2011 September archive at Being Frank

Archive for September, 2011

Sep

“When I read your magazine, I don’t see one wrinkled face or single toothless grin. For shame! To the sickos at `Modern Bride’ magazine.”

Categories: Being Frank...

Occasionally (very occasionally) us lucky BF bloggers receive some feedback about what a good job we’re doing, how hard it must be doing what we do, and how we should carry on carrying on. I received some glowing praise a couple of weeks ago which I did not have time to respond to. Let’s get to it:
My question, basically, is this: what’s the point of your post? Do you hope that the cathedral’s pastor will read your post and change his schedules? Do you hope to stir up righteous anger in other readers – do you want some “You go, MB!” from the cheap seats? Do you hope readers will write to the cathedral and demand change? What exactly do you want from your writing?

Actually I was quite surprised that people were still reading my posts. But seriously? It’s the internet. Does there need to be a point? What is the internet if not a medium to express the collective moaning and whingeing of humanity?

I wanted a good gripe at the confession schedule. (What is the point of the internet if you can’t have a good gripe?) And I wanted to see if people also felt the same way about the confessional schedule. And maybe someone closer to the Cathedral would mention something in passing to the ‘pastor’. But really, it was so I could have a good whinge. I do apologise wholeheartedly if we did not go into the demographical issues, or calculate the person to confessional time ratio, but maybe another time. And I really couldn’t care less about the cheering from the cheap seats. Who wants support from the cheap seats? I prefer my support like my Xbox status. Elite.

Tell me: did you, in charity, write to or call the cathedral and politely express your desire for more time for confession, or did you, in arrogance, just let it all hang out there on the internet?

Well I’m just shocked. Shocked and horrified. Arrogance? I don’t even think that’s the right word to use here. But yes, I did just want to let it all hang out on the internet. That way the world knows about my displeasure. And soon the universe.

And WWJD? “Dear Pharisees, I am writing this letter to you as I disapprove of your behaviour and general style.” “Dear moneylenders, I am writing this letter to express my desire for you to vacate this temple space”. No, Jesus let it all hang out there. I think sometimes you do need to be a little ‘arrogant’ where matters of religion are concerned. Otherwise you end up accepting second best, or accepting that what is will always be. Actually you will probably think that was arrogant too, but I guess I’m just an arrogant kind of guy.

Anyway enough of this. I’ve been taking the bus to work over the last few weeks and the 7.33am bus is usually driven by a kind looking woman I have since dubbed the ‘Iron Lady’. Not the best nickname but I couldn’t think of anything that really captured her ‘take no prisoners’ approach. If you don’t flag the bus down in plenty of time then she ain’t stopping. I’ve seen her drive past regulars because of the non-flagging, I’ve seen her drive past people half-flagging, or late-flagging, or flagging while running. If she doesn’t see you in plenty of time, it’s over. Personally I don’t think that kind of service is good enough. I think there’s some sort of religious analogy there, about God, and God’s will, and us noticing the signs, but I’m caught up with wondering if I should write to the bus company and express my desire for ‘Iron Lady’ to be more observant instead of letting it hang out on the internet.

Until next week.

Arrogantly yours,

Sep

To confess, or not to confess?

By Marty Rethul 7 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

This article, from LifeSiteNews:

While Irish media reported that a recent statement from a leading Irish bureaucrat meant that the government is “backing down” from plans to force Catholic priests to break the seal of confession, a spokesman for the government has indicated to LifeSiteNews.com that this is not the case.

On Sept. 8, Ireland’s Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, had said that the controversy over the confession issue was an “entirely bogus issue” and a “divergence from the central focus” of the legislation.

The legislation, announced in July, would reportedly make it a crime—punishable up to five years in prison—for anyone who failed to report information about child abuse, including if that person is a priest who got the information during a confession.

