of the Church as the very means created and given to us by Jesus so that his work, accomplished in his death and Resurrection, might be represented in our day and applied to us.”
“The purpose of our parishes, schools, ministries and other Catholic entities – and the task of those who work for them – is to lead people to Jesus,” the Cardinal insists.
Thank you, Cardinal Wuerl, for reminding me and all of us that the true mission of the Church is to manifest the Redemptive Love and Forgiveness of Christ Jesus, Our Savior.
May we never distract ourselves from this mission by adventures into social engineering as well as other tempting adventures which have nothing whatsoever to do with the proclamation of the Gospel and the sanctification of the world.
May we give witness to His Grace by living lives of compassion, pardon and peace.
THE CHURCH MUST DISASSOCIATE ITSELF FROM THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
On January 30, the Boy Scouts of America announced that it will begin accepting and registering youth into the Cub and Boy Scout programs based upon the gender identity indicated on the application. Local councils will assist in helping to “find units that can provide for the best interest of the child.”
Traditionally, Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting were “specifically designed to meet the needs of boys.” In previous years, the organization used individuals’ birth certificates to determine whether they are eligible for scouting programs.
“However, that approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state,” the Boy Scouts of America statement said.
It should be remembered that in, July 2015, the Boy Scouts adopted a non-discrimination policy allowing homosexuals to be Scout leaders and volunteers. The decision promised that churches with objections to homosexual behavior could set their own standards for affiliated organizations.
Bishop David Kagan of Bismarck, himself a former boy scout, in summer 2015 reluctantly told his North Dakota diocese to disaffiliate from the Boy Scouts of America due to the legal risks and the moral confusion its leadership policy could cause for Catholics. He said the policy could risk lawsuits for Church-sponsored troops that attempt to hold their leaders and volunteers to Catholic moral standards.
The time must now come for other Bishops and dioceses around the country to disassociate from the Boy Scouts of America. Not to do so risks both the appearance of the Church’s tacit acceptance of the nonsensical concept of gender identity as well as opens the Church to untold liabilities.
There is simply no way the Church can control the material in Boy Scout programs, merit badge material, and its Boys’ Life magazine.
The time has come for the parting of the ways between the Church and the Boy Scouts of America. A time that is long overdue indeed.
Traditionally, Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting were “specifically designed to meet the needs of boys.” In previous years, the organization used individuals’ birth certificates to determine whether they are eligible for scouting programs.
“However, that approach is no longer sufficient as communities and state laws are interpreting gender identity differently, and these laws vary widely from state to state,” the Boy Scouts of America statement said.
It should be remembered that in, July 2015, the Boy Scouts adopted a non-discrimination policy allowing homosexuals to be Scout leaders and volunteers. The decision promised that churches with objections to homosexual behavior could set their own standards for affiliated organizations.
Bishop David Kagan of Bismarck, himself a former boy scout, in summer 2015 reluctantly told his North Dakota diocese to disaffiliate from the Boy Scouts of America due to the legal risks and the moral confusion its leadership policy could cause for Catholics. He said the policy could risk lawsuits for Church-sponsored troops that attempt to hold their leaders and volunteers to Catholic moral standards.
The time must now come for other Bishops and dioceses around the country to disassociate from the Boy Scouts of America. Not to do so risks both the appearance of the Church’s tacit acceptance of the nonsensical concept of gender identity as well as opens the Church to untold liabilities.
There is simply no way the Church can control the material in Boy Scout programs, merit badge material, and its Boys’ Life magazine.
The time has come for the parting of the ways between the Church and the Boy Scouts of America. A time that is long overdue indeed.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
EDGING TOWARD A MARRIED PRIESTHOOD?
In preparation for the 2018 Synod of Bishops, the Holy See released a preparatory document which includes a series of 15 questions to be answered by National Conferences of Bishops and other Church groups.
