Churches of the West: What happened to St. Anthony's Alter Rail (and others) and where is it (and they) today?

Churches of the West: What happened to St. Anthony's Alter Rail (and oth...: I want the alter rail from St. Anthony's Church in Casper Wyoming put back in. I'm not part of any movement, or organization, or any...

What happened to St. Anthony's Alter Rail (and others) and where is it (and they) today?

I want the alter rail from St. Anthony's Church in Casper Wyoming put back in.

I'm not part of any movement, or organization, or anything.  I'm just a parishioner, albeit one who normally goes to Our Lady of Fatima, who remembers it.

And, frankly, the fact that the beautiful marble alter rail came out for no real reason angers me.

I have an older post on this topic here:

Churches of the West: Stop! Don't change that Church!: A theme, if not always an obvious one, of this blog is architecture. And  nothing does more violence to traditional, serviceable, and b...

Here's part of it:

Stop! Don't change that Church!

A theme, if not always an obvious one, of this blog is architecture.

And  nothing does more violence to traditional, serviceable, and beautiful architecture, than "updating" it for any reason.

Just don't.

A case in point.

The photograph above, unfortunately not entirely in focus and in black and white, dates from November 1958.  It depicts St. Anthony's of Padua Church in Casper Wyoming on the occasion of my parents wedding.

Now, St. Anthony's remains a beautiful church today, but if we had a picture of the interior (which I don't from this angle) and if we had this picture in sharper focus (which it isn't) and in color (which it is not), we'd notice some changes right away.

And they aren't good ones.

The altarpiece and the altar are all still there.  The cross painted on the wall behind the altarpiece is also still there.  But many other things have changed.

Most obvious, the beautiful marble altar rail in this photograph, a gift of the Schulte family when the church was built, is gone.  I was told that a part of it can be found now in a local restaurant, which I hope is not true.  If it is true, I've never seen it, so it must be some place I don't go to.  It's not clear here, but the gate for the altar rail was marble with heavy brass hinges.  A true work of art in every sense.

The heavy brass lanterns hanging from the ceiling are also gone.

What appears to be a marble ambo is gone as well, replaced by a very nice wooden (walnut?) one.

The statute of St. Patrick moved across town to St. Patrick's, which sort of makes sense. The funds to build St. Patrick's came from St. Anthony's donors, many of whom were Irish, to that we'd ultimately send the statute of the Patron Saint of Ireland over there, which we did only fairly recently, does square with the general them there.. The statute of St. Anthony has been moved to a different spot, but it looks good where it is.

I'm not certain what sort of floor covering we're looking at here, probably carpet, and of course we have new carpet.  But what would strike anyone looking at this photo about what is next to the carpet, the pews, is that the pews are now cantered to face towards the center of the alter.

Okay, what's up with all of that, and was it an improvement?

Well, I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder, as all such things are, but in my view, the answer is a very distinct "no".

It's funny how these things work.  I can remember all of the features depicted here, including the altar rail, even though I was very young when at least that feature came out.  But, at the time, I don't think I thought much about it, if I thought about it all.  I don't remember the Mass being in Latin at all, although when I was very, very young, it must have been.  Anyhow, while these things didn't bother me at the time, or the one change that I recall from when I was a bit older, the cantering of the pews, didn't bother me much, now they do.

That may be because I now have a greater appreciation for history and tradition than I did when I was just a boy, although I had a sense of that at the time.

The cocked angle of the pews, remnants of a decision made by a Priest in the 1970s or perhaps early 80s,  has been something I've never liked, even if I understand the intent behind it.  Not visible in this photograph, a row of pews that were in the middle of the church were taken out to facilitate twice as many Communion servers.  It's awkward and always has been and should not have been done.  Indeed, as this was the only Catholic Church in town with it was built, it was probably jam packed nearly every Mass and they seemed to manage to get by just fine. For that matter, I've been in plenty of packed Catholic churches where everyone came up to the front of the church and it always worked just fine as well.  Having said that, changing the angle of the pews didn't do a great disservice to the church even if it didn't really help it any.

Another matter, however, is the altar rail.

Now altar rails turn out to be a surprisingly hot button item to people not familiar with them.

All Latin Rite Catholic Churches and Anglican Churches had altar rails. Chances are very high that other churches close in form to the Catholic Church also had them, I just don't know. Their purposes was to provide a place for communicants to kneel when receiving communion.  Prior to Vatican II (1962 to 1965) all Latin Catholic in modern times received communion on the tongue.  Communicants would kneel at the altar rail and receive communion.

You'd think that finding a public domain photograph of communicants receiving communion at an altar rail would b easy, but it isn't.  This almost illustrates it in a better fashion, however.  British solders lined up, as if there is an altar rail, and receiving communion in teh field in North Africa.  Off hand, I suspect that this is an Anglican service.

Now, before we get too far down this road it should be noted that people can get really up in arms about this in all sorts of ways and some traditionalist will insist that communion can only properly be received kneeling and on the tongue.  This doesn't seem to be true and certainly wasn't universally the case.  Indeed, originally, the very first Christians, received communion in the hand and you can find very early writings that effect.  However, traditionalist will hotly dispute what those writings and the other evidence actually means. Given as I'm not getting into that debate, I'm not going there and that isn't the point of this entry.

What is the point is that altar rails were an integral part of the design of churches for an extremely long time. Take anything out of a well designed building and you risk subtracting from its design. That's exactly what I think occurred here.

Which isn't to say that I feel that St. Anthony's is a bad looking Church now, far from it. It's still a beautiful church. But it was more beautiful before the marble altar rail was taken out.

Indeed, the problem with making alterations to these well designed structures is that any time that this is done it risks giving into a temporary view in favor of a more traditional element that was integral in the design of the structure while doing damage to its appearance.  All Catholic churches up until the id 1960s were designed to have altar rails.  Taking them out may have served what was, and perhaps is, the view of the day in regards to worship, but it also means that a major feature of the interior of the building, to which careful consideration had been given, was now missing.

And it turns out that, contrary to widely held belief, they did not have to be removed.

Most people believe that the altar rails were taken out as it was somehow required post Vatican II.  It wasn't.  Rather, for whatever reason changes in the Mass now allowed them to be.  They didn't have to be.  Theoretically it was apparently up to individual Pastors on whether they thought an altar rail should be removed, but given as in Wyoming they are nearly all missing, it might have been the case that the decision to remove them was made at the Diocesan level.  The motivating thought here was that the altar rail served to act as a sort of barrier to connection between the people and the Offering of the Mass, and those who supported altar rail removal often felt fairly strongly about that (as we'll see below).  This was, I think, part of an overall change in the Mass at that time, when it went from Latin to the local vernacular, as the Celebrant had faced Ad Oreintum while offering the Mass.  That is, the Priest faced his altar, as a rule, with his back to the Congregation.  

