But why are Catholics grieving over this building as iconic as it is? First of all, the pre-fire Cathedral is an icon of Catholicism at its best and the beauty she brings to the world.
But this is related secondly to the grief that is being experienced--the loss of beauty in Catholicism as a result of what has been unveiled concerning the hierarchy and the lower clergy. This fire
symbolizes the fire that the institutional Church has been experiencing and the destruction of all that is potentially good with Catholicism.
I was listening to a caller on Gus Lloyd's "Seize the Day" morning call-in show on XM Radio.
She asked Gus if she could be honest in her feelings.
He said, "of course." This fire for her was like the destruction of Catholicism symbolized by the unveiling of so many priests who have betrayed their ministry and ruined so many lives and the bishops who participated in it, enabled it or covered it up.
But also it symbolizes the "funkiness" of Pope Francis and what he is doing.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard in discussions with faithful Catholics who love the pope and the institution of the papacy who wonder if they should confess their distrust and dislike for Pope Francis.
The only thing that can assist the Church at this time is the view of the Cathedral above in a disaster zone but with the Pieta still shining forth, especially the gloried empty Cross.
Depression about the current state of affairs of the Church and papacy must lead to greater prayer for the Supreme Pontiff and his repentance of his part in exacerbating the raging destructive fire of the post-Vatican II polarization in the Church.
43 comments:
oh,oh, we will now be subject to a cascade of non sequiturs defending PF from MT!!!
"I can't tell you how many times I have heard in Confession faithful Catholics who love the pope and the institution of the papacy confess their distrust and dislike for Pope Francis."
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.
You skate perilously close to the edge with your revelation, especially on a PUBLIC BLOG, of what you have heard in the confessional.
You should take down this post.
A@12:38 pm, you should reread my post as your eyes deceive you.
Apart from your mistaken reading of my post, you raise good questions about the seal of Confession.
Of course the canons you quote refer to the direct violation of a particular penitent’s confession by a confessor .
But a priest asserting generically that he has heard in confessions sins related to hate as well as sexual sins such as viewing porn does not seem to fit these two canons.
Discuss. Does a generic description of what priests hear in confessions break the seal of confession?
A-non, you really need to take your hateful, defamatory knee-jerk remarks elsewhere. It’s Holy Week—work on that.
Anonymous at 12:38,
Are you on the sauce or just lack reading comprehension skills? Father McDonald did not come anywhere close to violating the seal of confessions, while you are perilously close to calumny, which I understand is your specialty.
Yes, I misread. My apologies.
I would caution, though, that "generic" references to what one has heard in confession are banned. This is the case even when there is no chance of the identity of the penitent being revealed.
The money is pouring in for Notre Dame:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/notre-dame-donations-hundreds-millions
It was also heartening to see so many of the treasures were spared.
Anonymous at 3:05 PM
I would be interested to see the back up for what you are asserting? If that were the case, how could seminarians learn the art of the confessional?
What I see in the picture: “...at His feet they cast their golden crowns.”
Anonymous, you spend a lot of time trying to find something to criticize in Fr.'s blog. It's almost as though you have some kind of professional jealousy or something, but how could THAT be?
Dan, seem to think that everything Fr. McDonald posts is factually correct, or that his personal opinions, not to mention his phobias, should be agreed to by everyone who reads this blog.
Or you think that those who see his errors or who disagree with his opinions should be silent.
Well, you err on both counts.
Catholics — young Catholics, speaking relatively — have fueled the rebirth of the TLM. Conversely, in overwhelming fashion, Catholics who had grown up with the TLM don't want any part of the TLM's rebirth.
For Catholics who had grown up with the TLM, Mass versus populum, devoid of Latin...Communion in the hand...were/remain very popular reforms.
But what I've heard time and again over the decades from Catholics who had grown in the "pre-Vatican II Church" is that wreckovation of churches had upset them.
"Nobody" wanted to hear Mass in Latin...Father mumbling in a language that they didn't understand...with his back to them...
But everybody desired to worship within beautiful churches.
Beautiful churches to honor God were wreckovated in the name of ecumenism. The notion, of course, was that ugly, bland, Protestant-like churches would attract Protestants to the Church.
That plan flopped in major league fashion.