“The focus of the Bill,” Shatter said in his recent remarks, “is to ensure that where there are what we describe as ‘arrestable crimes,’ which include child sexual abuse committed against a child, and where an individual has material information that would assist the police in the investigation of that crime, that they provide it to the police, unless there is a reasonable excuse not to do so.”

“And this [Confession] is an entire divergence from the central focus of what we’re seeking to address, and I think it would be helpful if those who are focusing on that issue focused to a far greater extent on the protection of children.”

Following Shatter’s statement, in which he reportedly said that the legislation would not contain any specific reference to confession, some Irish press outlets reported that the Irish government had “backed down” on its plans to force priests to reveal details heard in confession. Irish Central called Shatter’s statement an “amazing u-turn” and a “change of opinion.”

However, Nick Donnelly, a permanent deacon in the Diocese of Lancaster, called this conclusion “premature,” and said he was skeptical that the Irish government would back down.

The deacon’s suspicions appeared to have been confirmed today by Andrew Kelly, a spokesman for the Department of Justice and Equality, who told LifeSiteNews.com that the “Criminal Justice Bill will apply regardless of any internal rules of any religious grouping.”

The spokesman said that since the “central focus and concern” is “child protection” the legislation must “ensure that allegations of child abuse are reported.”

Today’s statement from the Irish government coincides with statements made in July by Justice Minister Shatter. At that time, Shatter was adamant that the “plan to bring in the new law on withholding information on crimes against children and vulnerable adults will apply regardless of any internal rules of any religious grouping.”

Shatter’s unequivocal position was fully endorsed at the time by Ireland’s prime minister, Enda Kenny, who told reporters that “the law of the land should not be stopped by a crozier or a collar.”

Prime Minister Kenny told reporters at that time that the proposed legislation would contain clauses to jail priests for failing to report information to authorities about minor abuse, and that the legislation would trump the Church’s law prohibiting priests to break the confessional seal.

Today’s statement from the Department of Justice and Equality is also consistent with statements made in July by Frances Fitzgerald, Ireland’s Minister of Children, who ruled out the confessional seal as a case for exemption from the proposed legislation.

“The point is, if there is a law in the land, it has to be followed by everybody. There are no exceptions, there are no exemptions. I’m not concerned, neither is the Government, about the internal laws, the rules governing any body,” she said.

Shatter’s recent statement appears to indicate is not a change in position, but a change in emphasis, at a time when the idea of forcing priests to break the seal of confession is the subject of mounting resistance from Irish priests, cardinals, and even officials from the Vatican.

One priest, Father Brendan Hoban wrote in his column Western People that a priest “cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation against himself, even to save the life of another.” A priest knows, he added that “if they reveal anything they have learned during confession to anyone, even under a threat of their own death or that of others, that they would be automatically excommunicated.”

Another Irish priest, Father Paddy O’Kane from Holy Family Church, Ballymagroarty, declared that he would go to jail before breaking the confessional seal.

“It’s at the very core of what a priest is. Priests cannot function if they’re not allowed to keep the seal of confession. Priests will be prepared to go to jail rather than break the seal.”

The position of these priests is being supported by the Apostolic Penitentiary in Rome, the Vatican body that oversees confessions and indulgences.

In a July statement, Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, said: “Ireland can approve all the laws it wants but it should know the church will never allow itself the obligation to betray the confessional to civil authorities.”

At that time, the bishop called it “absurd” that priests might be forced to “betray” what is said in confession.

An Irish cardinal recently spoke out publicly against the proposed legislation in a homily at the Marian Shrine in Knock, Co Mayo.

Calling confession a “sacred and treasured rite,” Cardinal Seán Brady said at the end of August that “freedom to participate in worship and to enjoy the long established rites of the Church is so fundamental that any intrusion upon it is a challenge to very basis of a free society.”

The Cardinal made it clear that any proposal that “undermines” the inviolability of the seal of confession challenges the “right” of every Catholic to “freedom of religion and conscience.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains that out of “respect for persons,” and because of the “delicacy and greatness” of the ministry of the forgiveness of sins, “every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him.”

