Rare Clarity

I've been wondering, does anybody in the hierarchy ever really read what they publish? You'd think they'd want to get their story straight.

Concerning the Eucharist, the closing message of the Bishops Synod says that "The Church lives from this gift par excellence that gathers it, purifies it and transforms it".

And yet, "The pronoun "it" does not seem to refer properly to the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and Christ's Bride," writes Cardinal Medina Estévez.

And elsewhere the Holy See tells us that "the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church."

That seems clear enough, so why the trouble? Maybe the bishops didn't get the memo, so ordinary Catholics can be excused if they're getting a bit befuddled by all the mixed messages coming from the hierarchy.

Like the Synod's Instrumentum laboris. It's concerned by "negative realities, occurring more often in the Latin Liturgy than the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches."

Cardinal Ouellet saw it too. As he tells us, "something very enriching was the experience of the Eastern Churches, they have a deep sense of the sacredness," and "In the West, we need to recover the sacredness of the liturgy."

Rediscover? But how can that be after we've spent all this effort updating the Mass?

Well, back to the Instrumentum laboris that summed it up almost perfectly. Apparently there's "a weakening in the sense of mystery... witnessed in mis-interpretations and distorted ideas in the Council’s liturgical renewal, which has led to rites superficial in nature and devoid of spiritual significance."

Hang about there fellas! Let me get this straight. You say there are "distorted ideas in the Council’s liturgical renewal"?

But I thought you said "that the Second Vatican Council provided the necessary basis for an authentic liturgical renewal".

So? Distorted or authentic? Which is it?

Well, whichever it is, the bishops are sticking with the plan. Cardinal Arinze assures us that the traditional Latin Mass "is not a priority for the synod". There'll be no looking back for these visionaries.

Because, "devoid of spiritual significance" as it may be, again it's just like they said in that working document:

"No one doubts the great effects resulting from the liturgical renewal prompted by the spirit of the Second Vatican Council."

Prompted by the Spirit of Vatican II, eh? Now that is rare clarity. But no one doubts the great effects? Too bad about that.

Sad, Sorry Synod

"We are convinced that respect for the sacred character of the Liturgy is transmitted by means of fidelity to liturgical norms and to legitimate authority".

So says the synod of bishops.

Convinced are they? That following the liturgical norms is going to transmit respect for the sacred character of the liturgy?

Apparently then, guitar Masses with girl altar-boys and polyester-vested priests using eucharistic prayer number two in churches with hidden tabernacles are supposed to edify us.

Clearly there is a bug in the program, because this, to say nothing of abuses, is what bishops have done to the liturgy, licitly, and with their rightful authority. This is how they intend to "transmit respect for the sacred".

What more can be said?

I don't suppose this is the renewal of liturgical awareness then-Ratzinger had in mind. He was right. It's going to take a whole new generation of bishops to restore some sense of dignity to the Liturgy.

Because these guys don't even know what to look for.

Episcopal Euthanasia

Canada's kooky Catholic-run federal government is at it again. This time it's euthanasia they're thinking about. So my bishop wrote us all a letter. And I guess he's not the only bishop to do so. We're all instructed to write to the Prime Minister and our local representative. This nonsense has got to stop, we're supposed to say. Apparently the Canadian Bishop's Conference sent letters to every Member of Parliament too.

And it got me thinking. It's not that I mind a Catholic Bishop trying to teach the Catholic Faith. I sure don't. It's just that I wondered what could have spurred them to action so quickly. I mean, it took most of them more than a year to cough up a single letter on marriage. How is it that euthanasia got their passionate interest after only three months? What is it about euthanasia that lights a bishop's fire so quickly?

Then I realized. It's no wonder the Bishops have decided to act. This time it's personal and they're about to learn a lesson in practical consequences.

Because after these last forty years under their careful tutelage, we've all pretty much given up the Faith. Not only that, but birth rates, congregations, and donations have all dropped off pretty sharply.

Paying hefty pensions to Bishops Emeritii can be awfully tough on these shrinking and aging congregations.

I mean, what if we could just ease a few of these expensive retirees into a little Death with Dignity? Imagine the savings! I know, I know, it's terrible. I shouldn't even think of it. And if times weren't so tough I wouldn't dare.

Really, I'd like a nice big episcopate. I'd have a whole house-full if I could, I really would. But they're just so expensive. You understand.

Anyway, being the good Canuck Catholic that I am, I've been on a quest for guidance. I read the Canadian Bishops' 1968 "Winnipeg Statement" on artificial birth control, and I found good news for us faithful working so hard to make ends meet.

We all know it's intrinsically kind of bad to bump off our bishop emeritus, but, see, it's just like they said in Winnipeg:

"if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses that course that seems right to him does so in good conscience."

And I can tell you; I've tried sincerely. I've been examining my conscience and soul-searching like a Jesuit theologian, and episcopal euthanasia really seems like the right thing to do.

So thanks for the advance absolution, Excellencies. See you on the other side!

Fake Communion

George Weigel has written a piece on why the scandal of intercommunion and religious indifference at Taizé isn't so bad after all.

George's done a good job of it. He even makes it seem like the big-bad anti-Catholic NY Times is out to make Holy Mother Church look bad again. In fact, the Times couldn't have been more approving.

We don't even see the ugliness anymore because we've got leading conservative Catholics writing elaborate excuses. How can ordinary Catholics be expected to wake up to this dire situation when the supposed good guys like George Weigel are telling us it's great?

"Ugliness? What ugliness? It's springtime! Go read Envoy Magazine." Is there no scandal conservative Catholics won't try to explain away?

It should stun and offend our sensibilities like crazy that the Eucharist is being put on the level of ordinary bread. Instead, our sensibilities are now dulled to the point where the best and brightest of new Catholic conservatism make excuses for the inexcusable.

There's no problem with distributing the Bread of Heaven right alongside croutons, George says, it's just like the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics! Except that the Eastern Churches aren't doing it as an exercise in Eucharistic indifference.

It's the new Catholic Church! You want it? You got it! Fake communion? Line up to the right.

Catholic World News is reporting that a little protestant kid in Kentucky brings some plain Anglican bread to his Catholic school's Mass in order to participate in Communion just like all the Catholic kids. No conversion required.

How very Taizé.

It's okay. This can't cause a scandal. Catholics don't believe in the Eucharist anymore anyway.