Without question, the majority of Catholics long for the majesty in honor of God that Notre Dame embodied.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nah, I stand by my assessment. I would say most people are NOT visiting blogs looking to correct things in the blog owners posts, much less know, or care, about what the feel to be the personal phobias of the owner.
I think I'm on to something.
Mark Thomas
I take your point, but your over-generalization leads to a false dichotomy. It cannot be argued that those who had 'grown up with the TLM' (and in 1970 this meant all Catholics over the age of 16) welcomed the liturgical revolution. For a start, they were not consulted; a far reaching reform was imposed top-down on clergy and laity alike, in a space of five years.
No doubt some were enthusiastic. After all, the decade 1963-1973 saw rapid change in all walks of life. Others were appalled. Most were probably bemused and confused. The only hard evidence is the rapid fall-off in Mass attendance from the 1970s onwards, and this is not conclusive. My own opinion is that the general free-for-all which followed Vatican II, allied with a Zeitgeist which emphasized choice over obligation, goes a long way to explain it. The uninspiring nature of the new liturgy certainly didn't help, but it was more a symptom than a cause.
Those of us who 'grew up with the TLM' are now over 65. Looking at the congregations at Latin Masses (including those in the Ordinary Form) all age groups are represented, although the average age is bound to be lower for demographic reasons.
Europe is full of beautiful and historic churches. Too often the liturgy celebrated in them does not do justice to the surroundings. ND de Paris is no exception. The V2 reforms were pursued in France with an excès de zèle which all but destroyed the French choral tradition. Building it up again is a slow process and the French have actually asked for help from England. Sacré bleu!
ND does have a fine young choir which will need to find an alternative venue while the cathedral is restored. By the time it reopens things might have progressed to the extent that it will be marked by a Pontifical High Mass at the high altar (not that wretched little cube) to the accompaniment of Louis Vierne's Messe Solennelle.
Vierne died on 2 June 1937 at the console of the great Cavaillé-Coll organ which I understand survived the fire.
John Nolan,
My last visit to Notre Dame for Mass held a nice surprise . An English choir from I believe the area near Roehampton sang the Ordinary in Latin. We concluded Mass with the Salve Regina which my French host and I sang from memory. I recall mentioning to him it was nice to sing because it recalled a better time when we were a great, universal Church rather than the balkanized Church we had become
May your wish come true
"I would say most people are NOT visiting blogs looking to correct things in the blog owners posts, much less know, or care, about what the feel to be the personal phobias of the owner."
Dan, how many times has Fr. McDonald posted something and then invited comments by saying "Discuss"? Dozens, I would say.
So it seems that you think his invitation to discuss what was posted really means "Everyone agrees with me so there will be no discussion."
Interesting perspective, but pretty much nonsensical.
Also, how many times have you posted comments disagreeing with what others have said? Many dozens, I would say.
So your criticism of those who post disagreements ring a little hollow.
As to Fr. McDonald's self-admitted germ phobia, when he suggests that his irrational fears should determine how other churches act, then comments to the contrary are reasonable.
The first picture for this post shows that the debris landed right on top of Cranmer's table, or as John Nolan put it, the cube. Could this be a sign from the Almighty?
MT,
LOL. Well I guess I am a NOBODY to lefties like you (who by the way support infanticide and gay marriage) because I was raised in the Faith before Vatican Disaster II and I go almost exclusively now to the EF. You really should not engage in silly generalizations. I was around when the liturgical destruction occurred and I can tell you that the most enthusiastic supporters of the deforms were folks in their 40-50s at the time (which would make them well over 100 today). In the US at least, these folks also were largely big government, socialists, who LOVED the Soviet Union.
Another sign from the Almighty? Another Cranmer Table bites the dust!
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ceiling-collapses-in-one-of-maltas-oldest-churches
TJM - I am convinced you really have NO idea how disconnected from reality you are..
You say: "You really should not engage in silly generalizations."
Yet, you say: "Well I guess I am a NOBODY to lefties like you (who by the way support infanticide and gay marriage)"
That's a silly generalization you use against ANYONE who disagrees with you.
And now, in another silly - no absurd - generalization, you drag the former Soviet Union into your rants? "In the US at least, these folks also were largely big government, socialists, who LOVED the Soviet Union."
You REALLY have no clue, do you?
