When Roots and Branches Collide

Recent events have brought to mind a scene from one of my favorite movies of all time.

The Shoes of the Fisherman is a 1968 American film drama, based on the 1963 novel of the same name by the Australian novelist Morris West. Shot on location in Rome, it was directed by Michael Anderson and released by MGM. In one early scene, Archbishop Kiril Lakota (Anthony Quinn) has recently been released after twenty years in a Soviet labor camp. He has come to visit the man who escorted him to freedom, Father David Telemond (Oskar Werner), where he is congratulated on his elevation to the Sacred College of Cardinals, and to give his reaction to a controversial work penned by Father Telemond, which is undergoing official scrutiny.

Lakota: So your hearing is set for tomorrow, huh?

Telemond: Ten-thirty. Did you have a chance to read my book?

Lakota: Yes, I did.

Telemond: Well, I'm not going to die from the truth.

Lakota: I found very little of the Christian faith as I know it, in your book. For twenty years, that faith alone kept me alive.

Telemond: Go on.

Lakota: I found it ... speculative, dangerous ... and full of ...

Telemond: Heresy

Lakota: It … It challenges the faith. For instance, Jesus Christ speaks of the redemption of the soul. I find not one mention of the word "soul" in your writings.

Telemond: But it's there, only under another name!

Lakota: Why change a name if you're not afraid of it?

Telemond: To express in modern terms ... reality and truth more clearly.

Lakota: Well, Father, if you truly believe that ... why did you remain a priest?

Telemond: Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

Lakota: I'm not accusing you of anything. That is for you to answer. But are you sure you are honest -- with yourself?

Telemond: I'm under a death sentence. I cannot afford to be otherwise. [Pause] May I offer you another drink?

Lakota: No. No, thank you. [Pause] You know, David, for many men, belief is a place to crawl for safety. Of course, they will fear and accuse you. Your writings are a danger to their safety.

Telemond: I'm not afraid of being accused. I'm only afraid of being silenced. You know, even God has not spoken His last word about His own creation. [Pause] Would you like to hear some Shostakovich?

Lakota: That would be fine.

Telemond: Eminence, you are destroying me before the commission does.

Lakota: Oh, David, that was not my intention. No, as a matter of fact, after I read your book last night ... I couldn't sleep. I saw a brilliant mind reaching out to the last frontiers of thought. A place where I wouldn't venture. [Pause] I came to wish you well tomorrow. I will say my mass for you.

Telemond: Thank you.

“I saw a brilliant mind reaching out to the last frontiers of thought.” Think about that for a moment, and consider that, elsewhere in the film, the young priest returns to the point of origin concerning matters of belief.

Lakota: David … I'm feeling lost. I'm troubled by the whole idea of my coronation.

Telemond: Why?

Lakota: I am not prepared to be crowned with the pomp of a prince, while hungry men live in the shadow of death. Because in the emotion of the moment, I may have done wrong to accept the election.

Telemond: “Tu es Petrus.” You are Peter.

Lakota: [Pause] There is one consolation. As pope, I cannot preach error, no matter what folly I may commit. The church will survive.

+    +    +

Much has already been written about the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the Family, currently underway in Rome. This writer could not begin to provide a comprehensive survey, never mind a complete account of the proceedings. (In this case, it's not the day job, but one-week-plus vacation, and a wee bit of the writer's block.) This piece will be limited to a few highlights, and some random thoughts that may or may not have occurred to anyone else in the Catholic blogosphere.

The secular press, and the more irresponsible corners of the Catholic press, are all over the notion that our Mother the Church is going to be more "welcoming" to those with alternate sexual proclivities, as well as those in invalid marriages wishing to receive Communion.

With the release of a “relatio post disceptationem” (which is Latin for “report after the discussion”), essentially a working draft of ideas (ostensibly) exchanged during the proceedings, all hell broke loose. On top of the authorized edition being in Italian instead of Latin (the former of which, as one of our assistants has observed, is essentially a "gutter version" of the latter), this six-thousand-word document was translated into English, French, German, and Spanish, all in the space of 24 hours. That can only mean one of four things; A) the document was translated very badly, B) the document was prepared ahead of time by certain nefarious parties with an agenda, C) the document was not prepared ahead of time, but was nonetheless dominated by certain nefarious parties with an agenda, or D) some or all of the above.

Let's go with "D" for right now.

Problems with the translation, and the manner of proceedings themselves, have come under fire.

In the English translation provided by the Vatican, this is rendered as: "Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"

The key word "valutando," which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as "valuing."

Italian's "valutando" in fact means "evaluating," and in this context would be better translated with "weighing" or "considering."

The English translation, in contrast, suggests a valuing of the homosexual orientation, which could at least create confusion to those who are faithful to the teaching of the Church.

Some will dismiss this as a distinction without a difference, but one should expect a certain precision in language when defining matters of faith and morals. But the confusion continued in the press conferences, in the form of bobbing and weaving in the face of plain questions requiring plain answers.

5:27: "I must say that it is not easy to answer such an ontological question …"

8:24: "We are now working from a position that's virtually, virtually, when I say, irredeemable; The message has gone out; this is what the Synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying, and it's not what we are saying at all."

Ontological?

Is an objective disorder integral to our being? Are we nothing more than the sum total of our appetites? And once we determine otherwise, how do we get the genie back into the bottle?

As the week went on, the relatio has stirred open revolt among the majority of the Synod fathers, who also take exception to remarks by Cardinal Kasper, who has arguably been the main antagonist in the entire affair, calling for changes in Church teaching while trying to make it sound as if he is not. In an interview reported by Zenit, Kasper dismissed the exclusion of African bishops from the review panel, saying that the prelates of that part of world "should not tell us too much what we have to do." Even New York's own Cardinal Dolan challenged this: "We in the Church in Europe, the Church in North America, we suffer sometimes from a lethargy, don't we? Not Africa! … The bishops of Africa are prophetic in reminding us that the role of the Church is to transform the culture, not to be transformed by the culture."