The document, entitled “Young People, Faith and Vocational Discernment,” states that the Church needs to assess its pastoral approach to young people living in a fast-changing world where globalization, economic and social hardship present major challenges
The survey of Bishops and Pastors includes questions that are specific to each continent and is part of the preparation for the 2018 Synod of Bishops, which will focus on young people.
Pope Francis urged young people in an open letter to share their doubts and criticisms of the Church.
The 2018 Synod will ask Bishops and Priests about cultural changes, particularly digital media and technology, that are changing young people’s relationship with the church.
In addition to the input from Bishops’ conferences and Pastors, young people will also be able to express their views directly through a dedicated website that will be launched by the Vatican on March 1.
Charles Dillon "Casey" Stengel (The Old Perfessor), legendary American Major League Baseball right fielder and manager, was renowned for the one-line quips of sage advice that he would often share with players and fans. Among his most remembered is this: “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”
Risky as it is, I shall ignore the “Old Perfessor” and make a prediction about the 2018 Synod, with this qualification. If Pope Francis is alive and well enough to attend and engage in the discussions, this Synod on youth and vocation will perhaps have the most significant impact on the Church for centuries to come.
This is a quite a prediction, true. But here’ the reason I make it.
For months, the Holy Father has been making remarks and giving interviews which has skirt around the issue of vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life.
In comments made at ad limina visits of South American and African Bishops, in interviews published in both Catholic and secular media outlets, in his homilies at morning Mass in the chapel of Santa Marta, Francis has indicated both his awareness of the critical shortage of Priests and Religious as well as his hope in young people who are eager and anxious to be of service to the Church.
At the same time, the Pope has been constant in his praise of the holiness of the heterosexual family unit. He has called the family the “masterwork of society,” and frequently reminds us that Jesus "begins his miracles with this masterwork, in a marriage, in a wedding feast: a man and a woman."
Over the course of the past several months, the Holy Father has made his vision of the Priesthood starkly clear. Toward the end of last year, he confirmed the ban on ordaining women, as well as the ban on gay seminarians.
True, Francis has been rather low-key in the statements he has made thus far, but I am beginning to seriously wonder whether the Pope is preparing the Church for a new model of Priesthood: one in which married men may be eligible for ordination.
It seems that Pope Francis has an agenda at work, and his desperate need to fill the ranks of the Priesthood is taking priority over much of what he has been saying recently.
Francis has given clear indications that he is receptive to a conversation about married Priests.
This past August, Austen Ivereigh wrote an essay declaring: “Next synod likely to focus on ordaining married men.” Ivereigh cites examples in South Africa and Honduras where teams of married men with families were chosen by their communities to minister part-time while continuing to work in their professions.
“Francis has given many signals of his willingness to open up the question of ordaining married men, even encouraging local Churches to put forward proposals,” Ivereigh wrote.
Theologically, a shift to a married Priesthood is relatively simple. Clerical celibacy is a canonical discipline that is not essential to Priesthood. As such, the discipline can be changed, without disrupting the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church.
Most immediately, the Church would have much to gain in instituting a married Priesthood.
Obviously, it would stave off the looming crisis of the Priest shortage. It may also serve as a tool for evangelization and promotion of family, since a Priest and his wife would model the gender complementing roles frequently praised by Pope Francis. The husband would be both the father of the parish and the family, and his wife would be the serving, nurturing mother.
A married Priesthood might bring back into the fold all of those heterosexual families who could more easily relate to a Priest who is a husband and father.
Frankly, I see no particular theological hurdle to the Holy Father allowing for the ordination to Priesthood of those presently serving as Permanent Deacons, a position whose present sacramental impact is little more than having another altar server at Mass.
Let us remember that, historically, the Church has ordained married men, while not allowing ordained men to marry. Abuses in the Middle Ages eventually led the Latin Church to suppress the practice of admitting married men to the Priesthood.
Perhaps, the time has come for the Church Fathers to listen to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit and seriously consider the detrimental effect which mandatory celibacy is inflicting upon the Church's ability to provide the Sacraments to God's People.
