The Three Graces

Not, not those!

I think I shall always be bothered by the imprecision of Pope Francis' words, for as long as his pontificate persists. The sound bites often seem Hallmark-ish, ("Hallmawkish"?) and I think it behooves a spiritual leader to take note of common words more specific meaning within his particular "faith tradition."
(It's why I had such a visceral reaction to being asked to sing Ruth Duck's As a Fire Is Meant For Burning.... really??!?#?? NOT to "preach our creeds"?)
Yes, words mean different things in different contexts, but as a Catholic, in the context of catechesis, (which homiletics is,) you wouldn't, for instance, talk about a skanky ballet dancer as being "graceful."
So Francis' talk of the Gospels at the Chrism Mass...

"A single word - Gospel - that, even as it is spoken, becomes truth, brimming with joy and mercy. We should never attempt to separate these three graces of the Gospel: its truth, which is non-negotiable; its mercy, which is unconditional and offered to all sinners; and its joy, which is personal and open to everyone,"

...seems off to me.
Because yes, those three things are sharing in God's love, freely given (the simplest definition of Grace,) but, and pardon me for putting words in the Holy Father's mouth, but I wonder if what he really meant was a reference to the Theological Virtues, which do indeed seem to correlate with what he called "graces."
Because holding on to Truth is the essence of having Faith, our confident Hope cannot but fill us with Joy, and the granting of Mercy to others, (and ourselves!) is the highest good of Love in Action, (the way I describe Love/Charity/Christian Love to my religious education kiddos.)
And, of course, what sets the Theological Virtues apart is that they cannot be obtained by human effort, but are infused by God into a person freely given, (and in need of unwrapping, as I like to tell them.)

(Is it so wrong that on the cusp of Papa Ratz's birthday, at this, as at nearly every instance in which Francis says something that starts to make sense to me and cuae me to think in a new way, my wish is to know how his predecessor would have teased out the theme and crafted it into some all but perfect gem of theology for the blundering but trying, like me? Ah, well, if wishes were horses....)

What Cardinal Kasper Said, If Cardinal Kasper Said What I Believe Cardinal Kasper To Have Said

In this day of Fake News, or rather, constant accusations of fake news, one is reminded more than ever that no one can have empirical knowledge of all matters that interests or concerns him.
I am not there to hear to the actual words spoken by a president, or here to watch the actual expressions and gestures of a pope or that other place to see the actions taken by a terrorist .

When it gets down to it, I don't know that those images of storms flickering on the screen are of an actual event happening now, that the contents of this pill bottle are what the box describes, or even if they are, that they will do what I am told by my doctor who is told by the FDA or a pharmaceutical conglomerate, that they will.
But you have to trust somebody, and I choose to trust the weather man, and I choose to trust my GP. One hopes previous accuracy or good faith is, if not quite a pledge, at least an indication of present accuracy and good faith.
National Review, New York Times, Breitbart, HuffPo... who knows?
An additional problem in this area of finding and trusting sources for information, especially in the ecclesiastical realm is the translation issue.
All that is by way of prelude to saying, Sandro Magister is someone in whom I have a high degree of trust. He has a  piece on the push for inter-communion in recent ecumenical initiatives, including some of an interview Cardinal Kasper gave, to which I can only say, What the Francis? [Emphasis supplied]

Cardinal Kasper: We are friends, we are brothers and sisters. We have begun this ecumenical way and we have taken many steps in the meantime. We have good hope that one day we will even reach full communion. Even now we already have a great deal of communion among us.
       Q: A communion at the Eucharistic table as well?
Cardinal Kasper:Yes, shared communion in certain cases, I think so. If [two spouses, one Catholic and one Protestant] share the same Eucharistic faith - this is the presupposition - and if they are interiorly disposed, they can decide in their conscience to receive communion. And this is also the position, I think, of the current pope, because there is a process of coming together; and a couple, a family, cannot be divided in front of the altar.

Um, no.
The entire premise is flawed because the two descriptors of this hypothetical couple are incongruous, they cannot exist at one and the same time.
If they ACTUALLY "share the same Eucharistic faith" it is either because the one has ceased to be Catholic or the other has ceased to be protestant.
(Yes, I'm shouting.)
And the idea that just because they are a couple they cannot be divided this way is absurd.
He's speaking of mainline protestants with liturgical worship and at least some sacraments, whose Eucharist faith is similar, (NOT "the same,") but what of others?
What if one is Catholic and the other Mormon? or Baptist? or Jewish? of Satanist? or pagan? or Muslim? or Taoist? or atheist?Should they be divided in front of the altar?

The Picture of....

.... well, of obedience, as it happens.

