Catholic Miscellany

1. In the Diocese of Portland, ME, Bishop Robert Malone says he’s happy to establish a Latin Mass Chaplaincy as his way of conforming with Pope Benedict XVI’s instruction to free up the traditional mass. But there’s a price–he’s telling those who want it that they’ll need to pay $72,000. (Fr. John Z. thinks this reasonable.)

2. In Vienna, there’s blasphemous art on display at the cathedral. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn ordered one picture taken down that depicted the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. But there’s still one up of a Roman soldier masturbating Jesus on the cross.

Curator Martina Judt said the exhibition was meant to prompt this kind of balanced reaction. The museum wanted to show that controversial works inspired by religious imagery can be discussed without taboo.

“People have said the Catholic Church has become a lot more liberal,” she said. “But in the end, the reactions show this perhaps isn’t the case.”

3. In San Francisco, meanwhile, some Catholics are withholding their support from Catholic Charities. One man explains:

In 2005, we learned that CCCYO was facilitating adoptions by homosexual persons. Vatican teaching clearly states that such adoptions are unacceptable and the Vatican insisted this stop. CCCYO didn’t agree, so in consultation with openly gay Supervisor Bevan Dufty, they came up with a “compromise” that they claimed allowed them to continue to do adoption work (and accept public funding) while remaining faithful to the teachings of the Church. Instead of doing adoptions themselves, they provided paid staff (actually doubled the staff) to “Family Builders by Adoption,” who call themselves the “gayest adoption agency in the country.” This was termed “remote cooperation.” That is: CCCYO provided staff, but would have no say in where, or to whom, the adoptive children go. On the “GLBT Youth and Families” page of the “Family Builders” web site, we find this sentence: “In the state of California, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals have the same rights as anyone to adopt a child.”

Remember, CCCYO and the archbishop, guided by theologians, justified CCCYO’s staffing Family Builders only in so far as they had no knowledge as to where the children go. So now, “Family Builders” is facilitating not only gay and lesbian, but also transgendered” persons to be adoptive parents. They are using staff paid, in part, from special collections taken at Masses. And by the terms of their own “compromise” — the compromise the archbishop declared he was “very happy with” — the archbishop, the theologians and CCCYO can say nothing about it.

6 thoughts on “Catholic Miscellany

  1. Re. 1, and people wonder why faithful Catholics go to SSPX Masses.
    Re. 2, huh, the museum is Catholic and attached to the Cathedral, normally I am against church vandalism (for example nailing posters with you’re manifesto to the door etc) but I would be willing to make an exception in this case.
    Re. 3, while the Vatican teaches that this is wrong it is worth saying that the Vatican relies on Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law in forming its opinions, these things are not wrong just because the Vatican says so, search for Euthyphro.

  2. I’m not sure how servitium comes to the conclusion: “They are to be charged $72,000 per year, with an initial $18,000 down payment being due on or before July 1st, only a little over 2 1/2 months from the time this is being written.”

    Servitium’s headline and introduction imply that the Extraordinary Form parishoners will be taxed $72,000 by the diocese (and get nothing in return). The quoted letter from Fr. Parent does not bear out this implication. Instead it indicates that Bp. Malone has allowed the Mass, that Fr. Parent has been asked to make a budget for the expenses necessitated by the Extraordinary Form community and it is expected that the Extraordinary Form community will pay its own way. Nothing about this is particularly unjust.

    Certainly it will be interesting to see what $72,000 pays for. If there were a particularly large “rental fee” or “tax” paid to the Diocese of Portland – then some outrage might (maybe, possibly) be
    justified. On the other hand, if there were extensive start-up costs related to purchasing the correct vestments, etc., then I’m sure we’d all be in favor of sparing little expense.

    At this point there is no evidence justifying outrage. Everyone should send a letter to Bp. Malone thanking him for arranging for the EF and a check to the Chaplaincy to support the Mass. I can imagine that the Portland Extraordinary Form community will not appreciate it if far-flung Traditionalists start sending in-correct, angry missives to their Bishop after their Chaplaincy has been organized.

  3. BTW establishing a chaplaincy goes against the spirit of the document, I thought it was clear that all priests had the right to celebrate the extraordinary form, without extra restrictions.

  4. And another thing … isn’t this getting close to simony? Ever heard of a bishop and chancery demanding an immigrant group fully fund its chaplaincy? The people who are asking for the extraordinary form are probably supporting their regular parish already. If the priest is being appointed full time and exclusively to celebrate the extraordinary form that would be one thing (BTW there are many priests who offer that kind of service they are called the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) but this does not seem to be the case.

Comments are closed.