NEWS ABOUT THE CHURCH & THE VATICAN

I e-mailed the above translation of Sandro Magister's blog to Amy Wellborn, who obligingly used it in her blog Open Book yesterday, which in turn drew this comment from Gerald Augustinus on his blog at closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/
after reproducing the quotes lifted from Concilium and their attribution:

---

Well, isn't that special. That magazine was founded by, among others, Rahner and Kueng. Schillebeeckx is listed as Borgman's teacher (whose "orthodoxy was called into question by the Congregation for Faith, and he had to come to Rome to explain his views. Schillebeeckx was accused of denying the Resurrection of Christ as an objective fact of faith."). Those three hombres were very influential at Vatican II.

Thankfully, the peritus of Vatican II with any major role left in the Church is a certain Joseph Ratzinger.

---

Yes, Teresa, why the West continues with its slow suicide is a mystery. The reasons can perhaps be gathered from Western history, but it still doesn't REALLY explain ( to me) the NEED to be so politically correct that you keep on playing Russian roulette.

We can only pray that, as that sainted Benedict of the first millenium saved Europe for Christianity and thereby, Western civilization, as we knew it, our Benedict of the third millenium will, in his own way, succeed in helping to save Europe and the West - before it is too late - from this willfully 'intellectual' death wish and suicide by self-loathing (otherwise known as 'political correctness'). Toppling Communism was an easy task compared to this! It is easier to fight an enemy without than to fight the enemies within who corrode the very fabric of the civilization that produced them.

How to explain the disgusting but genuinely tragic spectacle of self-styled intellectuals gone stark,raving mad as to offer themselves eagerly (and the rest of the Western world, gratuitously) to be trampled on and overrun by irrational forces of hate and violence? Sheer arrogance, overweening pride and egoism, the conviction that they and only they are capable of thinking right - all that self-importance, to the disregard of everything else, blinds them to the obvious stupidity of the positions they have taken!

Remember that Movement for the Defense of Western Civilization that Marcello Pera discussed with the Pope recently? It should be propagated and developed overnight into the Crusade of the third millenium - to regain the 'holy land' of Europe and of Western civilization as shaped by 2000 years of Christianity.

Forgive the rant, and I don't mean to be pompous, but ordinary individuals of common sense sometimes cannot get to be heard in a raucous world of instant communications populated by influential voices of unreason.

Thank God the voice of the Pope is more influential than any other single voice on the planet today. The survival of Western civilization may well depend on how well that voice is heard.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/03/2006 15.08]

John Allen's Word from Rome of 3/17/06
www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/
has much information to offer on the state of the Church around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Rome offered a sounding board for "upside down" Catholicism last week, during a conference at the Urban University sponsored by the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. The theme was the 40th anniversary of Ad Gentes, the document of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) on missionary activity.

Europe

The malaise of Catholicism in the North, especially in Europe, hung over the event. Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne, still flush with the triumph of last August's World Youth Day, nevertheless conceded the difficulties.

"We've never had as much money as in the last 40 years, and we've never lost the substance of the faith as much as in the last 40 years," he said. "In the Cologne archdiocese, there are 2.8 million Catholics, but in the last 30 years we've lost 300,000. For every one baptism, there are three funerals."

"We're grateful for any help we can get from the outside," Meisner said.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Asia

Prelates from the developing world radiated confidence about a looming "southern moment" in global Catholicism.

"There is a new self-consciousness about the church in the South, a confidence that it can stand on its own feet, reflect for itself, and influence the direction of the church's pastoral initiatives," said Archbishop Oswald Gracias of Agra, India, in a March 10 interview with NCR.

In March, Gracias was elected president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India, the body for bishops of the 119 Latin Rite dioceses and administrations in India. Excerpts from our interview follow:

NCR: Since two-thirds of the Catholics in the world today live in the south, inevitably intellectual and pastoral energy, as well as leadership, will come more and more from the south. How will that change Catholicism?
Archbishop Oswald Gracias: For one thing, [it will mean] greater inculturation. The faith must be expressed in the various cultures of the world, and it's so important that this be done maturely, responsibly, reflectively, on a theologically sound basis. …

I believe the West has got to learn to respond to the signs of the times. Change and adaptation is necessary, and maybe the churches of the South, especially in Asia, can offer an example. Today, we try to be open to the Spirit with self-confidence, believing that inculturation is not going to take the church to the ruins.

I would also say the South has something to teach about inter-religious dialogue. In Asia, we're compelled to do it. The West may not always have felt it was imperative, but for us it's a question of survival. It's not a strategy. …

The West has got to start learning from Asia about how to deal with a multi-cultural, multi-religious situation. … In Europe, people are now beginning to feel, all of a sudden, that Europe may not always be predominantly Christian. They have to start now learning how to cope. You can't be insular, and at the same time you can't compromise on principles. The key question is, how do we live together in a secular world for everyone's good?

You've talked about the need for simplicity in lifestyles and in facilities. Imposing edifices, you've said, can alienate us from the poor.
I have to say, though, that even for those of us in Asia, this is a problem. We've got to become simpler ourselves. In India, we have lots of big edifices, in the form of churches, office buildings, parish houses, and so on. Today it's a little embarrassing. When we construct our places today, we're very conscious of that. Also our dress habits, food habits, our manner of travel, all should be as simple as possible. In that sense, it's already simpler in India than here [in Europe], because our culture is that way.

You mentioned a "theologically sound" inculturation. In recent years, however, Asian theology has been criticized for allegedly going too far, such as treating Christ as one savior among others.
That might reflect the thinking of some theologians, even if it's exaggerated. It comes from the effort to present Jesus Christ to the multi-cultural, pluralistic situation in which we find ourselves. There are so many elements that have to be considered. How do we understand the salvific will of God, that all may be saved? What is the unique mediation of Jesus Christ? The reality is that after 2,000 years of missionary work, Christianity is still just 2.6 percent of the population of Asia. What is the prognosis for Christianity in Asia? That's the background.

Do you think the idea that Christ is a savior alongside Krishna or Buddha is one that many Asia Catholics would endorse?
Absolutely not. No Catholic would hold that, and no serious theologian would hold that either. This is not something with which the average Indian Catholic is wrestling.