He could well afford to learn that lesson himself.

Of course, Kasper denied the Zenit report of the interview, which has been taken down from its page, but the internet is a marvelous environment for chickens coming home to roost. And so, His Immenseness was caught with the goods in short order. Meanwhile, some of the press are already disappointed that the English text has revised some of its language, making it less "welcoming."

+    +    +

So, some of you might be thinking: “Yo, mighty Black-Hatted One, whatever inspired your reminiscing of this nominee for two Academy Awards while reflecting upon this Synod?”?

When the Angelic Doctor himself, Thomas Aquinas, was using the philosophical approach of a pagan to develop a theological approach for the Church, he presented the arguments of his opponents, even to the point of explaining the merits contained therein, after which he would proceed to defeat them. There is a place for speculation, for posing hypotheses, but at the end of the day, the teaching authority of the Church demands clarity. No matter how far one branches out, one must return to the root, the source. The Synod has seen too much unrooted speculation, venturing into charted waters as if uncharted, and a growing number of the prelates assembled are heeding, if a bit overdue, the warnings posed early this year, by such reasonable voices as that of Father Peter Stravinskas ...

Back in May, I warned our readers that this Synod had the real possibility to be hijacked by special interest groups, rather than being a presentation of the life- and love-affirming teaching of the Catholic Church on marriage and the family … The lay faithful need to inform their shepherds of their intense desire to live the Gospel message with fidelity and to beg their shepherds to assist them in doing just that. We all must also pray that our priests, bishops and Pope have the faith and courage to give a clear signal and unflagging support. If you do this, you will duc in altum.

... as well as observations on pastoral difficulties already prevalent in the mishandling of the message, by Father Dwight Longnecker.

Here is an example: twice in the last week I have had to deal with Catholics in irregular marriages. One woman married outside the church and told me that she thought it was now okay for her to come to communion because, "The pope has changed all those old rules." Another man has divorced his wife and is living with another woman. He also assured me very confidently that it was now fine for him to come to communion because, "Pope Francis has changed the rules." I know you mean well Holy Father, and I admire and like you, but this process on which you have led us is not helping.

Someone who does help is Raymond Cardinal Burke in his EWTN interview where he names names and doesn't mince words. Canonist Ed Peters provides a list of highlights from that interview. If you study nothing else, this interview, and Peters' comments, are worth the half-hour or so of one's time.

Our disorders are not "gifts" to ourselves or anyone else. At most, they are a cross, a concession to our fallen nature, an invitation to accept what C S Lewis called "the gift of suffering." If we do not suffer, we do not need God. If we do not need God, we will not seek Him. If we do not seek Him, we will not find Him. Glossing over the difficulties of life does not remove their consequences, and even as the Church survives the tumult, Her faithful will spend years undoing the damage wrought.

There is supposed to be a follow-up Synod scheduled for next year. If the pastors of the Church cannot leave the situation better than they found it, the lot of them should save us all millions of dollars and just stay home. There will still be plenty of opportunities for damage control in their own back yard.
 

Loose Lips in the Loggia (St Jeanne-Françoise de Chantal Edition)

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments released guidelines on the Rite of the Sign of Peace during Mass.

In other words, nothing's going to change because most Catholics are used to the usual back-slapping smackdown right before communion shown twice in this video, and other assorted nonsense listed between 0:55 and 1:06, as opposed to a more dignified approach consistent with its authentic tradition, as seen at the altar between 0:43 and 0:48.

Meanwhile, here's what's bouncing around the bandwidth of believers lately:

• People are surprised to discover that Pope Francis is no longer playing Mister Nice Guy. In one case, he has found a way to piss off the Turks. It's safe to say he won't be visiting there soon. [Armenpress]

• Speaking of not going anywhere, in an attempt to never have an unpublished or unrecorded thought, Pope Francis says he expects to be on the job for only two or three more years before "I'll be off to the Father's House," a possible reference to the proposed retirement home for Popes at Castel Gandolfo. [Agence France-Presse]

• It was not enough to take away the "Mass Of All Time" from Fisher-More College, and forbid them from inviting priests of dubious canonical status. Most recently, the Most Reverend Michael Olson [A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics]

• And speaking of the Mass, we were told fifty years ago that the early Church was a total Kumbayah experience, gathering around the table watching some random holy guy split a loaf of bread in half with his bare hands. There may have been a bit more to it than that. [ADW.org]

• In recent years (as if it's never been thought of before), the Church is trying to reach out to the young people of today, using the latest of technology, and dumbing down the message to 140 characters or less. When you put it that way, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? Well, it gets worse. [projectYM]

• Finally, and speaking of technology, Pope Francis told a crowd of 50,000 altar servers from Germany to put down their cell phones and learn to actually communicate. They all lined up afterwords to get “selfies” with him. [Aleteia]

Well, that's our story and we're stickin' to it. Remember to attend Holy Mass this Sunday. Until the next chattel of church chat, stay tuned, and stay in touch.
 

Loose Lips in the Loggia (Assumption’s Eve Edition)

This seemed like as good a time as any to show this video, dedicated to one who is deserving of further discussion. All in good time. Now then ...

If someone had told me at this time last year, or before this time last week, that Father John Zuhlsdorf would be interviewed by the Jesuit periodical America, I never would have believed it. But sure enough, it happened in their issue published at this time last week, and I STILL can't believe it. See for yourself!