Viri probati (men proven in virtue), whether married or celibate, should be able to offer themselves in service to the People of God, serving in the sacred Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Francis loves to work incrementally, taking small steps before the last and final leap toward renewal and reformation. Astute observers of this Papacy can easily recognize that the preparatory process presently underway for the upcoming Synod have the Pope's agenda and method all over them.
I believe and predict that the Synod on youth and vocation perhaps will be the most historic and influential imprint this Pontificate will have upon the future of the Latin Church.
And what better place to address the discipline of celibacy and a married Priesthood than a Synod on youth and vocation!
The document, entitled “Young People, Faith and Vocational Discernment,” states that the Church needs to assess its pastoral approach to young people living in a fast-changing world where globalization, economic and social hardship present major challenges
The survey of Bishops and Pastors includes questions that are specific to each continent and is part of the preparation for the 2018 Synod of Bishops, which will focus on young people.
Pope Francis urged young people in an open letter to share their doubts and criticisms of the Church.
The 2018 Synod will ask Bishops and Priests about cultural changes, particularly digital media and technology, that are changing young people’s relationship with the church.
In addition to the input from Bishops’ conferences and Pastors, young people will also be able to express their views directly through a dedicated website that will be launched by the Vatican on March 1.
Charles Dillon "Casey" Stengel (The Old Perfessor), legendary American Major League Baseball right fielder and manager, was renowned for the one-line quips of sage advice that he would often share with players and fans. Among his most remembered is this: “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”
Risky as it is, I shall ignore the “Old Perfessor” and make a prediction about the 2018 Synod, with this qualification. If Pope Francis is alive and well enough to attend and engage in the discussions, this Synod on youth and vocation will perhaps have the most significant impact on the Church for centuries to come.
This is a quite a prediction, true. But here’ the reason I make it.
For months, the Holy Father has been making remarks and giving interviews which has skirt around the issue of vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life.
In comments made at ad limina visits of South American and African Bishops, in interviews published in both Catholic and secular media outlets, in his homilies at morning Mass in the chapel of Santa Marta, Francis has indicated both his awareness of the critical shortage of Priests and Religious as well as his hope in young people who are eager and anxious to be of service to the Church.
At the same time, the Pope has been constant in his praise of the holiness of the heterosexual family unit. He has called the family the “masterwork of society,” and frequently reminds us that Jesus "begins his miracles with this masterwork, in a marriage, in a wedding feast: a man and a woman."
Over the course of the past several months, the Holy Father has made his vision of the Priesthood starkly clear. Toward the end of last year, he confirmed the ban on ordaining women, as well as the ban on gay seminarians.
True, Francis has been rather low-key in the statements he has made thus far, but I am beginning to seriously wonder whether the Pope is preparing the Church for a new model of Priesthood: one in which married men may be eligible for ordination.
It seems that Pope Francis has an agenda at work, and his desperate need to fill the ranks of the Priesthood is taking priority over much of what he has been saying recently.
Francis has given clear indications that he is receptive to a conversation about married Priests.
This past August, Austen Ivereigh wrote an essay declaring: “Next synod likely to focus on ordaining married men.” Ivereigh cites examples in South Africa and Honduras where teams of married men with families were chosen by their communities to minister part-time while continuing to work in their professions.
“Francis has given many signals of his willingness to open up the question of ordaining married men, even encouraging local Churches to put forward proposals,” Ivereigh wrote.
Theologically, a shift to a married Priesthood is relatively simple. Clerical celibacy is a canonical discipline that is not essential to Priesthood. As such, the discipline can be changed, without disrupting the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the Church.
Most immediately, the Church would have much to gain in instituting a married Priesthood.
Obviously, it would stave off the looming crisis of the Priest shortage. It may also serve as a tool for evangelization and promotion of family, since a Priest and his wife would model the gender complementing roles frequently praised by Pope Francis. The husband would be both the father of the parish and the family, and his wife would be the serving, nurturing mother.