Has failure to appreciate the cultural background sometimes influenced Vatican reactions to Asian theologies, such as that of Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis?
… Writers such as Dupuis try to present Christ in light of the reality they see, then do the theological reflection. In doing that, sometimes they cross a line. Dupuis was a little bit avant garde, even though he was a great thinker, sincere, and loyal to the church. I knew him personally. We bishops discussed his case so many times.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a notification in January 2001 lauding Dupuis for raising new questions but identifying "ambiguities" in his work. Did you find that action helpful?
When I look back now, I can see that the effects have been positive. It gave an impulse to theologians to continue their work, but warned them that there are limits beyond which you cannot go. As a Catholic theologian, you can't reflect without any context.

Are the issues of sexual morality so divisive in the West -- such as homosexuality -- equally controversial in your part of the world?
Absolutely not. For example, when the Vatican's document on admitting homosexuals to seminaries came out, for us it was totally irrelevant. … In our society, this is not really an issue. We would take [the content of the document] for granted. For Hindus and Muslims, homosexuality is taboo, so most Asians feel this way. If you asked the average Catholic in India, 99.9 percent wouldn't even know a document on the subject had come out, because no one talked about it. …

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Koreas

Cardinal-designate Nicholas Cheong Jin-Suk of Seoul, South Korea, is also the apostolic administrator of P'yong-yang in North Korea, and he spoke about the situation at the Ad Gentes conference.

According to the North Korean government, there are 13,000 Christians in the country, with only 800 Catholics. Unofficial estimates, however, put the Catholic population closer to 4,000. There is only one Catholic church in P'yong-yang, and it has no priest.

"In the North, persecution of the church has continued since 1948," Cheong said. "No priest has survived. No visible sign of the church really exists there."

Over the last 10 years the Seoul archdiocese has donated $11.6 million to the North, he said, "one of the largest efforts by any single NGO." Cheong said the Holy See has also been able to get aid to the North through special envoys.

He called for the church to prepare for an "eventual opening" in both North Korea and China.

"Divine providence can break down apparently impossible situations," he said.

Cheong also announced that the South Korean bishops have launched a "20/20" initiative, aimed at bringing the Catholic percentage of the South Korean population from 9.3 percent, or 4.5 million, to twenty percent by 2020.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/03/2006 15.23]

In www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=86184,
Cardinal Poupard explains the nexus between religion and culture as the logic behind some recent moves by the Pope.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Christ and Religions, According to Cardinal Poupard
New President of Council for Interreligious Dialogue

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Paul Poupard, who has been president of the Pontifical Council for Culture since 1982, now wears a second hat.

Benedict XVI recently named the 75-year-old cardinal him president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

That additional appointment, according to the note of the Vatican press office, is in response to the desire "to foster more intense dialogue between the men of culture and distinguished members of different religions." Cardinal Poupard shared with perspective on the change with ZENIT.

Your Eminence, could you explain the relationship between inter-religious dialogue and intercultural dialogue?
"Inter-religious and intercultural dialogue is a vital necessity for today's world," the Pope said in Cologne, when receiving representatives of the Muslim community, in the framework of WYD [World Youth Day]. For those who are very familiar with Benedict XVI's thought, this choice is logical.

In fact, when one speaks of interreligious dialogue, one often thinks of a reflection of a doctrinal nature on common religious topics, such as the idea of God, sin, salvation, etc.

However, this doctrinal dialogue calls for a common foundation, and this is not always the case with other religions. For a Buddhist, for example, God is not a person; for others, salvation consists in the dissolution of the "I," while for a Christian it is always the salvation of his own person. Thus dialogue is very difficult.

Doctrinal dialogue is meaningful among Christians of various confessions with whom we share faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, with believers of other religions dialogue is always possible on the basis of culture.

This is the intuition that is the foundation of the Pontifical Council for Culture: Culture is a common terrain in which believers and nonbelievers or believers of diverse religions can dialogue. The common topic that unites us, John Paul II said in UNESCO, is man; about whom we certainly can dialogue.

Pope Benedict XVI therefore wishes to lead the dialogue with believers of other religions to the terrain of culture and of relations between cultures.

The culture of the People of God, which exceeds national, linguistic, regional, etc., limits, enters into dialogue with other cultures, vitally permeated by other religions. In this dialogue there is mutual enrichment, and the Gospel, incarnated in a concrete culture, can heal and fertilize new cultural expressions.

In keeping with what was explained earlier, what are the answers Christianity can give on this topic?
Jesus Christ is the answer, the definitive answer, to man's important questions. The [Second Vatican] Council said it with very beautiful words: "Only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light."

However, this message does not fall directly from heaven. It comes through very specific men and women, with a concrete history and culture, who engage in communication with other religions.

In the Christian way of living, there are essential and accessory elements. The former are immutable, while the latter are contingent. Among these essential elements, which have found their philosophical and theological expression, is the concept of the person, in the image of the Trinity, the idea of communion, of subject, the principle of freedom and responsibility, the survival of the "I" after death, solidarity among men, common dignity, etc. These are the values that can be, that must be shared with believers of other religions in the measure that is possible.

We can also receive much from believers of other religions -- not in regard to the content of the faith, of course, as the fullness of revelation is found in Jesus Christ, but in the way of living it.

The work you wrote in 1983, "Dictionary of Religions," is an obligatory study text in the history of religions. Do you think it will be helpful to you in your new post?

Indeed! To direct the elaboration of this dictionary was a great intellectual venture and publishing enterprise.

As coordinator, I had to read all the articles being sent by authors who had a say on the matter, among whom were the best specialists.

All that gave me a general picture on religions in the world and, in addition, a more profound understanding of the religious event in man.

Something of this I have written in another little book, "Les Religions," published in the well-known collection "Que sais-je?", translated into more than 10 languages, among which are Russian, Turkish, Vietnamese and recently Chinese, published by a publishing house in Beijing.

In the heart of every culture is found an approach to the mystery of God and man. There is no culture that is not essentially religious. The sole exception to this universal rule seems to be the present Western culture, as Pope Benedict XVI frequently points out and, already before, as Cardinal Ratzinger did.

In 1992 you went through a similar process to the present one when Pope John Paul II fused the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Secretariat for Nonbelievers. What is the difference on this occasion?
In fact, there are similarities, but also differences. As you know, it was John Paul II who called me to preside over the Secretariat for Nonbelievers in June 1980, with the intention of studying the creation of the Pontifical Council for Culture, which took place in 1982, and of which he also appointed me president.

