LETTERS
2005 LETTERS
December
September
July/August
June
May
April
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2005
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
February 2005
STANDS WITH MAHONY AND GEORGE
Thank you for publishing my last note [see "Glass Carafes Not Reprobated," Letters, December Mission]. As you may suspect, I do not agree with your conclusions, which seem somewhat subjective, but let me focus on three issues that, I feel, are more objective.
The first is the title given before my letter: "GLASS CARAFES NOT REPROBATED." Nowhere did I suggest that "glass carafes" were not reprobated. In fact, I did emphasize that glass "chalices" WERE reprobated but that "carafes" were NOT explicitly reprobated. I think you or your copy-editor jumped the gun (and could be liable for defamation) by insinuating something not explicitly contained in my letter.
The second is the reference that Redemptionis Sacramentum was "promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II (not Cardinal Arize)." I think most canonical scholars would argue that an "Instruction" (see code of canon law, can. 34) is issued NOT by the pope (although with his permission, hence the "formula" used: a Congregatione ... de mandato Summi Pontificis Ioannis Pauli II ... exaratam ["prepared by the Congregation ... by the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II]"), but by one of the official dicasteries ("congregations") of the Holy See, and only has the force of "explanation" of existing law but does not change law (see code of canon law, can. 34, sec. 2; also can. 20 and 21). Thus, it is legitimate for me to say that Redemptionis Sacramentum WAS, in fact, published (i.e., "promulgated") by Cardinal Arinze and NOT by the Holy Father, since Cardinal Arinze's signature (not the Holy Father's) is the definitive signature on the document.
In fact (and law), the only time a pope actually issues a document that changes law is if he issues an "apostolic constitution" and signs it personally (e.g., see the apostolic constitutions at the beginning of the current Roman Missal, which promulgated the use of that missal, or the one at the beginning of the current code of canon law). Hence, I think, most legal experts would say that any instruction is NOT issued by the pope (although with his approval, sometimes tacit) and cannot change previously established papal law. Only a pope, by issuing an apostolic constitution, can change previously approved law.
The third is your reference to sec. 106 of Redemptionis Sacramentum. Latin scholars, canonists and some "pastors" have raised questions about the meaning of "vessels that are not fully in accord with the established norms" [vasa, quae integraliter normis statutis non respondeant]. The question is what does it mean to have a "carafe or vessel that IS in accord with the established norm." It seems that a glass carafe is out of the question (according to sec. 117 of Redemptionis Sacramentum), but does this permit a metal flagon, which has been made in accord with diocesan norms? The literal text is ambiguous and according to canon 21, "in a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed...."
I find myself on the side of Cardinal Mahony and Cardinal George who may see some ambiguity in Redemptionis Sacramentum and are making legitimate pastoral exceptions in their roles as bishops, as allowed by canon law (can. 21, 87).
Rick Tar
received via e-mail
Editor replies: Defamation? In his letter, published in the December Mission, Mr. Tar writes "that Redemptionis Sacramentum says that the use of carafes should be 'avoided' because of the danger of spilling. It does not indicate that this is a 'reprobated practice.'" Further on, he writes, "you might be also interested in knowing that what is explicitly 'reprobated' is the use of glass chalices." The implication, it seemed to me, was that the instruction only reprobated glass chalices, not anything else made of glass. Thus if neither carafes nor anything made of glass save chalices are reprobated, then glass carafes are not reprobated. Thus, the headline.
I will not quibble over the word "promulgated," but I will argue that the prescriptions of Redemptionis Sacramentum bear the authority of Pope John Paul II. Not only was the instruction prepared by Cardinal Arinze's congregation, "by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II," but, as the instruction itself says, it "was approved by the same Pontiff ... and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned." Thus, the pope, not Cardinal Arinze, ordered the instruction to be observed by all, which "all," I presume, includes cardinal archbishops. Further, as an instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum does not make new law; the document's footnote citations indicate that most of its prescriptions are reiterations of previously established law. Further, according to Canon 34( cited by Mr. Tar), instructions "are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws. [Emphasis added.] Thus, Redemptionis Sacramentum obliges bishops in the execution of Church liturgical law.
I am happy Mr. Tar can go so far as to agree that glass carafes seem to be "out of the question." Metal carafes, if they are identical to "flagons" (and I see no moral difference), are also forbidden by the instruction. What is clear from the instruction is that the Blood of Christ is not to be poured from one vessel to another, thus precluding any carafe-like vessel for the Blood of Christ. But as for glass carafes — the instruction is also crystal clear; they are not permitted.
Cardinal Mahony's right under canon law to dispense from universal laws does not apply here. The use of glass carafes, for which he gave a dispensation, is forbidden, not simply by Redemptionis Sacramentum but by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, from the provisions of which a bishop may not dispense without explicit permission from the Holy See.
WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR?
I had my problems with President Bush, too ("Stop Putting Bush on the Back," December 2004).
In the wake of September 11, he might have said, "what they did was of course wrong, but when they call us the Great Satan, in some ways they're right. They killed 3,000 people in one day, but we kill 3,000 unborn people every day of the year. We need to look at our own sins, too! What Bush did say in effect was, "how dare they! We'll chase them down and get them!"
When Florida was set to executive Paul Hill for killing an abortionist who wouldn't listen and was going into his clinic to kill babies, I didn't hear anything about President Bush trying to get his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, to spare Paul Hill's life. (I read that Jeb Bush is a Roman Catholic and an opponent of abortions.) Whether capital punishment is proper or not, how can they justify executing someone who killed only to protect innocent life? If he killed to protect two-year-olds, he'd be a hero.
I usually don't criticize a president for foreign policy decisions because I know how hard it would be for me to make those decisions. But this one is different: when Fallouja was surrounded by U.S. forces a year or so ago, the U.S. Marines set up huge speakers and blasted heavy metal music at the insurgents. Imagine yourself as a Muslim in Fallouja, maybe beginning to doubt that the U.S. is the Great Satan after all, and then they do this. And what does blasting "Hell's Bells" tell our own soldiers? The rudeness, the unneighborliness of blasting music at them is compounded by the message. This has the same quality to it as the awful stuff that happened in that prison. What are we fighting for, Mr. President? They can't claim that these were some rogue Marines who up and did it without authorization. Blasting "Hell's Bells" was the deliberate policy of the U.S. Marine Corps. President Bush is the commander-in-chief.
Of course I wouldn't vote for Kerry, but I had a hard time deciding to vote for Bush. In the end, figuring Kerry would win easily in California, I left it blank. I'm not sure I did the right thing, but when I saw that Bush won, I felt relief that I hadn't voted for him. Now no matter what he does, it won't be on my head because I didn't vote for him. Again, I'm not sure I did the right thing. What if Kerry had slipped through?
Joe O'Brien,
Panorama City
AND RIDICULOUS, TOO
Your newspaper is offensive, single-minded, and ridiculous from cover ("Child-killing measure Prop 71") to back page ("culture of death"). Don't impose your beliefs and so-called "morals" on those who do not wish to be brainwashed by you. People like you set back the human race, move out of the way.
Anonymous,
received via e-mail
I don't know how my name ended up on the mailing list for your propaganda rag, but I want it removed immediately. I think that what you are doing is immoral, and you should voluntarily shut down operations for the public good. What a bunch of full-of-crap hypocrites you guys are. I was raised in the Catholic Church, attended Catholic grade school and high school, had uncles who were priests, worked as a reporter for the diocesan newspaper. It was people like you who made me finally and at long last walk away from all the sickening lies of the sort that you publish.
The Catholic Church is purely and simply a political organization, and a vicious one at that, because it cynically manipulates the natural human yearning for spiritual transcendence. There is absolutely nothing transcendent about the Catholic Church whatever. It is a creation of the Roman Empire (Constantine and Athanasius — who had the balls to call a vote to see if Yeshu'a was god) and has nothing to do with the first century Jewish shaman in whose name it does its lying. Starting with the Roman murder of Yeshu'a the Nazorean, the Catholic Church is mankind's greatest killing machine — even worse than the Mongol hordes.
You are either ignorant or stupid or both. One thing is for certain: you have no idea what you're talking about. An authority about nothing but your own blind prejudices. It is the SUN, that dies at night and is reborn in the morning to redeem mankind. It is the SUN that is born on the Winter Solstice. The legend of Yeshu'a has been overlaid on 40,000 years of sun worship. That's why all the pictures have halos. Those are coronas mimicking the SUN.
Regarding abortion, you are working with a false dichotomy. Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions, it only makes them unsafe. You say you want to stop abortion, yet the celibacy of Catholic priests is history's greatest source of abortion. You want abortions banned, but you do nothing about the reasons (poverty, shame over out-of-wedlock births, etc.) for abortion. Making abortions illegal means that doctors would have to report miscarriages, then prove to the religious authorities that the miscarriage wasn't artificially induced. Contraception decreases abortion, but you want that banned too. In fact, you'd probably like a replay of the 16th (or earlier) century brought into modern times.
You can pile up all the newspapers you want, but you still won't get close to the truth: no amount of words can get you close to the universal creative force, the source beyond opposites, the godhead (which deserves the pronoun "she" far more than "he"). To do that you have to shut up, clear your mind of all the words and ideas that have been crammed down your throat, and just listen...
But whether or not you do bother with any of that, be sure to remove my name from your mailing list.
Name Witheld,
San Clemente