A married Priesthood might bring back into the fold all of those heterosexual families who could more easily relate to a Priest who is a husband and father.
Frankly, I see no particular theological hurdle to the Holy Father allowing for the ordination to Priesthood of those presently serving as Permanent Deacons, a position whose present sacramental impact is little more than having another altar server at Mass.
Let us remember that, historically, the Church has ordained married men, while not allowing ordained men to marry. Abuses in the Middle Ages eventually led the Latin Church to suppress the practice of admitting married men to the Priesthood.
Perhaps, the time has come for the Church Fathers to listen to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit and seriously consider the detrimental effect which mandatory celibacy is inflicting upon the Church's ability to provide the Sacraments to God's People.
Viri probati (men proven in virtue), whether married or celibate, should be able to offer themselves in service to the People of God, serving in the sacred Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Francis loves to work incrementally, taking small steps before the last and final leap toward renewal and reformation. Astute observers of this Papacy can easily recognize that the preparatory process presently underway for the upcoming Synod have the Pope's agenda and method all over them.
I believe and predict that the Synod on youth and vocation perhaps will be the most historic and influential imprint this Pontificate will have upon the future of the Latin Church.
And what better place to address the discipline of celibacy and a married Priesthood than a Synod on youth and vocation!
Saturday, February 4, 2017
GLUTEN-FREE HOSTS: REALLY?
Liturgical law requires the host which is consecrated by the Priest and becomes the Body and Blood of Christ is to consist of wheat and wheat only”. This precept is based upon the fact that Jesus ate wheat bread with his apostles at the Last Supper at which He instituted the Eucharist before his Crucifixion.
In recent years, there have been some controversial studies undertaken regarding what is termed “celiac disease”.
In 1995, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments decreed that low-gluten hosts are valid if they hold enough gluten to make bread. Recipients of Holy Communion requesting the low-gluten host were required to present a medical certificate and obtain a bishop’s approval.
In 2003, the Congregation eliminated the patently ridiculous medical-certificate requirement allowed Pastors to make informed decisions and grant approval. The Vatican reminded communicants with celiac disease that they receive the fullness of the Eucharistic Sacrament by consuming the species of the Consecrated Blood alone.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have approved two manufacturers for valid low-gluten hosts. One is the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Missouri. The other is Parish Crossroads in Indiana, which sells low-gluten hosts made in Germany.
Pastors use various systems to make sure parishioners who need the low-gluten hosts receive them. In one instance, communicants retrieve low gluten hosts from a refrigerator before Mass and place them in a separate vessel that’s presented for consecration with traditional hosts.
An Altar Server then holds the vessel behind the celebrant as he distributes Communion, and people needing a low-gluten host tell the priest as they approach.
All this may be much ado about nothing.
Based upon studies conducted by the Mayo Clinic in groundbreaking research, the American Medical Association estimates that about 1.8 million Americans (Catholics and non-Catholics included in that number) have symptomatic expressions of what has been loosely defined as celiac disease. However, approximately 1.4 million are not even aware they have the disorder.
Researchers think as few as 20% of people with the disease ever get a proper diagnosis. The damage to the intestine is very slow, and symptoms are so varied, that it can be years before someone gets a diagnosis.
A recent research report by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that over the past five years, there was a 300 percent increase in the number of people reporting going on a gluten-free diet. At the same time, the prevalence of celiac disease has remained stable.
Avoiding gluten has been called ‘risky’ by experts. The subject of gluten avoidance was the topic of a recent panel discussion by a group of medical experts, including Alessio Fasano, director of the Center for Celiac Research and Treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Fasano offered his thoughts on why “gluten-free” has become so popular: “The reason why is that the actors, actresses, politicians, and sport icons who serve as the popular role models in our culture have decided to embrace a gluten-free diet, and to publish articles and even write books on its benefits. It is a no-brainer for people to then say, ‘If it’s good for her or him, it’s going to be good for me to cleanse my body or feel more energized,’ and so on and so forth. I believe that has really fueled the fad component of the diet.”