Meanwhile, here's what's bouncing around the bandwidth of believers lately:

• Paul Goings begs to disagree with the good Father that blogging is a form of ministry. "That there are prominent clergymen who actually believe this is part of the reason for the godawful mess we're in." He fails to explain how. [Facebook/Anglo-Catholic Central]

• In a story of yet another "form of ministry," Father Dwight Longnecker begins the first in a series of three articles, related to the passing of Tony Palmer, a protestant bishop and close personal friend of Pope Francis. In light of the Pope's stated desire that he have a Catholic funeral and be treated as though he was a real bishop -- after all, you'll believe anything, right? -- the good Father begins by asking the obvious. [Standing On My Head]

• Continuing with the matter of Tony Palmer and other "separated brethren," Father Longnecker elaborates on the concept of salvation as is found only in the Catholic Church. [Standing On My Head]

• And now, the climax to the whole Tony Palmer thing, as Father Longnecker explains the canonical aspects of suitability of a non-Catholic for a Catholic funeral, something that comes up in conversation at rectories around the world every day. Uh huh. [Standing On My Head]

• Oh, and one more thing. Father Longnecker announces that he is closing his comments box because all the nuts are coming out of the woodwork. After all, it's not as if he was encouraging them. [Standing On My Head]

• Kathryn discusses the spirituality of the recording artist who once sang about how "Catholic girls start much too late." [Through A Glass Brightly]

• In a (kinda sorta) related story, Hilary White discusses the trend of young men giving up on marriage because "women aren't women anymore." Well, isn't it obvious, hon? It's because the men aren't good enough anymore! [LifeSite News]

• On a lighter note, Pat Archbold explains what a parish could do in very short order to restore the sacred to its liturgical life, if you don't count the need for weekly explanations of the obvious in every parish bulletin for a year. [NCRegister]

• And now, back to the hard stuff, as the envoy for the Vatican at the United Nations says that military action may be justified to save Christians in Iraq. After all, it couldn't possibly get out of hand. Stay tuned on this one. [CatholicCulture.org]

• In a further attempt to address the aforementioned, Jonah Goldberg explains why the Swiss Guards should include ninjas. (Of course, why didn't we think of that?) [National Review]

Finally, a new website hoping to get down with the totally hep-cat Millennials crowd. That's where we got this totally rad video that hippity-hops the Gospel story in four minutes. The tagline? “Make holy all the things!” We'll see.

Well, that's our story and we're stickin' to it. Remember to attend Holy Mass tomorrow because it's a Holyday of Obligation, and then again next Sunday. Until the next weekly chattel of church chat, stay tuned, and stay in touch.
 

Clean Livin’ and Fancy Footwork (2014 Remix)

“Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem, sicut delexi vos, dicit Dominus. Beati immaculate in via: qui ambulant in lege Domini ...”

(“A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, says the Lord. Blessed are the undefiled in the way: who walk in the law of the Lord ...”)

For those of us in the western Church, Holy Week is soon to be upon us. As with every year, the Mass of the Lord's Supper on the evening of Holy Thursday (this year on April 17, one week from today), will be highlighted by the Washing of Feet.

Although the traditional number of subjects being twelve is largely a matter of custom, the rubrics are specific that that only males are selected (in Latin, viri selecti, usually translated as "men") to have their feet washed. Since most liturgical functions of the laity are open to both men and women, the significance of this restriction is lost on the general Catholic public. What's more, the exception is difficult to justify or explain simply at the parish level, and even parishes which are otherwise steadfast in devotion to Church teaching and practice, are known to allow women to have their feet washed.

Defenders of the practice, in addition to underscoring the need for fidelity to Church discipline in and of itself, are quick to point out the significance of the apostles' all being men, thus the connection with the institution of the ministerial priesthood is reinforced by only men's feet being washed. While this position appears worthy of merit on the surface, it could be sufficiently challenged. (Keep reading. It will be.)

Last year, the controversy assumed new meaning. The former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, then only recently named His Holiness Pope Francis, had in the past performed this rite with both women and men, usually at various charitable institutions. Last year, he ventured outside Saint Peter's Basilica, to celebrate the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper at the Casal del Marmo juvenile detention facility in Rome, where the feet of both young men and young women were washed.

(We refer to the excellent commentary by canonist Ed Peters on this very subject.)

+    +    +

Much of the above is generally known. What follows here, is what isn't.

It is important to remember at the offset, that the sanctuary (or presbyterium; that is, the place of presiding) is traditionally limited to men; and in the strictest sense, to those in the clerical state, be it major or minor. Since a typical parish church did not have the benefit of a complement of minor clerics, men and boys of the parish would act as legitimate surrogates. (Some can still remember when a layman would be pressed into service at a Missa Solemnis as a "straw subdeacon.") Again, strictly speaking, and in the official ceremonials, the use of males within the sanctuary remains the norm. It is only by legitimate indulgence in certain parts of the world (including nearly all of North America and much of Europe), that women perform liturgical functions -- reader, acolyte, and so on -- within the sanctuary at all. Even devout Catholics would not be aware of this, let alone that these indults were not instituted all at once, but at one time or another, during the last few decades of official liturgical reform.

Once exceptions were made (beginning with women ushers in 1969, then as lectors, at the celebrant's discretion, in 1971), it was only a matter of time before others would follow, whether at the initiative of the Holy See (as in the case of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, where a female Religious is actually preferred over an unconsecrated male), or an acquiescence to prolonged disobedience. What some defenders of the current directive fail to recognize, is that the connection to the ministerial priesthood was the traditional justification for all liturgical functions being restricted to men. (Strangely, no one has a problem with all-male ushers or pallbearers, even at parishes which use female altar servers.) The only significant exception that has not been made, is a practice that occurs only once a year, on Holy Thursday.