“He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents’ lives,” explains the CCC.

The Irish Government approved the draft of the bill June 3rd 2011. The Bill is scheduled to be published for debate and enactment by the Irish Parliament at the end of this October.

This is getting serious. Let us not forget the glorious example of New Zealand priest Fr Francis Douglas – who practiced what he preached, not revealing to his tormentors anything about those whose confessions he heard.

Sep

The Pope in Germany

By Voice in the wilderness Closed

Categories: Being Frank...

Well, the pope has gone home to Germany, but I don’t think this is going to be just any relaxing trip home. From the headlines I have read he has met with Lutherans, sexual abuse victims and Jews among others. Some of what he has said is very profound and very ecumenical. I encourage you to pick one that catches your eye and read what he has to say!

Hitler Was a “Pagan Idol,” Says Pope to Jews in Berlin

Freedom Needs Relationships, Pope Says to Germany

Mistaken Notions of “Dream Church” Cause Discontent

“God Will Judge Us On How We Respond to Our Neighbor”

“This Is Where Luther Was Ordained”

“The Church Feels a Great Closeness to the Jewish People”

From his address to the Lutherans:

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting representatives of Council of the EKD here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. This is where Luther studied theology. This is where he was ordained a priest in 1507. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. On this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For him theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.

“How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make an impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. Insofar as people today believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. But are they really so small, our failings? Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage? Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted? Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation? Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us? I could go on. No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – this burning question of Martin Luther must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

Sep

“You’ll see all your favorite soccer stars. Like Ariaga! Ariaga II! Bariaga! Aruglia! And Pizzoza!

By Methuselah's Beard 2 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I was doing my daily circuit around part of Harmondsworth Moor (proudly sponsored by British Airways) and listening to my ipod when it finally struck me. The lyrics to the chorus in ‘Help Me Rhonda’ were not ‘help me get around in my heart’, or ‘help me get around in my car’, but actually ‘help me get her out of my heart’. I have known about this song for close to 20 years but never realised what was actually being sung until that glorious day on the moor. I guess eventually the words will make sense. Which is how I feel about these new words we have during the Mass. I suppose it is good in that it is actually making me think what I’m saying rather than rattling off the same responses (which I still do to my chagrin). Consubstantial is a tough word for the children though.

I feel a little bit sorry for the 2nd tier teams in the rugby world cup. Is there any fun in turning up knowing you’re going to get punished for 80 minutes, physically and mentally worn down, and just smashed? It’s like sitting through a latin Mass (just kidding. Only just). If the IRB isn’t serious about taking the game worldwide and strengthening the game worldwide, is there any point in having these minnows around? (Besides enabling average rugby players like Simon Culhane the chance to score lots of points). And is the rugby world cup really of any interest seeing there’s really only 3 teams that have a decent chance at winning it. Give me the football world cup any day where at least the result is rarely a foregone conclusion. Turkey finishing 4th? South Korea finishing 3rd? England as champions? You wouldn’t see anything that outlandish at this world cup.

And I admit to being a touch annoyed at reading the Herald this week where various rugby commentators and players were talking about ‘redemption’ while when playing the French. Yes because thrashing the French in a pool game makes up for crashing out in the quarter-finals last time, and also bombing out in 1999. Or was in 2003. Definitely 2007. But yes, beating the French will prove a lot. It will prove we can beat the French. On Eden Park. With 60,000 supporters behind us. Colour me excited.

I see it’s already been covered this week, but how about sex education fracas in the Herald? It’s good to see it getting some light because frankly, it sounds like some of the things being taught to youngsters is a little inappropriate to say the least. Do we have so little faith in the teens that we can’t teach them about abstinence rather than the ins and outs of oral sex? I must say though I like reading the comments section and seeing how misguided some people are. Tee hee.

Sep

“Absolutely null and utterly void”?