Now all of this gets into some fairly complicated symbolic matters.  There's some truth to the view held by those who argued for the new position and removing the altar rails, in at he "we're all one together sense". There a counter point, however, that maybe the Ad Oreintum orientation actually served that better, as the Priest was facing the same direction for significant portions of the Mass that the parishioners were.   That is, by way of a poor example, if somebody faced you in a large group they're more likely to have some elevated authority over you than if somebody has their back to you, in which case they can be argued to be working with you.  Interestingly in recent years there's been a slow return in some areas to the Ad Oreintum orientation, particularly following Cardinal Sarah's suggestion that this was a better form. The Cardinal occupies a high position at the Vatican and therefore his views cannot be easily discounted.  As has been noted in regards to this there's actually never been an official position on which orientation is better, and in some ancient and modern churches the Ad Orientum position is actually impossible.

In any event, what that did was in part to remove an item that was closely connected to the church and hence the parish and the parishioners.  In this case, the altar rail itself had been a gift from a family early in the parish's history.  In Catholic parishes the pastor is usually there for about seven years and bishops can be in office for long or short periods. However, as the parishioners are often there for decades, that means the traditional in which they participated was removed by individuals who were there on a more temporary basis.  It was certainly "legal", if you will, but it might not have been well advised.

The same is true of most, but not all, of the interior changes to the church. A person can debate the aesthetics of the heavy brass lighting, but the church was built with it in mind and the features that once decorated where it attached to the building remain there to this day.  The removal of one confessional, the relocation, in an awkward fashion, of a place for "music ministers" to stand that resulted, and all of that, were done in a heartfelt fashion, but often to the ascetic detriment of the church which was not built with remodels in mind.

This touches, moreover, on the larger topic of church architecture itself, which as been addressed in another one of our rare commentary threads here.  These older churches are better looking as the architecture and design that came in during the 1970s was not as good as earlier architecture, and according to some focused more on the congregation than on the Divine.  This blog was at one time going to avoid all such churches in general, but as time has gone on its put up posts of quite a few.  Many of these churches are just not good looking. By the same token, many alterations to older churches are not good looking either.

As I noted when I started off, a lot of this stuff did not bother me when I was a child and experiencing it, but it does now.  Indeed, the removal of the altar rail in this church frankly makes me mad when I think of it.  I wish it could go back in.  It won't, of course, but the whole thing upsets me.  I'm not alone, I think, on this sort of thinking and I think it reflects a generational befuddlement with the generations immediately preceding us which seems to have had, in many instances, low respect for tradition in general.  In civil society, in terms of structures, this is probably why we now see all sorts of effort to restore the appearance of old buildings whose owners in the 50s, 60s, and 70s didn't give a second thought about making them ugly through renovation. A prime example of that is the Wyoming National Bank building in Casper Wyoming which was made to look hideous by the additional of a weird steel grating in the 1950s to its exterior which was supposed to make it look modern.  It mostly served to house pigeons and was removed in the 2000s when the building was redone and converted to apartments.

Now, not every one feels this way, I should note.  Particularly in regards to churches.  When I posted this same photograph on Facebook, a friend of mine with a few years on me posted this reply (I hadn't commented on the altar rails in my original post):

So happy that the railings have come down and the hats came off! The church is still so beautiful.

I agree that the church remains beautiful, and I agree that the women wearing head coverings is a tradition that I don't miss, but I don't feel that way about the altar rail at all.

I suspect my friends comment goes to a "spirit of Vatican II" feeling that she's old enough to have experienced and which I not only am not, but which I don't really share enthusiasm for.  It's important to note that Vatican II and "the spirit of Vatican II" are not the same thing.  "The spirit" thing was a zeitgeist of the times which took a decidedly more liberal and less traditional view of things, no doubt an "open the windows and doors and let some fresh air in". Some of that was likely needed but as is often the case with people who are in a "let in the fresh air" movement the realization that cold winds high winds can come in through the same windows and doors and do damage is rarely appreciated. 

And its all too easy when traditions which are simply traditions are tossed to begin to toss out with them things that are more than tradition.  I'm not saying that occurred here with altar rails but I will be frankly that the 1970s saw a lot of innovations, some of them very local poorly thought out that were, in some cases, quite problematic. The generation that thought removing the altar rails was a good idea proved willing to entertain a lot of things in this area that turned out to be big problems for everyone else.

Part of that is because traditions are anchors in a way; moorings to the the past.  People of a "fresh air" bent will claim that a person shouldn't be bound by the past. That's true, but tradition is also in some cases the vote, or the expression of experience, of the dead and should not be lightly discounted.  Not only does casting out traditions tend to sever anchors, but all too often the severing simply puts people adrift in seas that they're not well prepared to handle. At its worst, the severing of traditions is a rejection of the long and carefully thought out in favor of the temporarily current and the poorly thought out.

Which is why, for many people of the post Vatican II generation the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation, when moored in their own changes, can seem now old fashioned.  Ironically younger generations have been busy for some time "reforming the reform", which means in the mainstream keeping the reforms that proved worthwhile and reversing those that did not.  Tradition has, in some instances, come back in the opened door after having been swept out it, but with a younger generation.

All of which is well off point on what this thread started out being about.  And I'm not going to start a "restore the altar rail" movement, locally or on the internet.  But I feel it was a shame that it was taken out, and to the extent that alterations that should not have taken place for ascetic reasons in regards to older structures can be repaired, they ought to be.

Okay, why am I reviving that post?

It's because I want the alter rail back.

Contrary to widespread popular belief, there were never any Vatican II directive that alter rails be removed.  It was a "spirit of Vatican II" type of thing.

Alter rails weren't in the very first churches, as they were houses.  They evolved over a period of time.  They came to demarcate three distinct worship spaces, the nave, the sanctuary and the altar.  Vatican II emphasized the laity coming into the celebration of the Mass and from there Church officials determined that the rails separated the Priest from the people, as did the ad orientum worship of the Mass.

I'll try to be gentle in my criticism here, but I'd suggest that the directive of laity participation wsa somewhat misunderstood in the US in general.  Indeed, Fr. Joseph Krupp maintains that much of Vatican II was as translation of the official documents was not a priority for the Church, as most Catholics do not use English as their primary language.

Be that as it may, the Church of the 1970s in the US really went to town with such changes.  Parishioners, who had grown up in an era when they largely did not question their Priests, simply endured it.  The clergy thought it was doing something that would really make everyone come closer together, but for the most part, their parishioners simply silently endured it, and the flood of other changes that came in at the same time.