When we consider why disobedience persists, and attempt to challenge those who engage therein, it does not serve us to play loose with the facts. Michael Voris has suggested in the past that the requirement for "men" eliminates even boys. This is patently false, and only reinforces this writer's contention that liturgical matters are not Mr Voris's strong suit. The requirement is simply that they be "male," making no reference to an age requirement. Indeed, the use of twelve altar boys having their feet washed by the parish priest whom they serve has been a staple of this tradition for many years, and all in accordance with liturgical norms, inasmuch as “Custom is the best interpreter of laws.” (Canon 27, CIC)

As to why the current practice of washing only the feet of males officially persists, the reasons vary. One is the perception that a change would be one more reinforcement of "caving in" to those who violate liturgical directives in Catholic worship. This sends the wrong message to those who endeavor to be compliant, whatever the discomfort. The allowance of female altar servers in 1994, which is known to have occurred against the late Pope John Paul II's privately expressed wishes, is a case in point.

There is also a matter of propriety. Depending on the setting, even the age of the priest, it may be considered inappropriate for a man to wash the feet of a woman with whom he is not on sufficiently familiar terms, let alone in public. Again, the sensibilities of those assembled may vary from one region to another, even one parish to another. I know there are people in "civilized" parts of the world, especially in "über-enlightened" North America, where this is hard to believe. Such naysayers should really see more of the world, or at least watch the Discovery Channel. Or they can peruse a recent account of a priest with a ... well, a peculiar challenge.

The imagery of female footwashing is has substantially greater potential for conveying something sexually inappropriate–or (in our fallen world) actually being something sexually inappropriate.

Meanwhile, some parishes apparently feel the need to prove something to everybody, and will substitute the men-only foot washing with a Washing of Hands amidst the entire assembly. This is rather troubling, when you consider that it was Pontius Pilate who ceremoniously washed his hands in the presence of the crowd, to declare his resignation of Our Lord's eventual fate. If symbols are to have any enduring power, their meaning must be inherent, as opposed to being subject to whatever spin their manipulators (in the form of parish liturgy committees) wish to impose on them. Or have we forgotten what happened to the Emperor who listened to his tailor, at the expense of his own good judgment?

This may be why, in the diocese of yours truly, the bishop has directed that, the ritual itself being optional, parishes may choose instead to take up a collection of canned goods for those in need. And yet, one or two of his parishes will openly choose to "go rogue" on this one; yes, even in the Excruciatingly Orthodox Diocese of Arlington.

There are some who maintain that the original premise for the footwashing on Holy Thursday is to remind us of the institution of the priesthood. According to Dr Peters, the revival of the practice by Pius XII in his 1955 revision of the Holy Week rites did not serve that purpose in the fist place. Even so, it is best to follow the correct discipline of the Church in this matter. Even in our politically correct day and age, we have not entirely evolved beyond the separation of roles for male and female, and not just for setting preferences in the lifeboat. We are also obliged to set an example for ourselves and others. If I am a pastor who can play fast and loose with how the rules apply to me, how can I expect others to listen to me? Who determines what rules are okay to break or not to break?

This could be a source of confusion even were the offender in question to be the supreme legislator himself, namely the Holy Father, as is noted by his old friend, Father John Zuhlsdorf.

I understand what Francis is doing here. Fine. But in making such a dramatic change, I fear that he runs the risk of making these changes all about him, rather than some other message he wants to convey. The same goes for all the other changes he is making. The papacy isn’t just his own thing to do with what it pleaseth him to do. The changes can become distractions, especially the way the media will handle them.

That being said, there is a provision in old Roman law, inherited by the discipline of Mother Church, which holds thus: “He who gives the law can also dispense from it.” Canonist Peter Vere elaborates:

What the pope did was perfectly licit (lawful). He may have departed from established liturgical rubrics, but rubric in question is mere ecclesiastical law - not a matter of Divine Positive Law or Natural Law. Hence the rubric in question is subject to Pope Francis's authority as the Church's Supreme Pontiff. Within Roman (and Catholic) legal tradition he can either depart from mere ecclesiastical law, dispense from it, or completely change it if he believes there is good reason to do so or if a compelling pastoral reason presents itself.

... which is a prerogative that does not necessarily apply to another bishop, save that of Rome.

The problem here is, that if you don't know all that (and 99 percent of you didn't until now), its significance will be lost on you. It certainly will be when a faithful parish priest has to contend with a cabal of uppity laypeople throwing the Pope's example in his face. Like he doesn't have enough to worry about. The point here is that “charity in all things” is more than simply being nice. It is also a reason for doing good and avoiding evil, which means setting a proper example. And it is that example, which was the inspiration for our Lord washing the feet of his disciples.

It's not too much to ask for one evening of the year, don't you think?

Or don't you???

[The preceding was originally published in the spring of 2005, and is reissued each year to include subsequent developments, for the benefit of those among our readership who either earnestly desire to get a clue on this issue, or insist on going through life without one, or maybe just get a big kick out of accusing a priest or bishop of being "pharisaical." Or something. -- DLA]
 

A Tale of Two Popes

From the wires of the Associated Press, via USA Today:

The man who serves two popes has revealed that retired Pope Benedict XVI wrote four pages of critique and commentary on Pope Francis's landmark interview in which he blasted the church's obsession with "small-minded" rules.

Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, Benedict's personal secretary and head of Francis' papal household, was quoted by German broadcaster ZDF as saying that Francis had solicited Benedict's input.

The revelation is further evidence of the remarkable and unprecedented collaboration between the two popes ....