By Opthomistic 2 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

The issue of Anglican orders seems to come up every now and then in a variety of situations. Whether it is the case of the former Australian diocesan bishop who demanded that the Church allow Anglican and other protestant ministers to exercise sacramentally to Catholics, or just the case of a friend to genuinely believes that at least High Anglicans have a valid sacramental priesthood and therefore consecrate the Real Presence. I thought I would try to clear the air a bit for everyone, and while I’m there apply what I say to the upcoming Anglican Ordinariate situation.

Firstly, some history. On the 13^th of September 1896, Pope Leo XIII solemnly declared in Apostolicae Curae that Anglican Orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”.

Some people argue that the reasons for this declaration no longer apply, at least to some sections of the Anglican Communion. But here is why this is no so.

There are three things we need for valid sacramental ordination. Without any one of these the whole thing comes tumbling down.

1) Intention (on behalf of the consecrator)

2) Succession (of valid bishops all the way back to the Apostles)

3) Form

Now in the case of some High Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, Oxford Movement Anglicans etc… the intention to consecrate someone a bishop or priest is certainly there in the same sense that the Catholic Church means. No problem there. Although it certainly isn’t there in the majority of the Anglican and other ecclesial communities, many of which explicitly declare that they don’t have priests.

Succession gets a bit more tricky. If Pope Leo XIII is to be referred to, we might take heed to the statement that “…there was no prospect that with the passage of time it [i.e. the Anglican Church and its Ordinal] would become capable of conferring [orders].” The links of succession had been broken over a period of time after the Protestant Reformation. “Aha!” But claims the Anglican Order sympathiser, “We had Old Catholic and Orthodox bishops, who DO have succession and valid orders, participate in the consecration of Anglican bishops.” So it would appear that if these consecrations were valid, then succession would be maintained.

Finally we come to form. There was a period where the form of priestly consecration in the Anglican Ordinal made no reference to essential aspects outlining the understanding of the priesthood. It wasn’t valid because of this, Pope Leo told us. This was the major issue. But again, it is claimed this has been corrected, and that we should now accept that the words are the correct ones, so the orders should be valid.

BUT form is more than just the sounds and letters that make up the words. Here we approach the issue that we might call “intentional form”. The intention of the primary author of the Anglican Ordinal, determines the meaning of certain words. It makes the difference between a dog “bark” and tree “bark”, a valid form and an invalid form. The primary author is the Anglican Communion, which means until the whole Anglican Communion agrees with the Catholic understanding of the nature of the priesthood, the Eucharist etc… they cannot author a valid form.

This would be practically impossible, knowing the situation of the Anglican Communion.

Without valid “intentional form”, the Anglican Ordinal doesn’t have valid form. Without a valid form, intention doesn’t matter, Anglican orders would not be valid. Depending on which ordinal the Orthodox bishops use in “fixing” the break in succession, those consecrecations may, or may not, be valid, and certainly any subsequent consecrations with the Anglican Ordinal would fail to maintain the apostolic succession. And no valid sacramental priesthood, no Real Presence…

A group that has severed ties with the Anglican Communion, such as the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) could, in theory: author a valid form, get ordained by some Orthodox bishops (with a valid form) [maybe not necessarily in this order], and then thus have valid orders. In this case, Cardinal Willebrands points out,

“the Roman Catholic Church would acknowledge the possibility that in the context of such a profession of faith the text of the Ordinal might no longer retain that “nativa indoles” which was at the basis of Pope Leo’s judgment”.

But they are joining the Catholic Church anyway, and getting ordained on the way in. But theoretically they could have ended up being Anglicans with orders.

In summary. The authorship determines (3) to remain defective, without (3), (1) doesn’t matter and (2) exhausts itself pretty quickly. Fix authorship by changing author’s mind or cut yourself off from the author.

I’ve drastically cut down on details, in order that this doesn’t creep into “too long didn’t read” territory. I may have failed in that too. Anyway more details are around, but I think I have summarised the main points.