Many of the changes were good one, most particularly the new form of the Mass in the vernacular.  But changes simply went to far.  Architectural changes were really a bad thing in structures that were built before Vatican II.  And frankly, the Baby Boom generation aside, most people actually like some formal distinctions in society, something pretty clear when you see the post Baby Boom generations at Mass.

The alter rail at St. Anthony's was made of marble, with brass hinges, and beautiful.  Even now, the church looks like it is missing something.  

This is less the case with the other two Catholic churches in Casper, Our Lady of Fatima and St. Patrick's.  St. Patrick's is the newest of the three, having been built in the 1960s.  It's an expansive church and the absence of an alter rail does not seem to hinder its appearance.  Our Lady of Fatima was  built as an Air Base chapel during World War Two and no doubt was built without an alter rail originally.  Having said that, perhaps because of reconstruction, which has happened more than once, it looks like it should have one.

St. Anthony's has been substantially restored in recent years.  Not 100%, but substantially.  Restoring the alter rail would go a long ways towards restoring the full original beauty of the church.

When it was taken out, something happened to it. But what?  Is it stored somewhere on the grounds?  If it was, I've never seen it.  I've heard rumors that part of it is in a Casper restaurant.

And what about the alter rails from the other churches?

Much of what was in St. Anthony's before the post Vatican II changes was provided for by way of donations from parishioners.  I've thought that the alter rail was, but I don't really know that.  Donations are a funny thing in that sometimes they bind the recipient, and other times they do not.  This probably did not.

Well, at any rate, taking the alter rail(s) out was a mistake.  The alter rail, indeed the alter rails, should be put back in.  Somebody has the St. Anthony's one, perhaps more than one somebody. They should give it back.

Put the alter rail back in.

Churches of the West: The Dawn Patrol: Alex Pretti, my brother in Christ

Churches of the West: The Dawn Patrol: Alex Pretti, my brother in Christ: The Dawn Patrol: Alex Pretti, my brother in Christ : I want to tell you about Alex Pretti, my fellow Catholic, my brother in Christ;  Alex P...

The Dawn Patrol: Alex Pretti, my brother in Christ

The Dawn Patrol: Alex Pretti, my brother in Christ: I want to tell you about Alex Pretti, my fellow Catholic, my brother in Christ;  Alex Pretti, the good Samaritan who stopped to help his i...

I noticed a Mass was said for Pretti the day of after his death.  That could be a bit deceptive, Masses are offered for people who aren't Catholic, and a Jewish congregation offered the Kaddish.

But somebody had hung a rosary on a photograph of him at a private memorial.  

My suspicion proved correct.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. 

Amen.

I try not to interject politics into this blog, and my two other blogs about churches.  But it has, frankly, become impossible.  Donald Trump and his fellow travelers have made it impossible.  The populist far right contingent of the Evangelical churches and their New Apostolic Reformation have introduced a perverted brand of Christianity into what was already a Puritan country, bringing back the worst sort of attitudes that were every improperly associated with Christianity.  As an Apostolic Christian, a Catholic, I've been afraid the entire time that this would serve to be used against all Christians, but most particularly the Apostolic Christians, the Catholic and the Orthodox, whose religion has an unbroken 2,000 year history untainted by the theological innovations of men.  Street level Americans, including those who loosely consider themselves Christian, do not really know the difference between Evangelicals and Catholics, let alone between Evangelicals and Oriental Orthodox, but we're all going to get tarred with the same brush.  "Why did you Christians. . . " we'll be asked, both because some of us went along and participated (Vance, for example), but also because those same people don't realize that Christian denominations that only barely tolerate Catholicism, if tolerate it at all, really have a much different worldview than we did.

Indeed, it'd serve us well to remember that these same groups actively oppressed us not all that long ago, and their intellectual ancestors were willing, in many instances, to see us dead.

In the face of this some of us have to do what Jewish intellectual Victor Klemperer did and titled his book about the Nazis with, "I will bear witness".

Pretti was bearing witness.

And then he went to help, as we who are real Christians are obligated to do.  He was pepper sprayed, disarmed, put on the ground, and shot multiple times.

We should all bear witness to that.

Churches of the West: Unsettling news for Catholics in Rock Springs.

Churches of the West: Unsettling news for Catholics in Rock Springs.: This comes as bit of a shock, as well as evidence of how slow news actually travels in our current age in which everything seems flash drive...

Unsettling news for Catholics in Rock Springs.

This comes as bit of a shock, as well as evidence of how slow news actually travels in our current age in which everything seems flash driven:

Historic Rock Springs Church Faces Closure After A Century Of Worship

Giving some credit to the news, I'll note that this hit smaller news venues earlier, which I guess leads me to wonder a bit about how well Natrona County is served by the media.

Anyhow. . . 

The church is this one:

Sts. Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church, Rock Springs Wyoming

 

 

This Romanesque church was built in 1912 after a protracted period of time in which efforts were made to build a church specifically for the Catholic Slavic population of Rock Springs, which was quite pronounced at the time. The church was named after brothers Cyril and Methodius who had been the evangelists to the Slavs.  The first pastor was Austrian born Father Anton Schiffrer who was suited to the task given his knowledge of Slavic languages.

The news broke just before the celebration of the church's 100th anniversary, which isn't great timing, but no doubt that was simply coincidental.

To my surprise, there are three Catholic churches in Rock Springs.  I was aware of there being two. The Catholic community seems to be served there in the same way the community in Casper is, as a Tri Parish, rather than three separate parishes.

 Here's the announcement that was given by the Diocese:

Not too surprisingly, there has been some local opposition and the Bishop has suspended his order until February, when he will meet with the aggrieved parties.  The suspension is on line, but I was not able to download it, in order to post it.  

I'm not terribly optimistic, but the potential closure has drawn opposition from secular quarters as well:

Watch List: Saints Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church, Rock Springs

In terms of timing, another interesting aspect of this is that it comes right as the Catholic parish in Rock Springs started undertaking an effort to build a community center for the parish, the brochure for which is partially set out here:

There's more to the brochure than that, but I can't think of something more likely to put a damper on this effort than to close a century old church while its ongoing.

I'd also note that one of the stated desires is exactly the opposite of what brought Sts. Cyril & Methodius Catholic Church about in the first place, that being the desire to "create unity and one Catholic identity".  That's a common, and admirable, goal but in the real world, people don't like it.  Individual ethnicities within the Catholic Church have always struggled against this, sometimes with pretty disastrous results.  Indeed, Orthodoxy in the US got a big boost just from such an event when Bishop John Ireland disapproved of Eastern Catholicism remaining separate, causing Fr. Alexis Toth to lead a group of them into the Russian Orthodox Church.  In  the early 20th Century Catholic Diocese often responded just the way that the Diocese of Cheyenne did here, by simply creating additional churches that recognized the different identifies.