Does it take "guts" to admit, "“Il Papa ha sbagliato”?.... or Grace?

Interesting, interesting interview with the German novelist, (and sometime liturgist, and certainly liturgical theologian,) Martin Mosebach, regarding Amoris Laetitia, the dubia, and papal duty.

It occurs, with who-knows-who turning their attention to and getting their mitts on the current Missal and its translation, I know he's an Extraordinay Form guy, but perhaps Mosebach would consider a sequel to Heresy of Formlessness?

Or even a contemporary papal history, The Papacy of Formlessness?

Hagen formlessness!

("Hagen falta de forma?")

Trying Not To Play "Gotcha!" With the Holy Father

Pope Francis, not sure why, brings out the worst in me.

I know, I already KNOW, headlines are like as not completely deceptive, sometimes flat contradicted by the facts as presented in the article that follows. (Not as big a problem in middle-of-the-road Catholic news outlets, but still...)
And I'm not taking all the blame for this, I think it is a matter of sad confluence that we have at this time a president who thinks in tweets and and a pope who preaches in sound bytes.
Governing well may take more than 140 characters, the Holy Spirit probably doesn't sound like a Hallmark card.
So I see, "Trusting in God means letting go of what we want, Pope says,"and my first thought is, Oh, really? than why do you seem to be getting all bent out of shape when thwarted by Synods, Knights, and Catholics who feel a connection with previous centuries of Catholicism?
And now on top of this, I'm wondering, why is it all right to say, “this is my opinion: women are more courageous than men.”
Are positive generalizations not just as sexist/racist/whateverist as negative ones?
You might, in this PC world, barely get away with, “this is my opinion: men are less courageous than women,” just barely, but there'd be some sniffing, although it means more of less the same thing.
But yeah, you'd get away with it.
Because. Privilege.
But could you imagine the outcry if instead, “this is my opinion: women are less courageous than men.”
He might find himself in Origen's shoes. Or other item of clothing.
Oh, and I also know the Law of Projection, by which we are all to be judged in the 21st century, so if this bother me, clearly it is because if it is a fault it is one of which I myself am most grievously guilty.
So, I see an apt Lenten penance suggesting itself, weeks early....

Why the hate?

I wonder why some elderly people, who were raised with the old Latin Mass, nevertheless hate it. And I ask myself: Why so much rigidity? Dig, dig, this rigidity always hides something, insecurity or even something else. Rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid.
But who am I to judge?

The Pope said this, or something similar.

I think....

"Demythologizing the Papacy"

And absolutely fascinating report by the wonderful Edward Pentin on a presentation by Archbishop Georg Gänswein.

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty....

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry...

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens....

“So it is not surprising,” he said, “that some have seen it as revolutionary, or otherwise as entirely consistent with the gospel,  while still others see in this way a secularized papacy as never before, and thus more collegial and functional, or even simply more humane and less sacred. And still others are of the opinion that Benedict XVI, with this step, has almost — speaking in theological and historical-critical terms — demythologized the papacy.”

I will not deny that I miss Pope Benedict every day, but I utterly denounce this insistence on pitting the theology and faith and Catholicity of Francis against that of Benedict, or vice versa.
Different styles, different ways of expression, (there is no doubt to which I incline,) different personalities... different reserves of prudence? of the prudence of reserve?  but they are brothers in arms.
Cooperatores Veritatis , indeed.
The unseemly backroom machination against the popes are no surprise, but I did not know about the sister who had been killed in the car accident.
That is the kind of blow that can be hard to bear at any stage in life.
Any way, good read, thank you Catholic Register.
I am finding, with the raging partisanship that seems to have invaded every kind of social and institutionalized information supplying, that there is very little that we can depend on.
Sometimes our enemies tell us the truth, and our allies lie.
Did you hear what....? Well, no, so and so said that what really.... But it said in.... But were there actual quotations, or did someone mischaracterize... Yes, he wrote that but in context he clearly....
And yes, I have been troubled by some things actually said, and other things imputed to Pope Francis, and I don't always think he has phrased things as felicitously as he might have, or taken into account likely misinterpretations.
But so long as neither Ratzinger nor Gänswein has turned on him, neither shall I dare to do such a thing.

God, Send Us Many Holy Priests!