Sep

I Vow to Thee My Country

By Inkling Closed

Categories: Being Frank...

Earlier this week, I found myself humming along to the tune of ‘Our World in Union’. And, as often seems to happen, my mother came around the corner humming the very same tune. “I love that tune” I told her. “So do I” she said, “It’s one of my favourites. But I can’t understand why I’ve been humming it”. “What do you mean?” I said, “it’s the rugby world cup song.” “Ah – but it’s also a hymn” she said – and sang it. As it turned out, she’d been humming the hymn ‘I Vow to Thee My Country’ – a hymn she hadn’t heard in years, and from which, as we realised, ‘The World in Union’ takes its tune.

We spent a few minutes lamenting the use of beautiful hymn music for other means, then went on our ways, still humming.

However, upon further research I discovered that, though most commonly known as a remembrance day hymn, (and an Anglican one at that), the tune originally comes from a composition by Gustav Holst called ‘Thaxted’, named after the English town he lived in for most of his life – a testament to the ability of the things we hold most dear to inspire in us truly great creativity. This also forms the middle section of Holst’s ‘Jupiter’ from The Planets Suite. The words of ‘I Vow to Thee..” are a poem by Cecil Spring-Rice, written in 1908 while in Stockholm, about the loyalties a Christian owes to both his earthly and Heavenly homelands. It appeared as a hymn in 1926 version of ‘Songs of Praise’, put together by Ralph Vaughn Williams (a close friend of Holst). Holst was commissioned to put music to the words, and, being overworked and worn out at the time, he was reportedly very glad that the melody from ‘Jupiter’ fit the words almost perfectly.

To me, it is the bringing together of words and melody that are in every way perfect for one another.

Since then, it has been a common feature of Remembrance Day services and other occasions, such as the funeral of Princess Diana (reportedly one of her favourites). It has raised opposition amongst Anglican preachers from time to time for ‘glorifying war’ – but, as a BBC journalist wrote, it really does nothing of the sort. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4429278.stm

I thought it was a shame that such a beautiful hymn had been stripped of its words for a sporting event – and even though it is, in my opinion, one of the most stirring theme songs of all sporting tournaments the world over, I still can’t help but feel that there’s a sacredness to the words and the music that perhaps shouldn’t be taken as lightly as it is; words and music brought together that couldn’t be more perfect for each other, that each generate greater meaning in the other; words and music that perhaps shouldn’t be torn asunder.

I Vow to Thee My Country

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,

Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;

The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,

That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;

The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,

The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

I heard my country calling, away across the sea,

Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.

Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,

And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.

I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns,

I haste to thee my mother, a son among thy sons.

And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago,

Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;

We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;

Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;

And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,

And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

Sep

Consecrated Hands?

By Marty Rethul 4 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

One of the sillier arguments I’ve heard recently (and I’ve heard a few), runs a little like this:

‘We can’t have a go at our priests about stuff, nor should we allow others to, because priests have got consecrated hands.’

Now I will happily defend the dignity of the priesthood and its sacramental ordering till the cows come home. Without priests we cannot have the Mass, and all that flows from it – adoration, benediction et alia. Without priests we cannot have our confessions heard and sins absolved. Don’t worry, I’m a card-carrying-priest-fan from way back.

Priests stand in the person of Christ, and are imbued with the permanent sacramental mark and dignity of the ministerial priesthood. As such, they deserve our respect.

But when my acquaintance told me that we ought not criticise priests because of their consecrated hands (we know what he means), I almost laughed. What if those same consecrated hands had abused him as a youth? What if those same consecrated hands abuse Our Lord during the Mass? What if those same consecrated hands have penned works contrary to, or denying, the faith? What if those same consecrated hands have been held up in denial of the legitimate rights and aspirations of the faithful?

Priests are not above criticism; in fact, given their vocation is one of the most important on earth, it is more than usually incumbent upon them to ensure that they do their best in everything.

That’s the way I see it; that’s the way I’m going to call it.