That won't happen here, and these are all Latin Rite churches.  Moreover, the strong ethnic identities in Rock Springs from a century ago have no doubt dissipated considerably.  But that doesn't mean that parishioners in a unique Church, or really any Church, like to have their church closed and be told they need to go elsewhere, even if it makes sense, which it very well might, given the antiquity of the building.  Doing it while also undergoing a campaign that expresses the goal of unity is more than a little unfortunate.

Indeed, that's the case as even in this modern age, not everyone likes to be grouped into one big group.  I'm one of those people.  The Diocese here had an event several years ago where all the local Masses were cancelled so that one huge Mass could be held at Casper's David Street Station. Rather than do that, I drove to Glenrock and attended Mass there. . . and I noticed some other Casperites I recognized there as well.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Albin Wyoming.

Churches of the West: St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Albin Wyoming.:   

St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Albin Wyoming.

 

This is St. Joseph's Catholic Church in the tiny town of Albin.  Presently, Masses for this community are being heard in nearby Carpenter, rather than here.

Observations on Denver

Some years we have Rockies' ticket package. We did last year, but we didn't go to a single game for a variety of reasons.  Work was the big one, but then, about this time just a year ago, I was under the knife for the second time as well.

We went to the Orioles game on September 1.

The choice of the date was not my own, September 1 is the opening day of blue grouse and dove season, but I didn't complain about it.  A young member of the family loves the Orioles and that's why it was chosen.  When you get old, as I am, you yield in favor of younger family members, so I did, without complaining.  You also learn, hopefully, not to complain where in former days you might have.

It was a great game.

I've been to Denver several times since my surgery, but they were all hit and run type of deals for work.  In and out, with no time to spare. This is the first time I've lingered in the Mile High City for awhile, and the first time over a weekend for a long while.  Therefore some observations, I guess.

It was hot.  "Unseasonably hot" is what I'm hearing.  I'm not a fan of hot.  As Wyoming has already been chilly in the morning, and I couldn't find my Rockies jersey, I wore a light flannel shirt.  I don't really feel comfortable in just wearing a t-shit in that setting anymore, so I when I got hot, right away, before the game, I went and bought a jersey.  Now I have two.

I can't wear my old New York Yankees pull on jersey anymore.  I'm too big and its too small.  My Sox jersey is messing a button.

It's really weird to think that at least into the 1940s people dressed pretty formally at baseball games.  Men were in jacket and tie, something you'd never see now.

We were there on Sunday.

Holy Ghost is, in my view, the most beautiful church in the region and the most beautiful one I've ever been in.  We went to Mass early Sunday morning.  It's stunning and it never fails to impress me with its beauty.  

A beautiful church really adds something to worship, and a sense of the Divine.

Not a new impression, but the street people problem is out of control.

I don't know what can be done to help these people.  Some, you can tell, are now so organically messed up that they'll never really recover.  

In various places, when approached for money by somebody on a street, I'll give them some.  But not in Denver.  The people on the streets are so messed up I know where that money is going.  Something needs to be done to help them, but I have no idea what it would be.

The day before I went down I read that the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) had taken over two apartments in Aurora.  Looking it up, it's apparently true, and they're using them for sex trafficking.

The greater Denver area, fwiw, has never been all that nice, in spite of what people might say. I recall going down in the 1980s, when I was an undergrad at UW, and parts of were really rough then.  16th Street was just starting to develop.  The area around LoDo was really really rough.  I can recall walking from an off street towards 16th past a really rough looking bar mid morning when a prostitute came spilling out of it, probably just getting off work.  The Episcopal Cathedral, St. John in the Wilderness, had lots of broken windows, broken by rocks thrown into them from the street.  Colorado Blvd in the region of what is now Martin Luther King Blvd was as complete red light district full of XXX movie theaters.  Lo Do was a no/go zone.

Coors Field really cleaned up a lot of that, and much of downtown Denver has really gentrified.  16th Street, however, is a drug flop house as is much of downtown Denver.  The legalization of marijuana, COVID, and a highly tolerant city council has created an enormous problem.

Anyhow, I don't go into Aurora much, but I don't really recall it being really nice.  I recall my father, who had experience with Denver going back to the 1930s, mentioning it had never been nice.

We had a big breakfast at Sam's No. 3.  It's a great cafe.  A real urban one, which probably makes it surprising that I'll go there, but it is great.

At the game, I had a hot dog.  I usually have "brots", rather than dogs, if I have your classic small sausage on a bun.  I'd forgotten, accordingly, what real dogs taste like.  I like them, but I don't like them as much as brots.

Converse Chuck Taylors are comfortable for sitting at a game, but not for hiking around a city.  Like my baseball jerseys, I like Chuck Taylors but given my line of work and my off time avocations, which I unfortunately seem to be able to engage in less and less, I have little call to actually wear them.

Regarding clothing, while I hesitated to post it, a lot of young women in urban settings don't dress decently when dressing casually.  I don't mean "dress up" either. Perhaps because it was hot, a lot of them had on "summer clothes" which showed way more skin, and other things, than is decent, in my view.  For that matter, coming out of a hotel a barista was coming in wearing a t-shirt who had chosen to omit undergarments and was showing, well, through.  I almost turned to my daughter who was with me and thanked her for not dressing like so much of what I was seeing, but I didn't.

On that, some of the younger women were clearly with a parent. Why would you let a child, even if not a child any longer, go out dressed like that?

I'm not really proud of noticing and I didn't glare or stare, but frankly with so much on display its impossible not to notice anything.  I'm old, but not dead, and there's way too much on display, certainly way more than is the case up here in the rude hinterlands.  A Christian should have custody of their eyes but I'd rather other folks make it easy to exercise.

Also on display were vast numbers of tattoos, some artful and some really bad.  Having a bad tattoo has to be a bummer.

I was reminded of how much I don't like country music.  My wife and daughter do, so we listed to one of the XM Radio satellite radio channels on the way down.  I never listen to contemporary country music, although over the years I've gotten to where I like some of the older stuff.

Anyhow, I was surprised by how much country music is just devoted to getting drunk.  It's weird.

A fair amount is devoted to bad decisions, particularly with alcohol and women.  Some has gotten inappropriate towards women in general.  One of the songs on the way down I heard was Country Girl, which involves alcohol, and also the lyrics "shake it for me, girl".  I've been around country people, including country girls, my entire life and I've never seen a country girl shaking whatever for anyone.  Indeed, I've always been impressed by how almost everyone who lives in the sticks knows how to swing dance and tends to wear, usually, a fair amount of clothing, even in the summer.