Click here for more on this supposed obsession over which Pope Francis supposedly blasted.
 

No More Roman Holiday?

Reports are coming out of Rome, that Pope Francis has called an emergency meeting of Cardinals who oversee the various departments (Sacred Congregations, et cetera) of the Roman Curia to discuss the future thereof. This is being interpreted by a number of Vatican watchers as heralding a major shakeup of the Vatican bureaucracy, such as was anticipated to happen in short order under this pontificate. Right now, the only source we have is Michael Voris reporting from ChurchMilitant.TV. We'll know more soon enough.

Stay tuned ...
 

Now We Are Eleven

This little corner of the Catholic blogosphere turned eleven years old today, but why the hell should you care?

Admit it, people. Life in the Catholic blogosphere has been rather boring of late, or at least predictable. How many times can you watch my close personal friend Mark Shea pick on somebody and get two hundred combox addicts taking to the ramparts, or Rorate Caeli most of whose contributors show their courage of conviction by not using their real names uncover yet another excuse to whine about a pope who won't do the Papal Mass in the traditional form even though no one is alive who knows how, or Michael Voris who never returns my calls spend eight minutes saying something that others could have said in three minutes -- about three decades ago, or some other "mommie blogger" who doesn't exactly move in the same circles as yours truly brag about her dream boat of a husband who probably sits there scratching himself and reading the paper wondering when the hell dinner's gonna be ready? Not too much to get excited about, dear minions.

I mean, yeah, we got a new pope and all that, but really! When I start reading drivel from the Catholic celebrity circuit, in the form of some neophyte barely out of his baptismal robes ...

"Today, the Holy Father appeared at the papal audience hall, and sat in one of the seats towards the back before giving his address. What is he trying to tell us about humility?"

I just want to shake them into some form of alignment and tell them ...

He's trying to tell us that he's seventy-six years old, has two hip replacements, one working lung, and he's really f@#$ing tired, you poncy schoolboy!!!

... but I never really get that chance.

The rest of you might be taken in by those innocent puppy-dog looks and that unpretentious wave to the crowd from the balcony, but I'm not fooled. As a Jesuit provincial in Argentina, he ruled with what one priest called "an iron fist." And when he's not kissing babies or setting a poor example with liturgical norms and making every other conscientious parish priest look and feel stupid, he speaks of sin and the Devil with a bluntness that would warm the cockles of any Lefebvrite's heart. Who knows, maybe we'll get to see what His Holiness does to clean up the Roman Curia. We can watch the heads of insolent paper-hangers roll down the Vatican steps. That's when I'll be impressed. And you'll all be wetting yourselves. Until then, I'll miss my Papa Benny if I want to.

Meanwhile, things have been kind of quiet here at the Black Hat Corral. At my day job, we just got done moving a makeshift video production studio back into the real one in the renovated headquarters building, and I was more or less put in charge of that. (Actually, they only renovated about half of it, and slapped a fresh coat of paint on the other half. Long story. Let's just say the midterm elections caused a lowering of expectations, okay?) After thirty years as a professional graphic designer, or as they call it, a "visual information specialist," I'm still getting used to being what is called an “audiovisual production specialist” (which became official in my personnel file about three weeks ago). But the fact is, I had gone about as far as I could go in my now-former profession, and when dealing with the issues of midlife, it was either a career change, or buying a high-performance automobile that I really couldn't afford.

Instead, I got a 2010 Honda Element about two months ago, essentially a compact miniature SUV with four-wheel drive, manufactured in my home state of Ohio. The model was discontinued in 2011, but I wanted one anyway. I couldn't find one with a sunroof, but I did find one with an overhead rack. And I love the way those big-@$$ doors open wide for light hauling, and how I can sit tall in the saddle. And it's silver, as in “Hi, ho, Silver!” Get it?

Last month I did a piece on the recent change in the membership policy of the Boy Scouts of America. It got more attention than I usually get, but the response was still less than remarkable. Then that guy who claims to showcase "the best in Catholic blogging" posted links to just about every other dilletante's piece on the subject, most of whom wouldn't know a sheepshank from a sheet bend. But find someone who is not only Catholic, but actually belongs to the Boy Scouts of America, and who might know what the hell is actually going on? No, that would be w-a-a-a-a-a-y too outside the box for this astute audience. Then there was that piece I did two weeks ago on the Sacred Heart. That's the sixth consecutive year I've posted that particular story, but it hardly got a notice until this year, when my new close personal friends at NewAdvent.org posted it at the top of their page. I got 1344 visits to my site that day! After eleven years, that is an all-time one-day record. My piece on the Latin Mass remains my biggest hit, but even that one only got about eight or nine hundred visits the first day. (Only? Geez!)

So, as I contemplate finally attending the annual Catholic New Media Conference in Boston this year, on the chance that someone won't get up in front of several hundred people and tell me little more than the obvious, I have to ask myself this burning question: What the hell is the matter with you people?

Thankfully, I have my answer.

Only a small number of you are reading all the way through articles on the Web. I’ve long suspected this, because so many smart-alecks jump in to the comments to make points that get mentioned later in the piece. But now I’ve got proof. I asked Josh Schwartz, a data scientist at the traffic analysis firm Chartbeat ... [his] data shows that readers can’t stay focused. The more I type, the more of you tune out. And it’s not just me. It’s not just Slate. It’s everywhere online. When people land on a story, they very rarely make it all the way down the page. A lot of people don’t even make it halfway. Even more dispiriting is the relationship between scrolling and sharing. Schwartz’s data suggest that lots of people are tweeting out links to articles they haven’t fully read. If you see someone recommending a story online, you shouldn’t assume that he has read the thing he’s sharing.

