Slap the Trads

It seems that the Powers-That-Be know that "for all" is an incorrect translation of the Latin "pro multis", but the Bishops are playing the partisan card, rather than pursuing Truth.

From The Remnant:

"For All" v. "For Many"

Bishops Fear Correct Translation Might be "Giving In" to "Lefebvrites"

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.

(www.RemnantNewspaper.com) Have you seen in the June proceedings of the US Bishops' Conference, on the authority of Cardinal George, no less, that the main reason our shepherds are refusing to go back to "for many" instead of "for all" in translating the words of consecration of the chalice "pro multis" is precisely to slap traditionalists in the face?

Far from showing any pastoral concern to bring back traditionalists who have gone into sedevacantism and/or at least material schism over this issue, their attitude seems solely self-righteous and self-serving.

I had long thought that maybe their unwillingness to restore "for many" was based on their ignorance of just how much "for all" has scandalized traditional Catholics. I'm afraid it's much worse than that: they are well aware of this widespread traditionalist anguish, but don't care!

They don't even bother to pretend that the translation decision now depends on objective linguistic scholarship. No, Cardinal George assures us that the main reason the key committee has opted to stay with "for all" is that going back to "for many" at this stage might seem like giving in to the "Lefebvrites" and other traditionalists who claim "for all" invalidates the Mass!

Whatever happened to our bishops' awareness of St. Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 10: 23-29 about charitable concern for the over-sensitive or scrupulous consciences of Christians scandalized by the practice of eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols? In itself, the practice is not wrong, says Paul, because those idols are objectively nothing; but you don't eat such meat under circumstances where you are going to shock and scandalize other brethren who sincerely see things differently. Likewise, the "for all" translation is not objectively invalid, but going back to "for many" would not only be in line with Tradition (and all the published Scripture versions of Jesus' words at the Last Supper!), it would overcome a major obstacle that many over-scrupulous Catholics find in accepting the validity of the vernacular Mass.

But among our gentle and loving Shepherds of Christ's flock, a petulant (childish?) insistence on "not giving in" - not even yielding one inch! - to the despised traditionalists evidently takes priority over even that reconciliation and Church "unity" which, in the 'ecumenical' context, justifies (in the sight of most modern bishops) any number of unheard-of novelties.

Oremus!

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.

Stand down, Rosa, you are not needed anymore

Do the Catholic kids get to ride the normal bus with the Protties, or do they have to ride the short bus?

Catholic children to be allowed use Protestant bus service
29/08/2006 - 09:44:40

The row over the provision of seats on a state-funded school bus service in Limerick appears to have been resolved.

The mother of two Catholic pupils who were refused permission to use the bus because of their religion had threatened legal action against Limerick City VEC unless it changed its stance.

The children are students at the mainly Protestant Villiers school on the North Circular
Road, which is served by the bus at the centre of the dispute.

The VEC said the service was only available to Protestant children who lived more than three miles from their nearest Protestant school.

A solicitor for the mother of the Catholic children says they have now received two passes in the post.

It is unclear who sanctioned the passes, but solicitor John Devane said the family were happy with the outcome and feel that they have been vindicated.

Where is Rosa Parks when you need her?

Catholic bus ban takes new turn
24 August 2006
By Jimmy Woulfe, Mid-West Correspondent

THE ban on Catholic students travelling on a new bus to a Protestant school in Limerick took a new twist yesterday when it emerged that there are still seats available on the bus.

A Catholic couple, whose son and daughter attend the school were refused passes. Transport liaison officer, Deirdre Frawley, told Bernadette and Harry Gleeson that only children of Protestant denominations have an entitlement to transport on the bus, which will travel from Adare to Villiers School on the North Circular Road.

Ms Frawley disclosed yesterday that places on the bus had not been fully subscribed yet as that process was still ongoing.

She said there is provision in Department of Education guidelines to make concessions if the bus is not fully subscribed.

This could enable Catholic children travel on the bus if there are places.

She said that she will be writing to the Gleesons, who live at Caher Road, Mungret, shortly.

Ms Frawley said: "It would be inappropriate for me to comment on this letter as it has to be cleared by our legal advisers."

She said the Department sets out guidelines on who is entitled to travel on school buses.

Ms Frawley said: "It is my job to determine eligibility."

The Gleesons have instructed Limerick solicitor John Devane over the refusal to give passes to their children.

NFP Revisited

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is in the Colorado Springs Catholic News (again!). Since His Excellency has instituted new Marriage Preparation guidelines, two points have come to the forefront: the length of time for the preparation (one year), and the NFP requirement. The Bishop's article on the use of NFP is a bit lengthy for a blog post, but I think that it raises some interesting questions.

From the article:

The reason why NFP education will be required is that this is the truly viable and moral alternative to artificial contraception and the growing contraceptive mentality ...

But for what do 90% of Catholics use NFP? Ummm ... that would be 'avoiding a pregnancy'. They are seeking not to conceive. Can someone explain to me again how NFP is an alternative to the contraceptive mentality?

The next part of the article expounds on Catholic teaching of artificial contraception. However, I do take issue with the following statement.

Contraception is immoral for this simple reason: it violates the dignity of the human person as well as the divinely instituted meaning of marriage.