Churches of the West: Churches of the West: Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church, Casper Wyoming

Churches of the West: Churches of the West: Our Lady of Fatima Catholic ...: 

Churches of the West: Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church, Casper Wyoming

Churches of the West: Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church, Casper Wyoming: This Church was put in place in the early 1950s due to the expansion of the City of Casper, and has an unusual history. The church it...

Our prior entry, done quite some time ago, lacked an interior shot.  I could have simply added it to the old post, and I likely will, but here it is as a separate entry. More detail on the Church appears in the original entry.

 

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Roch Catholic Church, Kahuku, HI.

Churches of the West: St. Roch Catholic Church, Kahuku, HI.: 

St. Roch Catholic Church, Kahuku, HI.

This is another photograph taken from a moving vehicle, this time of St. Roch Catholic Church in Kahuku, Hawaii.  I unfortunately know nothing else about this O'ahu North Shore church.

Sunday Morning Scene. Churches of the West: Saints Peter and Paul Mission, Haleiwa, HI

Churches of the West: Saints Peter and Paul Mission, Haleiwa, HI:

Saints Peter and Paul Mission, Haleiwa, HI

Photos from a moving vehicle are always difficult, so this only gives you a glimpse of this Catholic mission church in Haleiwa, O'ahu, Hawaii.

On the island's northeast shore, this Catholic mission church was built in 1953 and is served by St. Michael's Parish.

 

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Jude Catholic Church. Kapolei, O'ahu, Hawaii.

Churches of the West: St. Jude Catholic Church. Kapolei, O'ahu, Hawaii.: 

St. Jude Catholic Church. Kapolei, O'ahu, Hawaii.

This is an interior shot of St. Jude's Catholic Church in Kapolei, O'ahu, Hawaii.  The large simple structure was built in 1998-99 and is slated to be replaced by a large church architecture structure once funds allows.

Churches of the West: Saints Peter and Paul Mission, Haleiwa, HI

Churches of the West: Saints Peter and Paul Mission, Haleiwa, HI: 

Saints Peter and Paul Mission, Haleiwa, HI

Photos from a moving vehicle are always difficult, so this only gives you a glimpse of this Catholic mission church in Haleiwa, O'ahu, Hawaii.

On the island's northeast shore, this Catholic mission church was built in 1953 and is served by St. Michael's Parish.

 

Churches of the West: Viva Cristo Rey and a Plenary Indulgence

Churches of the West: Viva Cristo Rey and a Plenary Indulgence:   

Viva Cristo Rey and a Plenary Indulgence

 

Viva Cristo Rey!

Well worth the very short read.

And, also a plenary indulgence is granted to the faithful who on the solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, publicly recite the Act of Dedication of the Human Race to Christ the King (Iesu dulcissime, Redemptor).  A partial indulgence is granted for its use in other circumstances.

Churches of the West: Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the Synod on Synodality.

Churches of the West: Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the S...: 

Squaring off. Five Cardinals, the Pope, and the Synod on Synodality.

Synod on Synodality retreat looks to ‘transcend all our disagreements

So read a headline from the Catholic News Agency, regarding a pre Synod retreat.

That might be the intent, but right now, the Synod is amplifying them and leading a lot of traditional, conservative and I dare say run-of-the-mill Catholics to really suffer anxiety from what's occurring while their view of Pope Francis declines.

I'm in that camp.

I don't worry that the Pope is going to change doctrine, or that the Synod will, but I do worry that the result of this will be an effort to water it down by doing end runs around its application, thereby creating confusion.  That's already occurring, which is evident by Catholics who have determined that dedicated personal attractions to sin are not sinful, and that the Pope is set to take the torch to St. Paul and ratify their non-sinful status.¹   This in turn is likely to result in massive dissention within the Church, resisting the days of the Arian heresy and events of such nature.  Francis is not likely to go down, long term, as a Pope who is fondly remembered by future orthodox Catholics.  He's a strain on them now.

This week this came to a head with the publication of Dubia by its authors and a direct letter by those authors to the faithful. Cardinals Walter Cardinal Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Cardinal Sarah and Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun have written to the faithful regarding their correspondence with the Pope. The letter comes in the form, essentially, of both notifying the faithful of what was said, but also in the form of a sort of warning that in their view the Pope's action stand to create confusion.

It was a bold thing to do.

Let's take a look at the correspondence.  First, their letter of October 2, 2023.

Notification to Christ’s Faithful (can. 212 § 3)

Regarding Dubia Submitted to Pope Francis

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We, members of the Sacred College of Cardinals, in accord with the duty of all the faithful “to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church” (can. 212 § 3) and, above all, in accord with the responsibility of Cardinals “to assist the Roman Pontiff … individually … especially in the daily care of the universal Church” (can. 349), in view of various declarations of highly-placed Prelates, pertaining to the celebration of the next Synod of Bishops, that are openly contrary to the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church, and that have generated and continue to generate great confusion and the falling into error among the faithful and other persons of good will, have manifested our deepest concern to the Roman Pontiff. By our letter of July 10, 2023, employing the proven practice of the submission of dubia [questions] to a superior to provide the superior the occasion to make clear, by his responsa [responses], the doctrine and discipline of the Church, we have submitted five dubia to Pope Francis, a copy of which is attached. By his letter of July 11, 2023, Pope Francis responded to our letter.

Having studied his letter which did not follow the practice of responsa ad dubia [responses to questions], we reformulated the dubia to elicit a clear response based on the perennial doctrine and discipline of the Church. By our letter of August 21, 2023, we submitted the reformulated dubia, a copy of which is attached, to the Roman Pontiff. Up to the present, we have not received a response to the reformulated dubia.

Given the gravity of the matter of the dubia, especially in view of the imminent session of the Synod of Bishops, we judge it our duty to inform you, the faithful (can. 212 § 3), so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church and, in particular, the Roman Pontiff, that the Gospel may be taught ever more clearly and followed ever more faithfully.

                                   Yours in Christ,

           Walter Cardinal Brandmüller

           Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke

           Juan Cardinal Sandoval Íñiguez

           Robert Cardinal Sarah

           Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun

Rome, 2 October 2023

 The Dubia to which this refers, followed by the Pope's reply, is set out below.:

DUBIA

(Submitted July 10, 2023)

1 Dubium about the claim that we should reinterpret Divine Revelation according to the cultural and anthropological changes in vogue.

After the statements of some Bishops, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, it is asked whether in the Church Divine Revelation should be reinterpreted according to the cultural changes of our time and according to the new anthropological vision that these changes promote; or whether Divine Revelation is binding forever, immutable and therefore not to be contradicted, according to the dictum of the Second Vatican Council, that to God who reveals is due “the obedience of faith”(Dei Verbum 5); that what is revealed for the salvation of all must remain “in their entirety, throughout the ages” and alive, and be “transmitted to all generations” (7); and that the progress of understanding does not imply any change in the truth of things and words, because faith has been “handed on … once and for all” (8), and the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but teaches only what has been handed on (10).