While I am sympathetic to those who have severe reactions to receiving Communion hosts made of wheat, I wonder if this gluten-free hysteria is being pandered to by certain groups within the Church.
Of course, the most sensible resolution of this problem would be for the Pastor to simply encourage the communicant to receive the Precious Blood which, according to the dogmatic teachings of the Church, consists of both the Body and Blood of Christ.
Does the Church really need to pander to what the medical community itself describes as mostly faddish dietary nonsense.
If still involved in active parochial ministry, this would be my response to anyone requesting gluten-free Communion hosts: receive the Eucharist under the species of the Consecrated Wine. This is a response which protects the inviolability of the Sacrament and still allows for complete reception of the Eucharist.
Of course, I realize that such an intelligent pastoral solution would raise the ire of self-appointed dietary police who would berate my insensitivity toward the diseased and disabled. I also realize that I would probably receive a letter from the Office of Worship of the diocese suggesting that I am somehow denying the Sacrament to worthy recipients suffering from a medical disorder.
Mercifully for me, at least, I am no longer in active parochial ministry and can observe and comment on such matters from afar. In the end, it all just seems so trite and silly an issue to warrant any serious concern.
In recent years, there have been some controversial studies undertaken regarding what is termed “celiac disease”.
In 1995, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments decreed that low-gluten hosts are valid if they hold enough gluten to make bread. Recipients of Holy Communion requesting the low-gluten host were required to present a medical certificate and obtain a bishop’s approval.
In 2003, the Congregation eliminated the patently ridiculous medical-certificate requirement allowed Pastors to make informed decisions and grant approval. The Vatican reminded communicants with celiac disease that they receive the fullness of the Eucharistic Sacrament by consuming the species of the Consecrated Blood alone.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have approved two manufacturers for valid low-gluten hosts. One is the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Missouri. The other is Parish Crossroads in Indiana, which sells low-gluten hosts made in Germany.
Pastors use various systems to make sure parishioners who need the low-gluten hosts receive them. In one instance, communicants retrieve low gluten hosts from a refrigerator before Mass and place them in a separate vessel that’s presented for consecration with traditional hosts.
An Altar Server then holds the vessel behind the celebrant as he distributes Communion, and people needing a low-gluten host tell the priest as they approach.
All this may be much ado about nothing.
Based upon studies conducted by the Mayo Clinic in groundbreaking research, the American Medical Association estimates that about 1.8 million Americans (Catholics and non-Catholics included in that number) have symptomatic expressions of what has been loosely defined as celiac disease. However, approximately 1.4 million are not even aware they have the disorder.
Researchers think as few as 20% of people with the disease ever get a proper diagnosis. The damage to the intestine is very slow, and symptoms are so varied, that it can be years before someone gets a diagnosis.
A recent research report by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that over the past five years, there was a 300 percent increase in the number of people reporting going on a gluten-free diet. At the same time, the prevalence of celiac disease has remained stable.
Avoiding gluten has been called ‘risky’ by experts. The subject of gluten avoidance was the topic of a recent panel discussion by a group of medical experts, including Alessio Fasano, director of the Center for Celiac Research and Treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Fasano offered his thoughts on why “gluten-free” has become so popular: “The reason why is that the actors, actresses, politicians, and sport icons who serve as the popular role models in our culture have decided to embrace a gluten-free diet, and to publish articles and even write books on its benefits. It is a no-brainer for people to then say, ‘If it’s good for her or him, it’s going to be good for me to cleanse my body or feel more energized,’ and so on and so forth. I believe that has really fueled the fad component of the diet.”
While I am sympathetic to those who have severe reactions to receiving Communion hosts made of wheat, I wonder if this gluten-free hysteria is being pandered to by certain groups within the Church.