That means that just under half of you have made it this far. And that the rest of you have abysmally short attention spans.

Hopefully some of you made it this far with other articles as well. This past year has seen our most popular work. Last fall saw two of them. “The Latin Mass: Why You Can’t Have It” remains our perennial champion, pleasing so many who are devoted to the traditional form of the Roman Mass (except for those pansies at Rorate Caeli, who know that the only way to accomplish anything is through superior posturing and incessant bitching). It was followed shortly thereafter by a revised version of a piece on the history of women and the diaconate that I did years ago, that was hidden in the recesses of the EWTN Online Library, until “Deaconess: A Rose By Any Other Name” hit the Catholic blogosphere. Suddenly there was a guy who knew the whole story. For once.

Were it not for the success of the two pieces just mentioned, this venue may have been shut down for a forty-day sojourn in the virtual desert, if not permanently. But fate, and just the right topics at just the right times, intervened.

And so, we shall press on for another year, with material too original for the average blog reader, some with complex subject matter, multi-syllabic words, and without pictures of nuns riding on surfboards via Photoshop. There will be one or two more stories on the Boy Scout situation, now that those in upper echelons realize the size of the egg they've just laid, and are in full damage-control mode. You'll learn how that's shaping up, what other alternatives are in the works, both Catholic and otherwise, and why yours truly has not abandoned the BSA just yet. (Yes, there's a reason.) There may be at least one more significant piece on the state of Catholic worship, as well as what my son Paul is up to. We might even do a political piece, just to see if anyone at the National Security Agency has enough time to kill to read this. But if they don't, it's just as well. This writer has all the fame he can handle at the moment.

“Mommy, there’s that guy with the black hat that we see in church standing next to the priest. Is he a deacon or something?”

And so it goes.
 

Clean Livin’ and Fancy Footwork (2013 Remix)

[The following was originally published in the spring of 2005. In light of some dioceses going on record as "winking" at variance from correct practice for Holy Thursday's foot-washing ritual -- this may include, we think, the Diocese of Rome -- we present here yet another updated edition of one of our classic works. -- DLA]

“Mandatum novum do vobis: ut diligatis invicem, sicut delexi vos, dicit Dominus. Beati immaculate in via: qui ambulant in lege Domini ...”

(“A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, says the Lord. Blessed are the undefiled in the way: who walk in the law of the Lord ...”)

For those of us in the western Church, Holy Week is soon to be upon us. As with every year, the Mass of the Lord's Supper on the evening of Holy Thursday (this year on March 28, one week from today), will be highlighted by the Washing of Feet.

Although the traditional number of subjects as twelve is largely a matter of custom, the rubrics are specific that that only males are selected (in Latin, viri selecti, usually translated as "men") to have their feet washed. Since most liturgical functions of the laity are open to both men and women, the significance of this restriction is lost on the general Catholic public. What's more, the exception is difficult to justify or explain simply at the parish level, and even parishes which are otherwise steadfast in devotion to Church teaching and practice, are known to allow women to have their feet washed.

Defenders of the practice, in addition to underscoring the need for fidelity to Church discipline in and of itself, are quick to point out the significance of the apostles' all being men, thus the connection with the institution of the ministerial priesthood is reinforced by only men's feet being washed. While this position appears worthy of merit on the surface, it could be sufficiently challenged, given developments in liturgical law following the Second Vatican Council.

This year, the controversy takes on new meaning. The former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, now His Holiness Pope Francis, has in past years performed this rite with both women and men, usually at various charitable institutions. This year, in a departure from tradition, the new Holy Father will venture outside Saint Peter's Basilica, to celebrate the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper at the Casal del Marmo juvenile detention facility in Rome, where the feet of both young men and young women will be washed.

(We refer to the excellent commentary by canonist Ed Peters on this very subject.)

+    +    +

We should be reminded at the offset that the sanctuary, or presbyterium, as the place of presiding, was traditionally limited to men. Since a typical parish church did not have the benefit of a complement of minor clerics, men and boys of the parish would act as legitimate surrogates. (Some can still remember when a layman would be pressed into service at a Missa Solemnis as a "straw subdeacon.") Strictly speaking, and in the official ceremonials, this is still the case. It is only by legitimate indulgence in certain parts of the world (including nearly all of North America), that women perform liturgical functions -- reader, acolyte, and so on -- within the sanctuary. Even devout Catholics would not be aware of this, let alone that these indults were not instituted all at once, but at one time or another, in the last few decades of official liturgical reform.

Once exceptions were made (beginning with women ushers in 1969, then as lectors, at the celebrant's discretion, in 1971), it was only a matter of time before others would follow, whether at the initiative of the Holy See (as in the case of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, where a female Religious is actually preferred over an unconsecrated male), or an acquiescence to prolonged disobedience. What some defenders of the current directive fail to recognize, is that the connection to the ministerial priesthood was the traditional justification for all liturgical functions being restricted to men. (Strangely, no one has a problem with all-male ushers or pallbearers, even at parishes which use female altar servers.) The only significant exception that has not been made, is a practice that occurs only once a year, on Holy Thursday.

When we consider why disobedience persists, and attempt to challenge those who engage therein, it does not serve us to play loose with the facts. Michael Voris has suggested in the past that the requirement for "men" eliminates even boys. This is patently false, and only reinforces this writer's contention that liturgical matters are not Mr Voris's strong suit. Since the term "men" is not defined here, we might assume that any male who has received all sacraments of initiation, including Confirmation, is of sufficient maturity in the life of the Church. Indeed, the use of twelve altar boys having their feet washed by the parish priest whom they serve has been a staple of this tradition for many years, and all in accordance with liturgical norms, inasmuch as “Custom is the best interpreter of laws.” (Canon 27, CIC)

As to why the current practice of washing only the feet of males is still recognized as proper, the reasons vary. One is the perception that a change would be one more reinforcement of "caving in" to those who violate liturgical directives in Catholic worship. This sends the wrong message to those who endeavor to be compliant, whatever the discomfort. The allowance of female altar servers in 1994, which is known to have occurred against the late Pope John Paul II's privately expressed wishes, is a case in point.