Here we see the standard Conservative Catholic catch-phrase 'dignity of the human person'. I have a couple of degrees from a good (decent) Liberal Arts Catholic College. But I have yet to get a succinct definition of 'dignity of the human person'. In the Psalter, David (as a figure of Christ), says that he is but a worm. So much for dignity.

But we also have a bigger problem. The human dignity card seems to trump the God-Creator card. Contraception is immoral (nay, evil) because Man is placed above God in the order and timeliness of creation. Contraception says, "No thanks, God, We know better than you. We know that you want to act through us in order to create an immortal soul, but we don't have time for that right now."

His Excellency seems to get the point, but for some reason places the above 'human dignity' before the offense of God. Later on, he identifies the incredible gift which God has given couples to participate in Creation ...

God, in fact, invites married couples to a unique participation in the power of creation.

... but still does not actively recognize the sin of contraception is first and primarily a shunting of God's creative power.

Next comes the phrase that makes my blood boil:

While the church teaches that artificial contraception is always sinful, the church also teaches the necessity of responsible parenthood. Part of what it means to be responsible parents can involve the spacing of children in a family.

Did you catch that? Responsible parenthood. It's all well and good to preach responsible parenthood, but what are the guidelines of such? What IS responsible parenthood? I want a positive definition, not one of those definitions that tell me what it is not. My wife and I have 7 (seven) children, ages 10 and younger. Are we responsible parents? We go to Mass with many other families with just as many children. Are any of them responsible parents?

From my rant below:

There is a logical question that flows from the above. Am I somehow an irresponsible parent if I do not use NFP? Why is it necessary, as a citizen of a First World Country, to plan a family? [Disclaimer: Grave matter and/or circumstances trump my objections.]
Every time a friend or family member throws the spitball of "responsible parenthood" in my direction, I whack a line-drive back at his head with the above questions. And invariably, he ends up with a goose-egg swelling over the left-eye. The teaching of NFP also instills a contraceptive mentality, which forms the grave intent required for mortal sins. Remember, Our Lord said that if you even look at a woman
lustfully, you are guilty of adultery. So what does that say about those who use the tool of NFP as a contraceptive? [Disclaimer as above.]

Next, His Excellency gets into the concept of periodic abstinence.

When a couple conscientiously and for just cause decides that the conception of a child ought to be delayed, the couple may refrain from
sexual intercourse during the days of the woman's fertile period.

Good. He mentioned just cause. I think it should more along the lines of serious or grave, but at least he is qualifying the use of NFP. But you know what? If you have just reason for delaying the conception of a child, then stop with the lovin' for 6 months, not the two-weeks-on, two-weeks-off garbage. If you don't have a serious enough cause to give it up for 6 months, then you shouldn't be using NFP in the first place.

His Excellency then says about NFP,

it has absolutely proved itself to be a boon to marriages.

I have seen this statement a gazillion times. (And, yes, 'gazillion' is a word. Look it up.) My reply to this 'boon' is, "Show me the money!"

How has it been a boon? I call B.S. Every man that I have talked to about NFP gives lip-service to the "closeness" and "increased intimacy" mantra. The fact is, I am the man of my house, and I am letting some chart tell me how and when I can love my wife. It is frustrating, demeaning, and turns the man or woman into a begging dog 3 out of every 4 months. What was that about the 'dignity of the human person' again? Platitudes are nice. But reality is that NFP does nothing for the average marriage, but is a monthly point of contention for man and wife.

If you seriously need to avoid a pregnancy, then don't have sex, and flee from the near occasions. Hey, you did it for the year before you got married in Colorado and Kentucky-- you can do it again.

I am a Providentialist. (Hey! Don't look at me like I just used a dirty word.) I happen to take Our Lord at His Word, (or at least try to)

31 Be not solicitous therefore, saying, What shall we eat: or what shall we drink, or wherewith shall we be clothed?
32 For after all these things do the heathens seek. For your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.
33 Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.

His Excellency echoes this in his letter:

We must trust that God will not let us down. He will transform the counterfeit into something better and more fulfilling than we ever imagined.

I just hope and pray that the use NFP does not become another measuring stick for orthodoxy. I have a feeling it already has.

Always a Joyous Occasion, Part II

Congratulations to Der Tommissar (and the Missus, of course) on the birth of Quarta.

Also notice that DT now uses a tiny little picture of a pint of Guinness as the site icon (which shows up in the address bar).

Cheers to you and yours, Tom:

Peeve of the Day: Word Usage

I have seen this word used enough that I am beginning to think that it will become part of the dictionary.

The word is orientated.

People! For all that is good and holy! The word is ORIENT!

Let's look at an example:

I want to become more orientated to God.

NO! It should read: I want to become more oriented to God. See the difference?

The problem people have is taking the verb form of a word (to orient), making it a noun (orientation), and then using the noun form to cobble together a verb (orientated). Why do that? The verb form already exists!

So, please, all yous half-literate, I-can-post-shtuff-on-the-internet-now-and-have-a-voice bloggers -- do us all a favor. Keep an Oxford English Dictionary next to your computer and look up everyword before you type it.

But that will take too much time, Jimmy, and I will never be able to post a blog entry.

My point exactly. I stop reading your blog when I see the word 'orientated', anyway. And really, my standards aren't that high. After all, I am a member of The League.