Of course, the most sensible resolution of this problem would be for the Pastor to simply encourage the communicant to receive the Precious Blood which, according to the dogmatic teachings of the Church, consists of both the Body and Blood of Christ.
Does the Church really need to pander to what the medical community itself describes as mostly faddish dietary nonsense.
If still involved in active parochial ministry, this would be my response to anyone requesting gluten-free Communion hosts: receive the Eucharist under the species of the Consecrated Wine. This is a response which protects the inviolability of the Sacrament and still allows for complete reception of the Eucharist.
Of course, I realize that such an intelligent pastoral solution would raise the ire of self-appointed dietary police who would berate my insensitivity toward the diseased and disabled. I also realize that I would probably receive a letter from the Office of Worship of the diocese suggesting that I am somehow denying the Sacrament to worthy recipients suffering from a medical disorder.
Mercifully for me, at least, I am no longer in active parochial ministry and can observe and comment on such matters from afar. In the end, it all just seems so trite and silly an issue to warrant any serious concern.
Friday, February 3, 2017
SURVIVORS' NETWORK OF THOSE ABUSED BY PRIESTS (SNAP) ALLEGED KICKBACK SCHEME
Here is a recent story which does not surprise me a bit.
A former employee of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests. more commonly known as SNAP, has filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination.
Gretchen Rachel Hammond, a past development director of SNAP, is alleging that the organization routinely accepted financial kickbacks from attorneys who were suing the Church on behalf of sexual abuse victims. She contends that proof of this allegation exists on an external computer hard drive in her possession.
In her lawsuit, Hammond charges that “SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks from attorneys in the form of ‘donations.’ In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church. These cases often settle, to the financial benefit of the attorneys and, at times, to the financial benefit of SNAP, which has received direct payments from survivors’ settlements.”
Hammond’s attorneys filed the lawsuit against SNAP on Jan. 17 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Hammond was employed at SNAP from July 2011 through February 2013, the complaint said.
The lawsuit claims that SNAP receives “substantial contributions” from attorneys sometimes totaling more than 40 or 50 percent of its annual contributions.
A prominent Minnesota attorney who represents clergy abuse survivors reportedly donated several six-figure annual sums, including over $415,000 in 2008. Other attorney-donors who represent abuse survivors reportedly came from California, Chicago, Seattle, and Delaware.
Hammond claims that the SNAP leadership provided supposed victims with a list of attorneys who were regular donors. She likewise charges that SNAP ordered her “not to reveal to anybody that SNAP received donations from attorneys.” She alleges that during 2011 and 2012, SNAP “concocted a scheme to have attorneys make donations to a front foundation” in order to conceal attorneys’ “kickbacks.”
In her petition, Hammond cited an April 26, 2011 email from executive director David Clohessy recommending an abuse victim pursue a claim against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee: “every nickle they don't have is a nickle that they can't spend on defense lawyers, PR staff, gay-bashing, women-hating, contraceptive-battling, etc.”
The lawsuit claims that SNAP “callously disregards the real interests of survivors” and pressures them to “pursue costly and stressful litigation” instead of the survivors’ best interests.
SNAP allegedly uses publicity about victims’ lawsuits to drive fundraising. The group “regularly communicates” with victims’ attorneys, often receives drafts of complaints and “other privileged information” which it would allegedly use “to generate sensational press releases on the survivors' lawsuits.”
The suit claims that when Hammond attempted to confront superiors about these practices, they engaged in retaliation resulting in the firing. Now, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and other relief.
Is SNAP a despicable group of opportunists who have sought to capitalize on the suffering endured by victims of homosexual Priests who have preyed upon the innocent children entrusted to their care?
Is SNAP a front for corrupt lawyers and other advocates who see the Church as a coffer of treasure they are eager and greedy to plunder?
Does SNAP represent no one other than itself and the unethical attorneys it promotes for self-gain?