From 1982 to 1993, I was president of the two dicasteries, which, however, kept their respective autonomy, exactly as is now the case.

In 1992, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disappearance of Communist regimes in Europe, it did not seem to make sense to maintain the Secretariat for Nonbelievers -- which in the meantime had been transformed into the Pontifical Council for Dialogue with Nonbelievers -- and thus, on March 25, 1993, the Pope decided to forge the two dicasteries into one, retaining the competencies of both.

Do you think that with this step the Pope hopes to reduce two Vatican dicasteries to one?
We don't know that. What is important, in any case, is not the structures but the spirit that animates them. The structures of the Roman Curia are only means to help the Pope carry out his mission as universal Shepherd.

What is clear is that there will have to be a greater collaboration between the two dicasteries which the Pope has requested me to preside over "for the time being."

The Boston Globe today, 3/19/06, ran a lengthy interview done Wednesday by its religious reporter Michael Paulson with the Archbishop of Boston, Sean O'Malley, who will become a cardinal on Friday at Benedict XVI's first consistory. He was nmaed Archbishop of Boston in July 2003, replacing Cardinal Bernard Law who was forced to resign over the sexual-abuse scandals involving priests in the Archdiocese.

The full transcript of the interview is on
www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/19/omalley_transcript/?p...
Here are some of the most interesting parts:
----------------------------------------------------------------

SOME PERSONAL QUESTIONS

Q: … Tell me, first of all, what kind of changes you anticipate for yourself personally and for the archdiocese as a result of your becoming a cardinal.
A: Well, it's new, so it's hard for me to forecast. I suppose that the Holy Father will appoint me to some commissions that will necessitate attending meetings occasionally. The Holy Father has talked about using the College of Cardinals as a sort of senate, and he has scheduled a meeting with us next week where we'll spend the whole day just bringing up issues with him. I'm not sure whether that's going to be something that he does on a periodic basis or whether he's just taking advantage of the presence of the cardinals in Rome. I mean, his pontificate is a little too new to know exactly how he will use the cardinals. I'm hoping that the Holy See will recognize the fact that Boston is a large archdiocese with many challenges and will not give me so many assignments that it will distract from my principal mission, which is to be the archbishop of Boston.

Q: Do you have any input into which particular congregations you get assigned to?
A: I don't know. Maybe after next week, I may be able to answer some of these questions better. Obviously, I know Latin America very well. The Holy See has sent me there on many missions over the last few years. The last time, they sent me to Cuba to visit the seminaries. There is a commission on Latin America, maybe I'd be put on that, but it's hard to forecast. Actually, the Holy Father is restructuring a lot of the curia, and may be putting some of these commissions together and reducing the number of offices. So they might wait until that is done before they begin to assign committees to the cardinals.

Q: And how do you expect it will change the way you interact with other church officials or just laypeople and priests here in Boston?
A: In Boston, I don't think it will have a great impact. Ever since I came here, people have been saying 'Your Eminence,' they're so used to having a cardinal-archbishop. But, certainly, being a cardinal does involve you in the more international life of the church. And so, I will probably have more contact with bishops and cardinals from other parts of the world, and they will probably visit Boston now because there's a cardinal here. But as I say, at this point, it's all so new to me, and it's difficult for me to assess exactly what those changes will be. Within our own bishops' conference, the structure doesn't allow for the cardinals to have any special role, but the American cardinals do get together before meetings on occasions.

Q: You mentioned the title, 'Your Eminence,' and I know you're a Capuchin friar. You've placed this big emphasis on humility and working with the poor, and at the same time, you'll now have these very elaborate vestments and this lofty title and certain privileges. And I wonder how you reconcile being on the one hand a prince of the church, and on the other hand a Franciscan.
A: Well, it's an anomaly that you accept because you want to be available for the mission of the church. We have the vow of obedience, and I took as my motto 'Do Whatever He Tells You -- Quodcumque Dixerit Facite,' which are the last words of the blessed mother in the Bible. But I don't like the hoopla and will try to avoid as much of it as I can without --I don't want to not recognize the dignity of this honor and the office and what it means for Catholics, and so, when in proper times I have to wear certain liturgical vestments, I will certainly do that. I've always tried to observe what the church expects of us, but my preference is to try and maintain a simple lifestyle. Obviously, I am no longer living in a Capuchin monastery, but I try to live the spirit of our rule and constitutions the best that I can. The church does expect religious bishops to do that. We still don't have any personal property as religious bishops. And...it is an anomaly. We have many bishops in the order, but most of them are in the missions. I have a classmate in Papua New Guinea and another who is bishop in Bluefields, Nicaragua. And, well, I started off in the West Indies, so that's sort of the usual. If they're going to make us a bishop, it's usually in mission countries.

ON DISSENT WITHIN THE CHURCH

Q: With so much disagreement within the church today, and I suppose within the society at large, what is the proper place, in your view, for disagreement within Catholicism?
A: Well, I'm often disappointed by the intensity or the, how shall I say, the rhetoric. I certainly think that there needs to be dialogue and we need to listen to each other. But sometimes people have extremes, as the French say, 'Les extrêmes se touchent.' They use the same type of Saul Alinksy methodology, which in the church I don't think is appropriate. I think that very often people disagree with the church (and ) they're very quick to misrepresent what the church is doing or saying, and are very quick to impute the very worst motives to people. I certainly wish that there was a little more charity in the discourse of people who disagree. I try not to treat people that way.

Q: Is there a place in the church for those who place their faith in Jesus but disagree with teachings about sexuality or even abortion?
A: Well, certainly we don't want to drive people out of the church, but we do want to bring people closer to the truth that is proclaimed in the church, particularly around these issues, which are very important. The church cannot allow itself to be assimilated into the secular culture around us, and sometimes I think that some of our Catholics have been so influenced by their culture, and then are upset when the church doesn't follow the same path of assimilation, rather than one of giving prophetic witness to a different message, that is the message of the Gospel. I understand the forces that are out there shaping people. And, of course, for the longest time, the church taught from a basis of authority with people, and, with great simplicity and faith, accepted. And in today's world, we need to use more persuasion and apologetics, as we used to call it when I was in seminary, and explanation. But faith cannot always be reduced to some syllogism. And we do believe that there are givens, as revelation that has come to us, and that it's our responsibility to embrace that and to teach it. And hopefully to witness to it, and, if we lead good lives, that helps to make our message more cogent, even to those who disagree.