TJM
The last time I attended ND was in 2012 for first Vespers of the Assumption. Worshippers were corralled in the centre of the nave while tourists still circulated. A large tripod stood in front of the cube, burning incense - it gave a disturbingly pagan impression. We sang the psalms in French, although the Magnificat was in Latin. The organ was of course superb.
On the feastday I went to St-Eugène in the 9è arrondissement for the Tridentine Mass which was preceded at the Lady altar by the Litany and the recitation of the vow of Louis XIII whereby he consecrated France to Our Lady, followed by a procession. The priest's chasuble was emblazoned with the Royal Arms of France. The choir has an international reputation and in conformity with the Propre de Paris there was the Sequence 'Induant justitiam'. At the Offertory the congregation joined in with the hymn 'Omni die dic Mariae' (the tune is attributed to Lully). At the end we all sang 'Domine salvam fac Galliam'.
Unforgettable. Republics be damned. I am a Royalist through and through, as was the great and good Marcel Lefebvre.
Incidentally, this is an ordinary parish wih diocesan clergy, who also offer the Novus Ordo in French.
Anonymous K,
I have touched on a nerve obviously. A catholic priest, by definition, is divorced from reality if he votes for the Abortion Party. Have a nice day!!
John Nolan,
Thanks for the information on St-Eugene. I had no idea that it was an ordinary parish, I just assumed that the Church was dedicated to the EF exclusively. I have watched Mass celebrated there on YouTube and have been very, very impressed.
I certainly understand your Royalists sympathies! Speaking of Marcel Lefebvre, he should have been canonized rather than Paul VI. Leffebvre fought the good fight to save the EF, whereas in contrast, Paul VI, did his level best to destroy the EF.
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Anonyous K,
Sounds like a low standard for a priest, but again, we have been learning how low some priests go via the sexual scandals.
The operative language is "proportionate reaons." Pray tell, what is the proportionate reason for voting for someone like Pelosi who is very very comfortable with slaughtering the innocents for fundraising purposes. Is it jobs? Really?
TJM -
No, given the accusations your make regularly against some of the people who post on this blog, the operative words are "can be permitted."
As much as you don't like it, voting for a candidate who favors abortion CAN BE PERMITTED.
Anonymous K,
No, as Cardinal Ratzinger said there must be a proportionate reason. I would love to hear what you think is a proportionate reason to vote for baby killers. Otherwise, EPIC FAIL.
TJM - I posted the quotation, which shoots down totally your rants about Catholic voting for Democrats.
In case you missed it, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
See in that sentence the words "can be permitted."
You have huffed and puffed unendingly about Catholics voting for Democrats as being sinners, apostates, excommunicates, in mortal sin, etc.
You're wrong, and the note from the then-Prefect shows you are wrong.
I have no doubt that you have long concluded that there are no proportionate reasons, that there can be no proportionate reasons, so I'm not going to explain my or anyone else's reasons for voting. It is not mine nor is it the conclusion of tens of millions of Catholics who, with a clear conscience and the backing of the CDF, voted for the Democratic candidates.
I'm not going to explain my or anyone else's reasons for voting. You don't want the explanations, you simply want to continue to vent your spleen.
Anonymous K,
LOL, it sounds like your spleen is about to burst. It is sad that a so-called man of God is trying to justify voting for the baby killer and selling of baby parts Party. The whole concept articulated by Ratzinger is subject to the proportionate reason qualifier and you know it. You are simply being contumacious . Pathetic.
Yes, I know exactly what the Ratzinger note says.
You know that I know. I know that you know that I know - we are a very knowledgeable group of posters here.
I know that it says Catholics can, in good conscience, vote for candidates who favor abortion.
I know that this galls you since it undercuts your arguments about Catholics not voting for Democrats.
I know that they must have proportionate reasons for doing so.
I know that you believe that such reasons do not exist.
I know that by following the Ratzinger note I am not being contumacious, but conscientious.
I know that you will accept no reasons, since you believe they do not exist.
Anonymous, if you are the 'Anonymous' that loves to correct the grammar and spelling of Father's posts on his own blog, I would like to point out that the 'your' in '...accusations your make regularly...' should be YOU.
Please continue with your much needed vigilance. It has certainly improved my ability to discern errors.
Just as a reminder—Several weeks ago TJM posted an extract from the CDF document and omitted to mention the Nota Bene at the end, After this was pointed out, we heard crickets from him. Until now, I believe.