Perhaps, all one need do to answer these questions is "follow the money."
I pray this lawsuit goes to trial and judgment and is not settled out of court.
I want to know whether or not and once and for all if SNAP is as duplicitous and corrupt as I have always suspected it of being.
A former employee of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests. more commonly known as SNAP, has filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination.
Gretchen Rachel Hammond, a past development director of SNAP, is alleging that the organization routinely accepted financial kickbacks from attorneys who were suing the Church on behalf of sexual abuse victims. She contends that proof of this allegation exists on an external computer hard drive in her possession.
In her lawsuit, Hammond charges that “SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks from attorneys in the form of ‘donations.’ In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church. These cases often settle, to the financial benefit of the attorneys and, at times, to the financial benefit of SNAP, which has received direct payments from survivors’ settlements.”
Hammond’s attorneys filed the lawsuit against SNAP on Jan. 17 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Hammond was employed at SNAP from July 2011 through February 2013, the complaint said.
The lawsuit claims that SNAP receives “substantial contributions” from attorneys sometimes totaling more than 40 or 50 percent of its annual contributions.
A prominent Minnesota attorney who represents clergy abuse survivors reportedly donated several six-figure annual sums, including over $415,000 in 2008. Other attorney-donors who represent abuse survivors reportedly came from California, Chicago, Seattle, and Delaware.
Hammond claims that the SNAP leadership provided supposed victims with a list of attorneys who were regular donors. She likewise charges that SNAP ordered her “not to reveal to anybody that SNAP received donations from attorneys.” She alleges that during 2011 and 2012, SNAP “concocted a scheme to have attorneys make donations to a front foundation” in order to conceal attorneys’ “kickbacks.”
In her petition, Hammond cited an April 26, 2011 email from executive director David Clohessy recommending an abuse victim pursue a claim against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee: “every nickle they don't have is a nickle that they can't spend on defense lawyers, PR staff, gay-bashing, women-hating, contraceptive-battling, etc.”
The lawsuit claims that SNAP “callously disregards the real interests of survivors” and pressures them to “pursue costly and stressful litigation” instead of the survivors’ best interests.
SNAP allegedly uses publicity about victims’ lawsuits to drive fundraising. The group “regularly communicates” with victims’ attorneys, often receives drafts of complaints and “other privileged information” which it would allegedly use “to generate sensational press releases on the survivors' lawsuits.”
The suit claims that when Hammond attempted to confront superiors about these practices, they engaged in retaliation resulting in the firing. Now, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and other relief.
Is SNAP a despicable group of opportunists who have sought to capitalize on the suffering endured by victims of homosexual Priests who have preyed upon the innocent children entrusted to their care?
Is SNAP a front for corrupt lawyers and other advocates who see the Church as a coffer of treasure they are eager and greedy to plunder?
Does SNAP represent no one other than itself and the unethical attorneys it promotes for self-gain?
Perhaps, all one need do to answer these questions is "follow the money."
I pray this lawsuit goes to trial and judgment and is not settled out of court.
I want to know whether or not and once and for all if SNAP is as duplicitous and corrupt as I have always suspected it of being.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
THANKS BE TO GOD AND POPE FRANCIS FOR RETURNING SANITY TO THE SACRED LITURGY
In an earlier post this month, I wrote about Pope Francis appointing a host of new members to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In that post, I expressed a word of hope that the Holy Father would charge the Congregation with a re-write of the awful translation English speaking celebrants of Holy Mass are being forced to use on account of the decree “Liturgiam Authenticam” promulgated during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.
Now comes word that Pope Francis has indeed ordered a review of “Liturgiam Authenticam.” The commission, established by the Pope just before Christmas, is also tasked with examining what level of decentralization is desirable in the church on matters such as this.
The mixed commission includes Bishops from all the continents. Significantly, Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Arthur Roche, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to be its president. The English-born archbishop is the number two official at the congregation; he has more experience in the liturgical field and a more open approach to liturgical questions than its prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah.