Q: I guess this gets to this question that has somewhat surrounded this papacy so far, which is whether the church would be better off as a smaller, purer institution or whether it's some kind of big tent.
A: (Laughter). Well, there's over a billion of us in the tent. It's pretty big. I used to hear that Pope John Paul (II) was more big tent and Cardinal (Joseph) Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) was more the faithful remnant, but I don't see that in his writings and the teaching. The church's mission is to try and proclaim the Gospel to the whole world. And certainly there are many who will point to Constantine and say, well, before the church became so official, when they were in the catacombs, then that was the real Christianity. And then they became state religions, official religions, and became very worldly. And there's a certain amount of truth to the danger of the church becoming too involved in worldly things, and losing sight of our basic mission. But I like to think that, if we are faithful to teaching our mission, and try and teach it in a persuasive and a cogent way and challenge people to live a life of holiness, that it will make our message more credible. And one of the greatest tragedies of the sexual abuse crisis is that it undermines our capacity to teach the hard points of the Gospel.

DEALING WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE CRISIS

Q: When you arrived here, obviously the abuse crisis overshadowed everything about this archdiocese. How do you think the archdiocese is doing at moving forward on that front, and particularly, how do you think you're doing dealing first with victims, and then with accused priests?
A: Well, it certainly has been the largest issue, I think, in the life of the history of the church in Boston. And certainly, when I arrived, I tried to look for creative ways to come to a settlement with all of the survivors, the victims. And the sale of the bishop's house and his property was the vehicle by which we were able to do that. And the archdiocese is committed to try to do what we can to make our archdiocese as safe as possible. I've committed to continue the annual audits voluntarily, even though it's not being imposed by the bishops' conference, in order to be able to identify areas that we do want to improve in. We're also just finishing a two-year review that our oversight committee has done for us, and they've helped us to identify areas where we need to give attention to. And once again, the help of so many dedicated laypeople who have come to the church in our time of need, and freely given of their talent and their expertise, has been very, very helpful. I dare say that I don't think there's any other institution in the Commonwealth that has done as much to re-guarantee the safety of children as the Catholic Church has done. And we still have a long way to go, but certainly the thousands and thousands of CORI checks and sex abuse training of our volunteers, and the training of the children has been a monumental task, carrying this out at the same time that our resources have been so limited. We are committed to the ongoing psychological counselling and the ongoing training and screening that is essential for the safety of children.

Q: And in terms of the relationship with victims and the processing of complaints against priests, how do you assess where you are on those two fronts?
A: Well, I think the Office of Outreach is doing a wonderful job. I was meeting with victims again today. That's been ongoing, but their work has been exceptional. And right now we're looking for ways to be able to respond to some of the spiritual and religious needs of the survivors and their families. And we've gotten some help from Boston College, is actually giving us a psychology professor for a year on sabbatical to work with the office and to develop more programs along those lines. And I think that's a very positive development. But I think the ongoing reviews have uncovered a number of areas that we need to work on and that we will address. Certainly, our ability to deal with the accusations in a timely fashion has been very difficult. I think that's improved. We still have a way to go, but a lot of resources, both human and material, have been brought to bear on this whole area, and it certainly has been a priority and will continue to be, because we see the need for healing is going to be around. And so the diocese needs to continue to work in this area.

ON ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES

Q: Currently, there's this controversy over the Catholic Charities decision to get out of the adoption business. I wonder, do you personally agree with the Vatican's position that adoption by same sex couples is doing violence to children?A: Well, it's a very tragic moment for us to have to step away from adoptions, since that has been such a characteristic Catholic Charities type of activity, and one that has been in many ways the centerpiece of our Catholic Charities programs throughout the United States. But I understand the Holy See's concern that in our works of mercy, in our social programs, that we must be consistent in teaching the Catholic faith in one voice. And certainly the church's teaching on marriage is very central to our beliefs and how we see that the institution of marriage in today's world is very much threatened on many fronts, and yet it is the very cornerstone of society. And the best way for a child to be raised is to be conceived and nurtured and raised by committed, loving parents in a marriage. And so, for the church, in our social service activities and other works of mercy, we need to be consistent. And it was your newspaper that pointed out the anomaly to us, and we have tried to deal with that.

On the other hand, it's always difficult when people look at Catholic teaching on the periphery, and don't see that the core of our teaching is the love of God above all else, and the love of our neighbor as ourselves. And I was very pleased that the Holy Father's first encyclical is 'Deus caritas est,' that God is love. And I know that many people would cast our actions as mean-spirited or to denigrate people. But it is our desire to be faithful to that love that is the very core and reason for our church and our religion, that we must love God, obey his commandments, and try and create a civilization of love. And in our highly secularized, individualistic world, I know that that message doesn't come across too clearly. But we will try to do our best to communicate it in the most clear way that we can.

Q: Why not make a kind of prudential judgment that the good done by placing a large number of children with traditional families outweighs the harm done by placing a small number with nontraditional families?
A: Well, particularly at a time when the marriage is threatened, it's very important that the church's teaching on the institution of marriage be reflected in our works of mercy and our social services.

Q: I'm curious whether, if you did disagree with the Vatican's position on this, is there any way for you to express that, either to Rome or to the public? Or is it simply not possible for a bishop to disagree on matters like this with teachings from Rome?
A: Well, I think this is a very clear teaching. And it's not one that would admit of dissent in the church.

ON THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRANTS

Q: You alluded earlier to Cardinal Mahony's comments on Ash Wednesday about immigration. He talked about rising anti-immigration sentiment and said he would urge priests to civil disobedience if Congress passed a law asking churches to get documentation from immigrants. What do you make of that, and would you take a similar stance?
A: The outrageous legislation that's in the House right now is something that we could never follow. I mean, my hope is that the Senate will be able to... Certainly everybody's concerned about security, and our borders are very porous, but the human problem of 11 million people living in our community, working in our community, is a very real one they can not - that needs to be dealt with. So, besides worrying about security at the borders, which is very important, a guest worker program is in order, but also some sort of a legalization program for the people who are already incorporated in this community and are not going to be deported. We cannot deport 11 million people, and it is outrageous to expect that the church or private organizations are going to act as some sort of vigilantes to identify undocumented workers. I mean, it's just not going to happen.