2 Dubium about the claim that the widespread practice of the blessing of same-sex unions would be in accord with Revelation and the Magisterium (CCC 2357).

According to Divine Revelation, confirmed in Sacred Scripture, which the Church “at the divine command with the help of the Holy Spirit, … listens to devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully ” (Dei Verbum 10): “In the beginning” God created man in his own image, male and female he created them and blessed them, that they might be fruitful (cf. Gen. 1, 27-28), whereby the Apostle Paul teaches that to deny sexual difference is the consequence of the denial of the Creator (Rom 1, 24-32). It is asked: Can the Church derogate from this “principle,” considering it, contrary to what Veritatis Splendor 103 taught, as a mere ideal, and accepting as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as same-sex unions, without betraying revealed doctrine?

3 Dubium about the assertion that synodality is a “constitutive element of the Church” (Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio 6), so that the Church would, by its very nature, be synodal.

Given that the Synod of Bishops does not represent the College of Bishops but is merely a consultative organ of the Pope, since the Bishops, as witnesses of the faith, cannot delegate their confession of the truth, it is asked whether synodality can be the supreme regulative criterion of the permanent government of the Church without distorting her constitutive order willed by her Founder, whereby the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised both by the Pope by virtue of his office and by the College of Bishops together with its head the Roman Pontiff (Lumen Gentium 22). 

4 Dubium about pastors’ and theologians’ support for the theory that “the theology of the Church has changed” and therefore that priestly ordination can be conferred on women.

After the statements of some prelates, which have been neither corrected nor retracted, according to which, with Vatican II, the theology of the Church and the meaning of the Mass has changed, it is asked whether the dictum of the Second Vatican Council is still valid, that “[the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood] differ essentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium 10) and that presbyters by virtue of the “sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 2), act in the name and in the person of Christ the Mediator, through Whom the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is made perfect. It is furthermore asked whether the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which teaches as a truth to be definitively held the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women, is still valid, so that this teaching is no longer subject to change nor to the free discussion of pastors or theologians.

5 Dubium about the statement “forgiveness is a human right” and the Holy Father’s insistence on the duty to absolve everyone and always, so that repentance would not be a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.

It is asked whether the teaching of the Council of Trent, according to which the contrition of the penitent, which consists in detesting the sin committed with the intention of sinning no more (Session XIV, Chapter IV: DH 1676), is necessary for the validity of sacramental confession, is still in force, so that the priest must postpone absolution when it is clear that this condition is not fulfilled.

Vatican City, 10 July 2023

Walter Card. Brandmüller

Raymond Leo Card. Burke

Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Card. Sarah

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-Kiun, S.D.B.

The Reply:

Dear Brothers,

While I do not always find it prudent to answer questions addressed directly to me, and it would be impossible to answer them all, in this case I thought it appropriate to do so because of the proximity of the Synod.

Question 1

a) The answer depends on the meaning you give to the word “reinterpret”. If it is understood as “to interpret better” the expression is valid. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council affirms that it is necessary that with the work of exegetes – I would add of theologians – the Church’s judgment should mature” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 12).

b) Therefore, while it is true that divine Revelation is immutable and always binding, the Church must be humble and recognize that she never exhausts its unfathomable richness and needs to grow in her understanding.

c) Consequently, she also matures in her understanding of what she herself has affirmed in her Magisterium.

d) Cultural changes and the new challenges of history do not modify Revelation, but they can stimulate us to make more explicit some aspects of its overflowing richness, which always offers more.

e) It is inevitable that this can lead to a better expression of some past statements of the Magisterium, and in fact this has been the case throughout history.

f) On the other hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition need an interpretation that makes it possible to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. It is evident, for example, in the biblical texts (such as Ex 21:20-21) and in certain magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (cf. Nicholas V, Bull Dum Diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts are in need of interpretation. The same is true for some New Testament considerations on women (1 Cor 11:3-10; 1 Tim 2:11-14) and for other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that today cannot be materially repeated.

g) It is important to emphasize that what cannot change is what has been revealed “for the salvation of all” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 7). For this reason the Church must constantly discern between what is essential for salvation and what is secondary or less directly connected with this goal. In this regard, I would like to recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said:

“the more one descends to 10 particulars, the more indeterminacy increases” (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, art. 4).

h) Finally, a single formulation of a truth can never be adequately understood if it is presented in isolation, isolated from the rich and harmonious context of the whole of Revelation. The “hierarchy of truths” also implies situating each of them in adequate connection with the more central truths and with the totality of the Church’s teaching. This can finally give rise to different ways of expounding the same doctrine, even though “to those who are satisfied with a monolithic doctrine defended by all without nuance, this may seem an imperfect dispersion.

But the reality is that this variety helps to better manifest and develop the various aspects of the inexhaustible richness of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, 49). Each theological line has its risks but also its opportunities.

Question 2

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. Only this union is called “marriage”. Other forms of union are realized only “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris laetitia 292), which is why they cannot strictly be called “marriage”.² 

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal”.

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, pastoral charity, which must permeate all our decisions and attitudes, must not be lost. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.³ 

e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. Because when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea to be able to Live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to Live better.

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from the objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself requires us not to treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and in an official way enable procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “that which is part of a practical discernment in a particular situation cannot be elevated to the category of a norm”, because this “would give rise to an unbearable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia 304). Canon Law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the Episcopal Conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.

Question 3

a) Although you recognize that the supreme and full authority of the Church is exercised either by the Pope because of his office or by the college of bishops together with its head, the Roman Pontiff (cf. Conc. Ecumen. Vat. II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, 22), nevertheless with these dubia you yourselves manifest your need to participate, to give your opinion freely and to collaborate, and thus you are claiming some form of “synodality” in the exercise of my ministry.

b) The Church is “mystery of missionary communion”, but this communion is not only affective or ethereal, but necessarily implies real participation: that not only the hierarchy but all the People of God in different ways and at different levels can make their voices heard and feel part of the Church’s journey.

In this sense we can say that synodality, as a style and dynamism, is an essential dimension of the life of the Church. On this point St. John Paul II has said very beautiful things in Novo Millennio Ineunte.

c) It is quite another thing to sacralize or impose a particular synodal methodology that pleases one group, to make it the norm and obligatory channel for all, because this would only lead to “freezing” the synodal journey, ignoring the diverse characteristics of the different particular Churches and the varied richness of the universal Church.