There is also a matter of propriety. Depending on the setting, even the age of the priest, it may be considered inappropriate for a man to wash the feet of a woman with whom he is not on sufficiently familiar terms, let alone in public. Again, the sensibilities of those assembled may vary from one region to another, even one parish to another. I know there are people in "civilized" parts of the world, especially in "über-enlightened" North America, where this is hard to believe. Such naysayers should really see more of the world, or at least watch the Discovery Channel.

Meanwhile, some parishes apparently feel the need to prove something to everybody, and will substitute the men-only foot washing with a Washing of Hands amidst the entire assembly. This is rather troubling, when you consider that it was Pontius Pilate who ceremoniously washed his hands in the presence of the crowd, to declare his resignation of Our Lord's eventual fate. If symbols are to have any enduring power, their meaning must be inherent, as opposed to being subject to whatever spin their manipulators (in the form of parish liturgy committees) wish to impose on them. Or have we forgotten what happened to the Emperor who listened to his tailor, at the expense of his own good judgment?

This may be why, in the diocese of yours truly, the bishop has directed that, the ritual itself being optional, parishes may choose instead to take up a collection of canned goods for those in need. And yet, one or two of his parishes will openly choose to "go rogue" on this one; yes, even in the Excruciatingly Orthodox Diocese of Arlington.

There are some who maintain that the original premise for the footwashing on Holy Thursday is to remind us of the institution of the priesthood. According to Dr Peters, the revival of the practice by Pius XII in his 1955 revision of the Holy Week rites did not serve that purpose in the fist place. Even so, it is best to follow the correct discipline of the Church in this matter. Even in our politically correct day and age, we have not entirely evolved beyond the separation of roles for male and female, and not just for setting preferences in the lifeboat. We are also obliged to set an example for ourselves and others. If I am a pastor who can play fast and loose with how the rules apply to me, how can I expect others to listen to me? Who determines what rules are okay to break or not to break?

This could be a source of confusion even were the offender in question to be the supreme legislator himself, namely the Holy Father, as is noted by his old friend, Father John Zuhlsdorf.

I understand what Francis is doing here. Fine. But in making such a dramatic change, I fear that he runs the risk of making these changes all about him, rather than some other message he wants to convey. The same goes for all the other changes he is making. The papacy isn’t just his own thing to do with what it pleaseth him to do. The changes can become distractions, especially the way the media will handle them.

“Charity in all things” is more than simply being nice. It is also a reason for doing good and avoiding evil, which means setting a proper example. And it is that example, which was the inspiration for our Lord washing the feet of his disciples.

It's not too much to ask for one evening of the year, don't you think?

Or don't you???
 

FAMW: Obligatory Vatican Flash Mob

The entire staff here at man with black hat can't stop thinking about the new pope. So they barge into my office, you see, and they tell me: “Yo! Mighty Black-Hatted One, we humbly beg to show your legion of fans a flash mob in St Peter’s Square.” I told them, fine, do a search on YouTube already, just quit being a bunch of suck-ups and get the hell out of my office.

This was the best they could do, for this week's Friday Afternoon Moment of Whimsy.
 

We now return to our regularly scheduled ... stuff!

Now that things are returning to (what passes for) normal around here, it occurs to us here at man with black hat that we have been missing out on opportunities to tell you which cardinal would make the best pope, and why someone fat, jolly, and charismatic, or someone young, fresh, theologically vague, liturgically indifferent, and charismatic, would sound like a good choice only to John Allen and a few overly-excitable-albeit-faithful Catholics, but to no one who has been paying attention to Pope Benedict, and the direction he has taken us.

Speaking of which, some bunch of yahoos are already talking about him as "the Great" and he's not even dead yet. (One more reason not to blame him for quitting.) And as far as the conclave goes, it is worth pointing out that the honorary clergy of Rome (that is, the Sacred College of Cardinals) are not picking the Homecoming Queen, but the Bishop of Rome, who by virtue of that title becomes the Supreme Pontiff, and the Successor of Peter (and no, it's not the other way around). It also seems that the cable news channels aren't exactly picking the brightest bulbs in the sockets to be talking heads, not as well as they did the last time. (Where is Father Z when you need him? Oh, now I remember.)

It seems to me that we as a Church need to get a grip on ourselves, don't you think?

Or don't you?
 

This Just In: Benedict XVI Still Pope!

I can hear it now:

Panic hit the streets of Rome today, as thousands of Italians loitering in bistros for most of the afternoon, were shocked to learn that they have to wait more than two weeks, for the prospect of an Italian ever again becoming the next Successor of Saint Peter. Speculation continues as to whether this commotion was cause for the response by the Almighty Himself, that of a bolt of lightning striking the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica, as first reported by Agence France-Presse ...

If the above sounds incredible to you, it's nothing compared to most of what you've heard or read in the last 48 hours. Speculation as to who the next pope will be is a favorite pastime of newsmakers and bookmakers around the world. At last report, there are 300 to 1 odds on Bono. That's right, the former singer of the Irish pop band U2 is a papabile (a contender for the papacy). It's come to that.