Q: When you say it's not going to happen, you mean you will not let it happen here in Boston?
A: No. I certainly - I think that would be outrageous.


ABOUT HIS PREDECESSOR

Q: Does Cardinal Law advise you on personnel appointments or other administrative matters in the archdiocese?
A: Cardinal Law is no longer the archbishop of Boston, just as I am no longer the bishop of Fall River, Palm Beach or the Virgin Islands. When a bishop leaves a diocese, he leaves. I have gone back to have a Mass, something like that, at the invitation of that bishop. But when you leave a diocese, you leave. And Cardinal Law has left Boston. And he has left. And that is the practice of a bishop.

Q. Did Cardinal Law ever advise you?
A. Never.

Q: I understand that as part of the consistory, you'll be expected to exchange a kiss of peace with Cardinal Law. How would you have people understand that moment, given that he remains a fairly controversial figure here in town?
A: Well, I'm not that acquainted with the ceremony myself. I don't know whether it's like a Mass where you greet the people that are next to you, or whether every cardinal greets every other cardinal. And certainly I understand that there are people who are angry and upset because of things that transpired in the archdiocese that resulted in Cardinal Law's tendering his resignation. I would hope that people are not focused on that during this ceremony. Cardinal Law is no longer the archbishop of Boston. I am. And at Mass, we give the peace to everybody around us, and at the ceremony we will follow whatever the ritual is, as a sign of peace.

Opportunely, Sandro Magister has come out today in www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6962&eng=y with a piece about Archbishop Piero Marini and his performance as master of liturgical ceremonies at the Vatican. The article does not make refrence to an interview Marini made with an online news service, affaritaliani.it, yesterday [item posted in POPE-POURRI] in which Marini talks of how he is working with Pope Benedict XVI on a review of teh Papal liturgy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

New Liturgies:
Bishop Piero Marini doesn´t like TV
He´s the powerful director of papal ceremonies.
Some people criticize his work but, in an article
in "La Civiltà Cattolica," he blames the medium of television

by Sandro Magister

ROMA – He has been called "the liturgist of the century." But Bishop Piero Marini isn´t at all satisfied with the things of which he is master: the pontifical liturgical celebrations.

The direction of these celebrations is all his, and he´s proud of it. But there´s another directorship that escapes him: that of television. And since papal liturgies are seen much more widely on TV than in person, he thinks the problem is serious.

Marini aired his complaints in the latest issue of La Civiltà Cattolica, in an article written by Jesuit Father Virgilio Fantuzzi, a great expert in cinema, radio and television. Before its printing, the article was read and authorized by the Vatican Secretariat of State, as is done with all articles in the magazine.

The master of pontifical celebrations defines his work as "liturgical direction with which television production is obliged to put itself in harmony."

But this doesn´t always happen, observes La Civiltà Cattolica:

"Some inconveniences have long been identified and corrected; others still persist. During Masses transmitted on television from the Vatican at one time in the past, for example, the camera´s attention at the moment of the consecration would inevitably fall on the Swiss Guard in full uniform bending his knee to the ground with halberd in hand. That no longer happens. Someone explained to the television crew that it isn´t right at the celebration´s central moment to pull attention away from what the celebrant is doing in order to concentrate on a detail that, while very interesting from the standpoint of color, is of little importance on the level of overall significance. It was something easy to understand, and in the end it was understood."

The sound track has provided some of the worst problems:

"Commentary and ´filler´ services are spread more and more throughout the course of television transmissions dedicated to the pope´s celebrations. The singing of the Gloria and the Credo, and the Eucharistic prayer barely escape this. One is unable to hear a single note of the offertory and communion hymns. A transmission that - assuming it is done skillfully - could otherwise communicate high-intensity aesthetic and religious emotions, is thus reduced to the level not of journalistically correct programming but of entertainment that attaches itself parasitically to a liturgical event presided over by the pontiff."

Reading the article, one would think that blame belongs only to television with its "insatiable search for an audience." - "A certain slovenliness, a little bit of chat thrown in haphazardly, an aimless wandering of the camera suspended in midair": all to solicit a public with an undiscerning taste.

But what about the liturgical direction? Not a line of self-criticism, not a single doubt. Yet this is one of the most controversial points of the entire post-conciliar period.

In a preceding article by Fantuzzi in La Civiltà Cattolica (1999, III, pp. 168-180, "Celebrazioni liturgiche pontificie, radio e tv"), Bishop Marini said:

"In the old liturgy, in use before the Second Vatican Council, the role of the master of ceremonies consisted in applying a series of rigid norms which could not be changed. Today one cannot organize a celebration without first having thought: who is celebrating, what is being celebrated, where is it being celebrated. The celebration is the point toward which converge diverse and reciprocally coordinated elements under the guide of that spirit of adaptation that is the soul of post-conciliar reform. Thus it´s a matter of foreseeing and planning the celebration with a view toward the result one wants to obtain. For example, one can´t think of a liturgical action without taking account of the space in which it will take place, the hymns that will be performed. Everything that is thought out and predisposed in view of a celebration can be considered real and proper direction. One finds oneself acting, in a certain way, upon a stage. Liturgy is also a show."

And the most successful "shows," those that have more than a billion spectators throughout the world via satellite, are precisely the papal liturgies, whether in Rome or other places in the world. In a June 20 interview with John L. Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, Marini emphasized that "the papal liturgy has always been a point of reference for the entire Church."

And Allen notes that, in effect, "more people have watched Masses planned by Marini than by any other liturgist in the world, which gives him enormous power to shape the public idea of what Catholic worship is all about".

Marini, 61, began as the personal secretary of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the main architect of the post-conciliar liturgical reform before his fall from grace in 1975. Since 1987, Marini has been the unrivaled master of papal liturgical ceremonies, the man who appears at the pope´s side in every celebration.

The criteria of his work, he says, are two: "a work of cleaning of the encrustations that were superimposed over the centuries," and "inculturation."

Regarding the cleaning, however, some argue that he has also eliminated authentic treasures such as Gregorian chant and polyphony. By his decision, the Capella Sistina choir has been reduced to a shadow of its former glory. Today choirs from other countries and improvised choirs - ready to donate even large sums to appear on TV - accompany the papal liturgies. In the Vatican, the strongest critic of this liturgical-musical metamorphosis is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Regarding "inculturation," Marini´s goal is to "open the liturgy to the new peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia," taking from their traditions "music, language, and physical movement."