Question 4

a) “The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood differ essentially” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10). It is not convenient to maintain a difference of degree that implies considering the common priesthood of the faithful as something of “second category” or of lesser value (“a lower degree”). Both forms of priesthood enlighten and sustain each other.

b) When St. John Paul II taught that the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women must be affirmed “definitively,” he was in no way disparaging women and giving supreme power to men. St. John Paul II also affirmed other things. For example, that when we speak of priestly power “we are in the realm of function, not dignity or holiness” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles Laici, 51). These are words that we have not sufficiently embraced. He also clearly maintained that while the priest alone presides at the Eucharist, the tasks “do not give rise to superiority of one over the other” (St. John Paul II, Christifideles laici, note 190; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration inter /risi9n/ores, VI). He also affirmed that if the priestly function is “hierarchical,” it should not be understood as a form of domination, but “is totally ordered to the holiness of the members of Christ” (St. John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem, 27). If this is not understood and the practical consequences of these distinctions are not drawn, it will be difficult to accept that the priesthood is reserved only to men and we will not be able to recognize the rights of women or the need for them to participate, in various ways, in the leadership of the Church.

c) On the other hand, to be rigorous, let us recognize that a clear and authoritative doctrine about the exact nature of a “definitive statement” has not yet been exhaustively developed. It is not a dogmatic definition, and yet it must be adhered to by all. No one can publicly contradict it and yet it can be the subject of study, as is the case with the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion.

Question 5

a) Repentance is necessary for the validity of sacramental absolution, and implies the intention not to sin. But there is no mathematics here and once again I must remind you that the confessional is not a customs house. We are not owners, but humble stewards of the Sacraments that nourish the faithful, because these gifts of the Lord, more than relics to be guarded, are aids of the Holy Spirit for people’s lives.

b) There are many ways of expressing repentance. Often, in people who have a very wounded self-esteem, to plead guilty is a cruel torture, but the mere fact of approaching confession is a symbolic expression of repentance and of seeking divine help.

c) I would also like to recall that “sometimes it is very difficult for us to make room in pastoral ministry for the unconditional love of God” (Amoris laetitia 311), but we must learn to do so. Following St. John Paul II, I maintain that we should not demand from the faithful too precise and sure resolutions of amendment, which in the end can end up being abstract or even egotistical, but that even the foreseeability of a new fall “does not prejudge the authenticity of the resolution” (St. John Paul II, Letter to Card. William W. Baum and the participants of the annual course of the Apostolic Penitentiary, March 22, 1996, 5).

d) Finally, it should be clear that all the conditions that are usually placed on confession are generally not applicable when the person is in a situation of agony, or with very limited mental and psychic capacities.

This seems a full reply to me, but not a comforting one.  The Pope is bad about "the other hand" formulation on very serious matters, which interjects doubt by is very nature.  If things are muddled, and we know the rule, but "on the other hand", we invite first individual clerics and then individual laymen to assume that they fit into the "the other hand" and are exempt from the moral rule.

The Pope here, I suspect, is showing the sort of flexibility that is common, on an informal basis, in some parts of the world, but which will be poorly situated to apply here.  For example, it was common in some parts of the world for couples that intended to marry to basically contract a marriage independently and then wait for a traveling priest to later bless the union.  That certainly would not be tolerated as valid in North America, but it was in Central and South America at one time, for practical reasons.  At least in the 1970s (I don't know about now) books that instructed confessors on certain sins took a relaxed view based upon circumstances of a similar nature that I'm not going to get into, and this continues to be the case in other areas that are related.

Confusion over transubstantiation in at least Germany have lead to a practice in which in some areas Lutherans who are part of a marriage with a Catholic are allowed to receive Communion on the basis that they're beliefs, in some instances, are so close that it would be almost impossible for them to grasp that there is a difference.

I suspect that this is the area that Pope Francis is suggesting be explored.  Indeed, none other than the very orthodox Fr. Hugh Barbour has ventured the opinion that female same gender households that do not incorporate the element of sex may be fairly natural and not to be condemned, with the sexual element forced upon such individuals by the modern world.  Pope Francis may have something very similar to this in mind.

The problem, however, is that the Church never endorsed any of these things in a formal fashion. Recognizing mental state of mind for purposes of Confession, or for other purposes, is one thing.  Benedictions are another. 

Whether a person accepts Pope Francis' reply as correct, in part or in whole, is, of course, another matter from replying.  He did reply.  Frankly, given this reply, the Cardinal correspondents would have real reason to be concerned about the direction the Pope seems headed in, as do I.  Hence, they sent out a followup "Dubia", which is below:

REFORMULATED DUBIA

(Submitted August 21, 2023)

To His Holiness

FRANCIS

Supreme Pontiff

Most Holy Father,

We are very grateful for the answers which You have kindly wished to offer us. We would first like to clarify that, if we have asked You these questions, it is not out of fear of dialogue with the people of our time, nor of the questions they could ask us about the Gospel of Christ. In fact, we, like Your Holiness, are convinced that the Gospel brings fullness to human life and responds to our every question. The concern that moves us is another: we are concerned to see that there are pastors who doubt the ability of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men and end up proposing to them no longer sound doctrine but “teachings according to their own likings” (cf. 2 Tim 4, 3).  We are also concerned that it be understood that God’s mercy does not consist in covering our sins, but is much greater, in that it enables us to respond to His love by keeping His commandments, that is, to convert and believe in the Gospel (cf. Mk 1, 15).

With the same sincerity with which You have answered us, we must add that Your answers have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them. We therefore feel obliged to re-propose, reformulating them, these questions to Your Holiness, who as the successor of Peter is charged by the Lord to confirm Your brethren in the faith. This is all the more urgent in view of the upcoming Synod, which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our dubia concern. We therefore re-propose our questions to You, so that they can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

Your Holiness insists that the Church can deepen its understanding of the deposit of faith. This is indeed what Dei Verbum 8 teaches and belongs to Catholic doctrine. Your response, however, does not capture our concern. Many Christians, including pastors and theologians, argue today that the cultural and anthropological changes of our time should push the Church to teach the opposite of what it has always taught. This concerns essential, not secondary, questions for our salvation, like the confession of faith, subjective conditions for access to the sacraments, and observance of the moral law. So we want to rephrase our dubium: is it possible for the Church today to teach doctrines contrary to those she has previously taught in matters of faith and morals, whether by the Pope ex cathedra, or in the definitions of an Ecumenical Council, or in the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world (cf. Lumen Gentium 25)?