Actually, and in theory, any baptized and confirmed Catholic male can be elected pope, although he would first have to be ordained a deacon, priest, and bishop, all at the same time. In the case of a married man, he would have to separate from his wife, and she would have to enter seclusion, or a convent. (No, I'm not making this up. If history is any indication, that's what would most likely happen.)

Yes siree, Bob, that sounds incredible too, but for reasons stated above, the folks here at man with black hat are still way ahead of the pack at dear old Saint Blog's Parish.

Don't believe me? This past Monday, our research assistant watched Fox News in utter disbelief, as they interviewed one of the newest fresh young faces in the Catholic blogosphere, who did not know that the skullcap worn by prelates is not a yarmulke, but a zucchetto. (I've been wondering for the longest time why that kid's always smiling in his pictures. Then I saw a photograph of his wife. That's gotta be it.) Others, from CMR to the Crescat, begin by appearing to be upset, that someone who is going to die eventually (which is not unusual, by the way) is one day not going to be the pope anymore. Maybe those of us who do this are just venting. Nothing wrong with that.

Or maybe we're just not reading between the lines.

Fortunately, the worst of times can bring out the best in a few of us. One example is Father Dwight Longenecker.

Now he surprises us again. Not for six hundred years has a pope stepped aside. He has done so quickly and unexpectedly. While his decision cannot have been sudden. The sudden effectiveness–he will be gone within a few weeks–is brilliant. There is scarcely time for the world’s cardinals to book their plane tickets–much less to be politicking and planning how to get the white soutane. The press has not had the chance to be picking papabile for months. The Vatican insiders have not had time to get “their man” in place.

Then there is a commentary by CNA reporter Louie Verrecchio, writing for RenewAmerica.com.

Mark my words: We will know what the immediate future holds for the Church based upon just one observation; namely, the liturgical mindset of Pope Benedict's successor.

This only makes sense, as “Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivandi.” (“The law of praying, the law of believing, the law of living.”) This has been on the forefront of Pope Benedict's agenda, and was among the many reasons for the restoration of the Traditional Form of the Roman Rite in the official worship of the Western church. But perhaps the most telling piece came from out of the wilderness, literally, in the form of a priest-hermit by the name of Father George David Byers.

Most of you Cardinals know what kind of hell went on during the last conclave. I was told by one who would know ...

... and you can believe him. This is not just about high drama for its own sake, but it is a big part of that to which Father Longenecker refers, which is about being “clever as snakes and meek as doves” (Matthew 10:16). When you've got "players" in any sort of palace intrigue, such as that which precedes a papal conclave, you basically have two kinds; you have poker players, and you have chess players. Most of the poseurs among the Sacred College of Cardinals are poker players. You can tell by the amount of face time they get on cable news channels. This is the least of many reasons why an American is extremely unlikely to ever be pope for the foreseeable future. (We'll get to the other one later.)

What you have, then, is a man who has spent nearly eight years, albeit with inexplicable moves (Levada, Müller, and so on), arranging his pieces, and waiting for the moment to call “checkmate!”

And that is NOT so inexplicable.

Something else we've noticed. Amidst the announcement that “I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry ...” one high-priced know-it-all after another has been insisting that the Holy Father's health had nothing to do with his decision, which fails to explain his wearing a pacemaker. This was not something generally known, but which we here at mwbh have suspected for some time, just by watching him. (Yeah, we're that good.)

Once the call of "Extra omnes!" ("Everybody out!") is proclaimed, and the doors close behind the princes of Mother Church for them to choose amongst themselves, anything can happen, and already has. That said, the next Servant of the Servants of God will more likely than not fulfill at three criteria:

1. He will not be much over sixty years old. If you look at the list of popes over the last one hundred years, they more of less alternate between popes with short tenures and those with long ones. John XXIII reigned for only five years, while Paul VI was Vicar of Christ for fifteen years. John Paul I followed as pope for just over a month, while John Paul II was one of the longest reigning popes in history (26 1/2 years, second only to Pius IX, who reigned for 31 1/2 years in the mid- and late-19th century). The tenure of Benedict XVI will have been relatively short, at just under eight years. So the next one would most likely be expected to sit in the Chair of Peter for a long time. This is easier when you start out younger, which makes sense, don't you think? (Or don't you?)

2. He will come from a land near or below the equator. The era of European chauvinism (or specifically, Italian) is coming to an end, as the Sacred College becomes more representative of the planet as a whole, and the majority of the world Catholics now live in the Southern Hemisphere. We had already begun to explain the unlikelihood of an American pope. The other reason is that, to many in Rome, and to Catholics around the world, the perception is that Americans think everything is about them. For this reason alone, regardless of where you hear or read it, any pundit who suggests that an American is a contender is wasting your time, and if that isn't bad enough, probably getting paid for it.

3. He will be both theologically and liturgically in continuity with his predecessor. As Bob Dylan once wrote, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” A tired generation of aging adolescents who promoted "the spirit of Vatican II" while barely reading its documents is witnessing their last hurrah. No one with the sense that the good Lord gave a duck -- of course, as we all know, the good Lord didn't give a duck a whole lot of sense -- will attach their legacy to a falling star. Many of the "chess pieces" in the next conclave know how they got there, and will not view it lightly.

You will notice that we have failed to mention any names among the red hats. No, no, dear reader, we're way too smart to fall for that old trick. We would just as soon have fun and games with the Prophecies of Saint Malachy. Meanwhile, a Vatican spokesperson says Pope Benedict XVI will be moving to a monastery on the grounds of the Vatican when he resigns. He'll also get a new title once his resignation takes effect on the 28th of February -- the fifth anniversary of the death of his dear friend, Dom Gérard Calvet, OSB, founding abbot of Sainte Madeleine du Barroux Abbey in Le Barroux, France.

Or so we are told.