It´s a fact that on numerous occasions Marini´s choices have been criticized. Especially when he has introduced rites of pagan origin into papal ceremonies. Even the unprecedented ritual at the opening of the holy door for the last jubilee - with Asian dancers around the pope robed in brilliant colors - was an object of criticism.

Yet that ceremony was one of the few more successful efforts at integrating liturgical direction and that of television. At least that time Marini couldn´t put the blame on television.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Father Fantuzzi's current article in La Civilta Cattolica is not (yet?) available online, but Magister gives us the link to a 2003 article he wrote in the same magazine on "Papal liturgy, radio and television" -
www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7703
It is available only in Italian.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 21/03/2006 17.32]

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 21, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The Pontifical Council for Culture will hold a plenary assembly March 27-29, dedicated to "beauty as a way of evangelization and dialogue."

According to a communiqué of this Vatican dicastery, the theme of the meeting was decided at the end of the previous plenary assembly, held in 2004.

"Together with the traditional proofs of the existence of God," the statement said, "… in recent times 'beauty' has been affirmed as a way to reach God, Supreme Beauty, and to transmit something of God’s life to men, both through the fascination of nature as well as artistic creation."

The members and consultors of the pontifical council will focus on three beauties: "the beauty of nature, the beauty of art [and] the beauty of Christian holiness," the statement said.

The council said it will also analyze "the threats of a new secularism and of religious indifference; the illusion of beauty in sects and new religious movements; the contemplation of creation and the new debates on evolution and the safeguarding of nature; the use of the Christian artistic heritage for a new evangelization; the beauty of the liturgy and, finally, holiness."

VATICAN CITY, MAR 21, 2006 (VIS) - On Friday, March 24, Benedict XVI will celebrate his first Ordinary Public Consistory, during which he will create 15 new cardinals. Including the newcomers, the College of Cardinals will, on that day, have 193 members of whom 120, those under the age of 80, enjoy the right to participate in a conclave for the election of a new Pope.

Following Friday's consistory Europe will have 100 cardinals of whom 60 have the right to vote, while the Americas will have 52 cardinals (20 from North America and 32 from South America) with 36 electors. There will be 17 African cardinals with 9 electors, 20 Asian cardinals with 13 electors, and four cardinals from Oceania with 2 electors.

Italy remains the country with the largest number of cardinals, 40 in all including three who will be created on March 24. It is followed by the United States with 15 cardinals , and by France and Spain with nine each.

This consistory will take place according to the new rite introduced at the consistory of June 28, 1991. After a liturgical greeting, the Holy Father will read the formula of creation and solemnly proclaim the names of the new cardinals. The first of the new cardinals, in the name of all the others, will address the Pope.

Following the Liturgy of the Word, the Holy Father will deliver a homily. There will then be the profession of faith and taking of the oath by the new cardinals, the imposition of the red "biretta" or hat and assignment of the titular or diaconate church in Rome as a sign of participation in the Pope's pastoral concern for the city.

The Holy Father will hand over the Bull of Creation as cardinal and that of assignment of titular or diaconate church, and exchange an embrace of peace with the new cardinals. The cardinals will then do the same with each other. The rite will conclude with the prayer of the Faithful, the recitation of the Our Father and the final blessing.

The Vatican Press Office released today, 3/22/06, a statement
from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity explaining the suppression of the title “Patriarch of the West” in the Pontifical Directory for 2006. Here is a translation of the statement:
----------------------------------------------------------------

The 2006 Pontifical Directory does not carry, in its enumeration of the titles of the Pope, the title “Patriarch of the West”. This absence has been commented upon in many ways and requires a clarification.

Without considering the complex historical question of the title of Patriarch in all its aspects, it can be stated from the historical point of view that the ancient Patriarchates of the East, as defined by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedonia (451), referred to a territory that was clearly circumscribed, whereas the territory for the Seat of the Bishop of Rome remained vague.

In the East, under the imperial ecclesiastical system of Justinian (527-565), alongside the four Oriental Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was understood to be the Patriarch of the West. For its part, Rome advanced the idea of three Petrine episcopal seats: Rome, Alexander and Antioch.

Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), the fourth Lateran Council (1215), and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first among the five Patriarchs at that time.

The title “Patriarch of the West” was adopted by Pope Theodore I in 642. Subsequently, that title recurred only rarely and did not have a clear significance. It came to flourish in the 16hth and 17th centuries, as the titles of the Pope multiplied. It appears for the first time in the Pontifical Directory of 1863.

At present, the meaning of the term “West” (or “Occident”) requires a cultural context that does not refer only to Western Europe but extends also to the United States and up to Australia and New Zealand, thus distinguishing it from other (previous) cultural contexts.

Obviously, this meaning for the term “West” does not describe an ecclesiastic teritory nor can it be adopted as the definition of a patriarchal territory. If one is to give to the term “West” a meaning applicable to church juridical language, it could be understood to refer only to the Latin Church. Therefore, the title “Patriarch of the West” would describe the special relation of the Bishop of Rome to the latter, and would express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Latin Church.

Consequently, the title “Patriarch of the West”, which was never clear from the start, has become obsolete and practically non-usable as history evolved. It therefore seems senseless to insist on carrying it on. Especially since the Catholic Church, with the Second Vatican Council, has found the appropriate canonical form required by the Church’s needs today, in the form of the Episcopal Conferences and of the international meetings of these bishops conferences.

To drop the title “Patriarch of the West” clearly does not change anything regarding recognition of the ancient patriarchal Churches so solemnly declared by the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium 23). Much less does this omission imply new claims. The renunciation of the title is intended to express a historical and theological reality, and at the same time, insofar as it s the renunciation of a claim or pretext, (it is hoped) this action could be useful for the ecumenical dialog.

At the moment, I have not seen any statement from either the Vatican or the White House on the horrible story about the Afghan man who converted to Catholicism and may be executed for it under Afghan law which is based on the Muslim sharia. I hope the silence means that both institutions, in their own way, are quietly applying pressure for a just resolution of this issue! Because just continued silence without action from both the Vatican and the White House is unthinkable and unacceptable.