The phrase “proportionate reasons” requires interpretation. And that is precisely what the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship” does. See especially paragraphs 34-37:
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.
37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
Anonymous 2
I don't like it when bishops get involved in party politics. During the Thatcher years both the Catholic and Anglican hierarchy came close to endorsing the Labour Party, despite the fact that Labour was more ideologically committed to abortion than were the Conservatives. They (the bishops) also favoured unilateral nuclear disarmament, which was in the Labour manifesto for the 1983 election, along with withdrawal from NATO and the EEC. (Not for nothing was it dubbed the longest suicide note in history.)
However, I wouldn't call Labour the 'abortion party' and accept that many Catholics have conscientious reasons for voting for it. I would never do so, for the simple reason that every Labour government since 1945 has wrecked the economy. Mind you, the present Tory party has now embraced an extreme 'equality' agenda which I find repugnant, and has made a mess of Brexit, so if I vote for them again it will be with a distinct lack of enthusiasm.
In the meantime I shall continue to ignore anything emanating from Eccleston Square (HQ of the Bishops' Conference, and aptly nicknamed 'Fruitcake Square'). Do you have Eccles cakes in the USA? Just asking.
Anonymous 2,
Unlike Anonymous K, you at least provide some meat for the reasons why you feel the way you do. I ask you then to cite an example of a "proportionate reason" for voting for an advocate of infanticide and please don't respond "transgender bathrooms."
TJM - This "meat" has been provided to you previously.
You do not believe that ANY proportionate reasons exist. I would advise A2, who I am sure is aware of your predispositions, not to feed your trolling.
Anonymous is an expert on trolling!
"Anonymous is an expert on trolling!"
Welcome to the club, John Nolan.
You are officially a troll and have been given the rank of Tenderfoot. I expect great things from you, given your readily available troll record here.
John,
I agree with you about the inappropriateness of bishops getting involved in party politics. I suspect you would also agree, however, that as long as they do not endorse one party over the other, it_is_appropriate for bishops to provide moral guidance regarding issues that arise in the political conversation for Catholics to apply as they make their decisions in voting. This is what I understand the CDF and USCCB documents to be doing.
To my knowledge, we do not have Eccles cake in the United States unless it is imported from the U.K. However, I will make further enquiries. In the meantime perhaps some other readers have more precise information on the point. I do know that we have no Bluebottle cake in the United States (I imagine that only you and I will get this one).
TJM,
Unfortunately, I cannot offer an example of proportionate reasons now as you have preempted me.
TJM,
Also, within three minutes of asking me for an example of proportionate reasons on this thread, on another thread you said this of me: “Since you are an academic I realize you must subscribe to group think, otherwise you will no longer be welcome in the faculty lounge, that bastion of reality and tolerance.”
As Anonymous suggests, why on earth would I want to subject myself to continued puerile playground insults from someone who clearly is not interested in having a serious adult conversation?
Anonymous 2
Prince Charles would certainly get it! As a respite from political mudslinging and in the interest of culinary tradition, do you have hot cross buns in the USA? At one time they were eaten on Good Friday, but now seem to be available all year round.
John,
Oh my, that brings back memories! My parents did not follow the tradition of having hot cross buns on Good Friday but my grandparents did. And as a boy I was invariably visiting my grandparents on the Isle of Wight for Easter holidays, so hot cross buns are indelibly imprinted in my memory, as is so much else about the Island (in my book the Isle of Wight is about as close to Heaven as one can get on this Earth; I realize there is a good dose of nostalgic romanticizing here but, this said, my father’s family has been on the Island for generations, although he decided to live on the Mainland, as we call it, after leaving the British Army in 1947).
As for the States, yes, one can find hot cross buns over here but they are not a big thing. Here is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article about them (we live in Macon about 80 miles south of Atlanta):
https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/dining/easter-tradition-with-mysterious-origins/souEicZODojSDslziT76ZL/
Inspired by your comment, I will suggest to my wife (who is from Alabama but loves all things British—which is just as well for me!) that we resume the tradition in our home in future years.
And while on the subject of British traditions, perhaps it an opportune occasion to introduce the good people who follow Father McDonald’s blog to Eccles and Bluebottle (if the time differential between England and Georgia is now 5 hours again, you posted your comment just around 8 o’clock):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctM_Rvgjfpo
Their world may never be the same again!
Post a Comment