The Vatican has not provided details on the commission, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting soon. Nor has it published the names of the commission’s members.
My joy and hopeful enthusiasm for this commission is overwhelming. It is hard to express my frustration with the present translation of the Prayers at Mass and Eucharistic Prayers, a translation that is not suitable for public prayer and which distracts from prayers themselves.
A news report stated that Pope Francis was motivated to establish this commission for two reasons.
First, in keeping with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, the Pope wants local Bishops’ Conferences to exercise greater responsibility and authority and, by so doing, clarify the role of the Pope in preserving unity in the Church, given that Liturgy, the Roman Rite, creates unity within the Latin Church.
The second reason is that Francis is attentive and sensitive to some Bishops’ Conferences which have voiced their unhappiness with the translations required by “Liturgiam Authenticam". They consider it too rigid and do not accept that there is such a thing as “sacral language.” They charge that “Liturgiam” seeks an almost literal translation of the Latin liturgical texts into the vernacular or local language of the different countries, often with unsatisfactory results.
The Japanese Bishops, for example, have struggled with the Congregation over who should decide what is an acceptable Japanese translation of these texts. They and several other Bishops’ conferences, are clearly unhappy with the directives of “Liturgiam” and the level of centralization involved in it.
If the review is successful in tossing out these awful translations, I will be grateful to Pope Francis for the rest of my life. Thank you, Holy Father.
Thank You, Holy Spirit, for this gift of hope that the sacred Mass Prayers and Eucharistic Prayers will be intelligible and conducive to prayer once again. I am so happy for myself, my brothers in the Priesthood, and the myriad number of God’s People who come to Mass to pray in the familiar language of their daily lives.
Now comes word that Pope Francis has indeed ordered a review of “Liturgiam Authenticam.” The commission, established by the Pope just before Christmas, is also tasked with examining what level of decentralization is desirable in the church on matters such as this.
The mixed commission includes Bishops from all the continents. Significantly, Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Arthur Roche, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to be its president. The English-born archbishop is the number two official at the congregation; he has more experience in the liturgical field and a more open approach to liturgical questions than its prefect, Cardinal Robert Sarah.
The Vatican has not provided details on the commission, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting soon. Nor has it published the names of the commission’s members.
My joy and hopeful enthusiasm for this commission is overwhelming. It is hard to express my frustration with the present translation of the Prayers at Mass and Eucharistic Prayers, a translation that is not suitable for public prayer and which distracts from prayers themselves.
A news report stated that Pope Francis was motivated to establish this commission for two reasons.
First, in keeping with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, the Pope wants local Bishops’ Conferences to exercise greater responsibility and authority and, by so doing, clarify the role of the Pope in preserving unity in the Church, given that Liturgy, the Roman Rite, creates unity within the Latin Church.
The second reason is that Francis is attentive and sensitive to some Bishops’ Conferences which have voiced their unhappiness with the translations required by “Liturgiam Authenticam". They consider it too rigid and do not accept that there is such a thing as “sacral language.” They charge that “Liturgiam” seeks an almost literal translation of the Latin liturgical texts into the vernacular or local language of the different countries, often with unsatisfactory results.
The Japanese Bishops, for example, have struggled with the Congregation over who should decide what is an acceptable Japanese translation of these texts. They and several other Bishops’ conferences, are clearly unhappy with the directives of “Liturgiam” and the level of centralization involved in it.
If the review is successful in tossing out these awful translations, I will be grateful to Pope Francis for the rest of my life. Thank you, Holy Father.
Thank You, Holy Spirit, for this gift of hope that the sacred Mass Prayers and Eucharistic Prayers will be intelligible and conducive to prayer once again. I am so happy for myself, my brothers in the Priesthood, and the myriad number of God’s People who come to Mass to pray in the familiar language of their daily lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)