This is one of the unintended consequences of democracy and of the nature of laws and Constitutions. If the Afghan people approved a Constitution that makes such a horrific offense to religious freedom, what can the outside world do about it, now, in a way that can save the man's life?

The governments of Italy and Germany have appealed to Afghanistan and other members of the European Union may do so. But the Afghan government has already said its hands are tied because the local court that sentenced the convert is acting under the Constitution.

Has someone analyzed the new Iraqi constitution to see that such gross violation of human rights for Christians is not also perpetrated there?

Late development picked up from Radio Vatinca's Italian news service: The Supreme Court in Kabul said today that the convert's life could be spared if he is declared mentally ill!

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/03/2006 19.07]

Maklara posted this in PEOPLE AROUND THE POPE. It links to a fairly long document published by Archbishop Marini on the Vatican web site. I re-posted it here so that any discussions about it can take place here.

---

after interview with Piero Marini on italian net newspapers ... check out this

www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20040202_liturgia-bellezza...

Experiences of renewal in certain Papal Liturgical Celebrations

by
† Piero Marini
Titular Archbishop of Martirano
Master of the Liturgical Celebrations
of the Supreme Pontiff

---

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/03/2006 18.58]

The document Liturgy and Beauty' was dated on 23/03/2004 in accordance with Pontifical celebrations website

So it seems that reformation of papal liturgy is preparing for longer time, but it was probably paralysed in last year of John Paul the Great's pontificate and Benedict wants to make it more "schnell". In my opinion are the pontifical celebrations very nice, on the other hand I am looking forward on the chages which our dear expert of liturgy (I mean Papa ) will provide. Maybe it will be more similar to Trent version.

[Modificato da Maklara 22/03/2006 21.08]

Thanks again, Maklara. I did notice when I copied the URL of the Marini document that it was dated March 2004 so he wrote it with John Paul in mind obviously, and I don't know how much of it is acceptable to B16. I still have not had time to read it, so I have no opinion at the moment.

But Marini came out last summer with a book of the same title in which he reportedly "defends" all the liturgical decisions he made during the years he served JP. But frankly, it wouldn't matter what he thinks papal liturgy should be like, because now he is working for someone who is "the" authority on liturgy so he cannot have his own way any more. You read what he himself said in the interview with affaritaliani - he makes suggestions to the Pope, and he gets back notes, comments, changes, details added...

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/03/2006 23.08]

The following item is far more troubling than anything Marini can do. The way Mons. Fellay sounds in the following interview with Apcom, the lefebvrians are far from ready for a reconciliation with Rome.

If we are to take him at his word, Fellay is saying that instead of his group accepting the reforms of Vatican-II, they want the Catholic Church to forget about Vatican-II completely, that it was a mistake that has placed the Church in crisis for the past 40 years, and that the post-Vatican II Mass is not even worth discussing because liturgical reform was poisoned from the start. Am I over-reacting? I have tried to translate Fellay's words from the Italian report as carefully as I can, and that is the sense I get.

This is dissent at its most egotistical and arrogant. A group that counts with a few thousand followers out of 1.2 billion Catholics around the world wants the entire church to capitulate to it? Please read and see what your reactions are .
--------------------------------------------------------------


The traditionalist community founded by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, continues to call on the Vatican to concentrate on resolving the “grave crisis” in the Church caused by the Second Vatican Council.

At that point, "the so-called problem with the Fraternity will disappear by itself because it was born as a reaction to this crisis,” said its current head, Mons. Bernard Fellay, in an interview with the Italian news agency Apcom, on the eve of a full meeting of the College of Cardinals with the Pope at which the Lefebvrian issue is expected to be discussed.

Fellay said he knew nothing “of what’s happening in Rome.” However, since Joseph Ratzinger became Pope, the Vatican resumed contacts with the Lefebvrians. But are the following conditions - recognition of Vatican-II, obedience to the Pope, and recognition of the post-Conciliar Missal – acceptable to the Fraternity?

“It has nothing to do with conditions, this is not about give-and-take,” Fellay answered. “We have told Rome: forget the fact that we exist, just attend to your problems. If you attend to this crisis (Vatican-II), the so-called problem with the fraternity will disappear of itself. Because the fraternity was born as a reaction to this crisis, which concerns liturgical reform and much else beyond that – it involves the principles that guided this liturgical reform, namely, the wish to be more like the Protestants in the name of ecumenism.“ It is a question, he added, of “principles that are contrary to what the Church has always taught and done.”

As for Pope Benedict XVI, Fellay had an equivocal answer. Is Papa Ratzinger taking your requests seriously? “I think so – although there are points of incomprehension that are rather substantial. There is something very contradictory about this Pope – on the one hand, he definitely has the will to take things in hand, and we are happy about that, but at the same time, he a very modern man, and that is quite striking.”

Mons. Fellay makes particular reference to an addresss that the Pope made on December 22 to the Roman Curia. “I thought it was a good summary of disputed points (about Vatican II).” But he criticizes the way the Pope defined “the relationship of the Church to the world, with the State and with secular society, with other religions.”

“I don’t understand why it was necessary to make a new definition when the Church had lived with the same perspectives for 1900 years.” Fellay said,

The current relationship between the Vatican and the lefebvrians started when the Pope met Fellay at Castel Gandolfo last August. The Vatican communique on the meeting said it took place “in a climate of love for the Church and a desire of arriving at perfect communion... Although both sides are aware of the difficulties involved, both expressed the will to continue by degrees and within a reasonable time.”

In February, the issue of an eventual reconciliation to the Holy See of the lefebvrian movement was discussed at a meeting of the chiefs of the Roman dicasteries. It is expected to be among the issues discussed at tomorrow’s full meeting of the College of Cardinals.

“One cannot speak of negotiations between the Vatican and us,” Fellay said. “It is not a question of accepting something or sealing an agreement. For us the debate with Rome is on a completely different level. We maintain that there is a grave crisis in the Catholic Church that has now lasted 40 years. We expect and we beg of the Holy See to do what is necessary to bring the Church out of this crisis.” He says that the Church should “return to what it did, said and taught over the centuries” [before Vatican-II happened].

Specifically, there are two subjects to be dealt with, the best known issues. Marcel Lefebvre, who was an archbishop in France, was excommunicated on June 30, 1988, for having ordained four priests into bishops without the authority of the Vatican. Such an act, according to the code of canon law, merits excommunication latae sententiae, meaning, the penalty is incurred by the very fact of performing the act.