Your Holiness has insisted on the fact that there can be no confusion between marriage and other types of unions of a sexual nature and that, therefore, any rite or sacramental blessing of same-sex couples, which would give rise to such confusion, should be avoided. Our concern, however, is a different one: we are concerned that the blessing of same-sex couples might create confusion in any case, not only in that it might make them seem analogous to marriage, but also in that homosexual acts would be presented practically as a good, or at least as the possible good that God asks of people in their journey toward Him. So let us rephrase our dubium: Is it possible that in some circumstances a pastor could bless unions between homosexual persons, thus suggesting that homosexual behavior as such would not be contrary to God’s law and the person’s journey toward God? Linked to this dubium is the need to raise another: does the teaching upheld by the universal ordinary magisterium, that every sexual act outside of marriage, and in particular homosexual acts, constitutes an objectively grave sin against God’s law, regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place and the intention with which it is carried out, continue to be valid?

You have insisted that there is a synodal dimension to the Church, in that all, including the lay faithful, are called to participate and make their voices heard. Our difficulty, however, is another: today the future Synod on “synodality” is being presented as if, in communion with the Pope, it represents the Supreme Authority of the Church. However, the Synod of Bishops is a consultative body of the Pope; it does not represent the College of Bishops and cannot settle the issues dealt with in it nor issue decrees on them, unless, in certain cases, the Roman Pontiff, whose duty it is to ratify the decisions of the Synod, has expressly granted it deliberative power (cf. can. 343 C.I.C.). This is a decisive point inasmuchas not involving the College of Bishops in matters such as those that the next Synod intends to raise, which touch on the very constitution of the Church, would go precisely against the root of that synodality, which it claims to want to promote. Let us therefore rephrase our dubium: will the Synod of Bishops to be held in Rome, and which includes only a chosen representation of pastors and faithful, exercise, in the doctrinal or pastoral matters on which it will be called to express itself, the Supreme Authority of the Church, which belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff and, una cum capite suo, to the College of Bishops (cf. can. 336 C.I.C.)?

In Your reply Your Holiness made it clear that the decision of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be held definitively, and rightly added that it is necessary to understand the priesthood, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, in order to understand correctly our Lord’s decision to reserve Holy Orders to men only. On the other hand, in the last point of Your response You added that the question can still be further explored. We are concerned that some may interpret this statement to mean that the matter has not yet been decided in a definitive manner. In fact, St. John Paul II affirms in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium, and therefore that it belongs to the deposit of faith. This was the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium raised about the apostolic letter, and this response was approved by John Paul II himself. We therefore must reformulate our dubium: could the Church in the future have the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, thus contradicting that the exclusive reservation of this sacrament to baptized males belongs to the very substance of the Sacrament of Orders, which the Church cannot change?

Finally, Your Holiness confirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent according to which the validity of sacramental absolution requires the sinner’s repentance, which includes the resolve not to sin again. And You invited us not to doubt God’s infinite mercy. We would like to reiterate that our question does not arise from doubting the greatness of God’s mercy, but, on the contrary, it arises from our awareness that this mercy is so great that we are able to convert to Him, to confess our guilt, and to live as He has taught us. In turn, some might interpret Your answer as meaning that merely approaching confession is a sufficient condition for receiving absolution, inasmuch as it could implicitly include confession of sins and repentance. We would therefore like to rephrase our dubium: Can a penitent who, while admitting a sin, refuses to make, in any way, the intention not to commit it again, validly receive sacramental absolution?

Vatican City, August 21, 2023

Walter Card. Brandmüller                     

Raymond Leo Card. Burke

Juan Card. Sandoval Íñiguez

Robert Card. Sarah

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun

 cc: His Eminence Rev. Luis Francisco Card. LADARIA FERRER, S.I.

They did not receive a reply to this Dubia.

There may be reasons for that.  One may be that Pope Francis intends to answer these questions through the Synod itself, and come down squarely on the side of orthodoxy in a clear way.  There is, in my view, reason to believe that.  He may, accordingly, have felt that he didn't want to jump the gun.

Or he may be wanting to explore this topic in the fashion I noted above, although that would presumably end up in some document regarding pastoral care, rather than one that goes much further than that.

Whatever the case, damage has been done.  A group of "liberal" left wing Catholics that would convert crosses into personal set asides is already assuming the Pope is endorsing their views.  The press is assuming this to be the case.  Thousands of orthodox Catholics are also assuming this to be the case.

If, therefore, after a years long process the result is to reaffirm the historic understanding of the Church in a clear and definitive way, which I think is likely, those parties will howl with protest and rage and feel that they were betrayed.  If the result isn't clear, and with Pope Francis they tend not to be, the deep distrust of the current Papacy, together with the current College of Cardinals, will deepen and a rift that's been developing will be worse.  If a middle ground is developed, it'd have to be very truly middle ground not to spark discontent on both sides.

Catholics should, of course, pray for the Synod and have Faith.  But that doesn't mean that they have to accept this course of action in holding it as a good idea until the fruits are seen.  There's reason to be distressed, and that's a reason for prayer.

Finally, I'd note that when Pope Francis came into his office, he spoke of only occupying it briefly before retiring.  He's now 86 years old and just commencing a process that will only conclude in 2024 and then take some time for results to be issued.  We seem to live in an age when octogenarians simply assume continued life and health. Pope John XXIII was an old 81 years old when he died in June 1963 (when I was just a few days old).  He'd convened Vatican II the year prior, and while faithful Catholics do not have the leeway to condemn Vatican II the way that some Rad Trads do, it's always been a question of whether Vatican II would have looked a bit different, and whether that would have been good or bad, had he lived.

No reigning Pope since that time has lived to this age.

Footnotes:

1. Most of the attention has been on homosexual attraction, but an open question is that if a deep-seated inclination in that direction lessens, in some fashion, its sinfulness such that the practitioners of it, in some fashion, can receive a benediction, why wouldn't it be true of other sexual sins?  I.e, can somebody excuse their adultery, or whatever this way?

The answer is of course going to be no, and that excusing sin is not the intent at all, but it will be taken that way.  In the Church of England (Episcopal Church) there's never been an endorsement of divorce or same gender marriage, but the door was cracked open and its not questioned now.

2.  Pope Francis has a habit of citing himself, which is what he's done here.  While not technically improper, and other authors do it, it is a bit confusing and a cite to yourself is not necessarily as convincing as one to another source.

On this comment, the concept that other forms of marriage, when discussed here, are analogous to marriage but cannot "strictly" be called marriages, implies that they can loosely be regarded as marriages.  This is the very sort of thing which causes orthodox Catholic concern.

3. This is undeniably somewhat true, but a really slippery slope.  

And its not completely true.  Denial and rejection of sin would seem to be absolutes.  Of course, that isn't what the Pope means, but rather he means to suggest we need to be careful with the origins of sin, or so that is what he seems to be meaning.