“If we emphasize the issue of excommunication, it is to protest its use, so to speak, in a political manner, to demonize not only the Fraternity but everyone who is a conservative in the Church,” Fellay explains. “In this case, we ask – always with the thought of overcoming this crisis in the Church – that it reaffirm the goodwill and discipline that the Church has shown in the past and end this demonization.”

As for liturgical reforms (Mons. Lefebvre denounced the abolition of the Tridentine Mass and celebrating the Mass in the vernacular rather than in Latin), Fellay said: “Rome knows perfectly well that we have never considered the validity of the new Mass as a point of discussion. We have insisted that that was never the problem. There was something poisoned about the liturgical reform so you can’t even speak of its validity.”

--------------------------------------------------------------
We know from previous reports that after the meeting in Castel Gandolfo, high-ranking Curial cardinals also held meetings with Fellay and company. How could "dialog" have proceeded if Fellay showed the Vatican emissaries the same relentless hard line that he takes in this interview?

But obviously the cardinals must have reported hopeful signs to the Pope for him to have gone ahead with one Curial consultation so far, a full College of Cardinals consultation tomorrow, and a previously announced second Curial consultation in April.

And oh yes, what irony that Fellay thinks Pope Benedict is too modern!

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/03/2006 23.12]

Interesting post. Thanks.
Although I'm one of the outsiders (non-Cath. as yet) who sometimes complain about the music heard in ALL the Christian churches, I just want to comment on one aspect mentioned by Fellay: the question of Latin right through the Mass.

It is impossible to return to an all-Latin mass. Tradition is wonderful, yes, but if people cannot understand the homily and even the scripture readings, what is the sense of clinging to the Middle Ages in this respect? Fellay is upset about the "protestant" aspect of the face of the post Vatican II Church: with regard to the vernacular for the Liturgy of the Word, he is right. It is a NB aspect of the Reformed tradition. The faithful should really understand the language of the homily. And in a world where Latin is unfortunately understood by a miniscule minority of people, it really is almost unfeeling and arrogant of the Fellay- followers to want to force it onto a 21st century church. Or isn't this what he wants? Do I misunderstand him?

If the Church should start "Latin in toto" Masses in Africa (for example) there is no way the millions of converts will all stay put, in loving obedience to distant Rome who now suddenly expects them to understand a strange, "dead" language. Fellay sounds like a person who lives in a fantasy world. (Even if that fantasy was once a reality, and possibly a very beautiful one, from which much can be once again be incorporated, but by no means all of it.)

FELLAY IS UNREALISTICALLY INFLEXIBLE. He expects the church to cater to his view of Catholicism and to reverse everything done in the past 40 years. He is as bad as those on the left who want the church reinvented to their own image and likeness too. The sad thing is that Papa is trying to bend over backwards to bring both the orthodox and Fellay's group back home but Fellay is determined not to give an inch. I personally think he doesn't want to forfit whatever power and glory his position as head of the trads affords him.

Regarding re-establishing Latin in the Mass, even Papa has said, during an interview on EWTN, that it is unrealistic to think of changing everything in the Mass back to Latin. He said there is much to be gained from people using their own language that they can actually think in. However, he did say that including some Latin in key parts of the Mass to maintain the universality of the ceremony is something worth pursuing.

I've noticed in our local churches during Lent, small sections of Latin creeping back into the liturgy, which I'm sure is due to a growing awareness amongst priests that Papa likes Latin and a lot of Catholics like some Latin but I don't think a lot of Latin is going to be reinserted partly because most priests don't know Latin any more.

I know several Levebrian people and I am very sceptical about their coming back to Mother church. This is propably the most egoist group of schismatics. I think that Trent mass is the small thing contrary to not admitting II Vaticano.

This council was the only way how to make Holy church more understandable to 20th century people. That century was so different from others (in bad sense), because of invented ideologies or quick spreading of atheism or fanatism on the other hand, that it was important church answered on it. The old order was defeated and church which watch "the sign of time" had to not change but explain in more detail its attitude to many things.

I think making latin mass is very good in several-language audience or solemn masses. But most people understand latin mass because they know their native-language mass by heart. So I totally agree with Papa's opinions on that issue I heard on ETWN interview.

[Modificato da Maklara 23/03/2006 10.59]

Yes, I think everyone agrees with Papa that more Latin phraseology can be brought back. Even, hopefully, more Latin canti. One should, apart from tradition of centuries, have the feeling that you belong to the universal Church, wherever you go. And selective Latin could be a very positive thing in this regard. But the whole tutti, including homilies, looks like a unrealistice dream. I think Benefan has a point: perhaps Fellay prefer things to stay as they are.

I think perhaps Maklara had a good description of the lefebvrians - at least the ones she's been exposed to, as well as Mons. Fellay from what we just read, and of course the unspeakable Bishop Williamson - as "the most egoistic bunch of schismatics"!

About the use of Latin in the "new" Mass, Benedict has shown us on a few occasions how it can be done, with the vernacular (Italian in this case) used for the readings and the Gospel.
Maklara makes another good point. Most regular Massgoers know the new Mass by heart in the vernacular, so it would not be a problem for them to follow a Mass said in Latin, and I don't think they would mind provided the readings and the gospel are said in the vernacular.

But I have always wondered why Vatican-II did not allow the centuries-old Mass to "co-exist" beside the new rite, so it could be celebrated by any priest who wants to celebrate it in the traditional manner. I hope B16 will be able to correct the present anomaly that a priest must ask his bishop's permission first before he can say the old Mass!

And as for Latin, I didn't realize until I followed the Bishops Synod in October that seminaries have stopped teaching Latin - and that is why many bishops and priests who had their 'formation' after Vatican-II are not Latin-friendly at all! What a waste it is to have thrown away Latin so cavalierly! In the late 60s, all the seminaries would still have had teachers of Latin, but if the subject was then discarded, many of those teachers are no longer alive, and there are few to replace them.

A PROPOS DISSENTERS:
Check out this hilarious satire on a machine that decodes Dissenterspeak to plain honest language:
oxfiles.blogspot.com/2006/03/dissenting-enigma-machine-fo...

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 23/03/2006 17.28]