I think there is something really ugly about a bureaucrat who feels he must suck up to current higher-ups by denigrating former, or who cannot find a way praise and encourage current subordinates without insulting former.
I'm not going to hold the seminary rector responsible for a loathesome example of the latter up to contempt by naming him, but I want to post in its entirety a reply from a former seminarian, now hard-working, dedicated and zealous priest (Lord, send us many more such!):

This article, written from an interview given by the out-going Rector of my former seminary, is very hurtful. The men who were formed in and ordained from Theological College over the past 10 years are some of the best and most pastoral men and priests that I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Inventing a false dichotomy between a love for the Church's traditions and a love for the people of God is a manipulative, ideological tool used to push forth one's personal agenda.
I have known Father [X] for many years, and have a great deal of respect and admiration for him personally, but this public interview he gave with an openly dissenting "Catholic" publication warrants an alumnus response.
As one of the many cassock-wearing, Communion-on-the-tongue-receiving, Latin-loving, Extraordinary-Form-Mass-saying young priests that have passed through the halls of Theological College, allow me to say plainly to anyone who would agree with the tone and sentiment of this article that you have deliberately and painfully pigeon-holed men who love the Church and cast us to be pompous little monsters simply because we have a different theological/liturgical outlook than you. You condescend towards us as if we were not thinking, opining, and sincere men. You gossip about us, ensuring that we are "put in our places" and "taught a thing or two" by your confreres. You confuse our strong convictions with arrogance and accuse us of being staunch when we are trying more than anything else to be faithful, helpful, and loving.
But let's be quite honest...you don't really know us because you never took the time to get to know us. You saw us when we were in the seminary chapel or over breakfast...but that's about it. Have you seen us at 2:00 AM in the hospital? Have you seen us working late into the night on a funeral homily? Have you seen us giving up our one day off a week to visit with a lonely elderly parishioner? Have you seen us on our knees at night before the tabernacle weeping because we just buried a child earlier that day? Have you seen us celebrate four Masses on a weekend, hear hours of confessions, and still show up to Sunday evening Youth Ministry? Have you seen us wear the same pair of socks two days in a row because we simply ran out of time to do laundry? Have you seen us muster a smile even when we're exhausted, or miss Christmas with our families because we're assigned 300 miles away, or forget to eat dinner because there's another meeting to go to? The answer is no. What you see are the cassocks and birettas and fiddleback chasubles and accuse us of being "out of touch." Well the reality is, you are guilty of the very thing you accuse us of. You ignore our humanity, our struggle, our sincerity, and you fixate on external things to make your judgments.
As difficult as it is at times, I love being a priest with my whole heart. Not because it offers me an exalted status or any privileges, but because it offers me, and the people I serve, the means by which to attain salvation. I love the people I serve to death, and I would do anything within my means to help them. If you look at my cassock and presume otherwise, I can only feel sorry for you.
Myself and the other men who were indirectly insulted in this interview are the ones on the battlefield. As parish priests, we work hard, sacrifice hard, and try daily to live solely for God in Jesus Christ. Instead of insinuating that Theological College had to somehow put up with a decade or more of rigid, overly-conservative, and ideological seminarians, why not offer us a word of encouragement and perhaps even a prayer or two?

Earth Day the Wrong Way, Earth Day the Right Way

First, we have a commendation of literal tree-hugging.
A Franciscan friar:

“The two of us made a kind of journey together where we would take three steps, bow to the earth, and then take another three steps. Whenever my friend saw a flower, he would stop for a while and bow deeply. When he encountered a tree, he would stop for a while and hug the tree. You could feel the mystery of small flowers and trees…they cannot speak in the same way we do, but they are more deeply related to the mystery of God, the mystery of life.”[Emphasis supplied]

Um... no.
Just no.
"Small flowers and trees"? NOT more deeply related to the mystery of God than are humans, (who are, ya know, made in the image and likeness of God,) not more deeply related to anything other than other trees and flowers, and maybe not even to them.

Contrast to the spur of the moment remarks of a Jesuit pope:

two images came to me: The desert, and the forest. I thought, these people, all of you, all, are taking up the desert in order to transform it into a forest. They go where there’s desert, where there isn’t hope, and they do things to make a forest of this desert. The forest is full of trees, it’s full of vegetation, but too disorganized … but, life is like that. Passing from the desert to the forest is the beautiful work you do! You transform deserts into forests!...There are many deserts in the cities, deserts in people’s lives who don’t have a future, because there’s always – and I’ll underline a word here – always there are prejudices, fears. These people live and die in the desert of the cities....The desert is ugly, both the desert in the heart of all of us, as well as the desert in the city, in the peripheries, which is also an ugly thing. There’s also a desert that’s in the gated neighborhoods … It’s ugly, but the desert is there too. We must not be afraid to go to the desert to transform it into a forest, where there’s exuberant life, and to go dry the many tears so that everyone can smile. [Emphasis supplied]

Why, why... it's almost as if he's trying to tell us other people should be more important to us than trees! That the salvation of the snail darter must take a back seat to the salvation of souls!

That, dare I say? the Church rather than the Earth is our Mother!
Well done, Holy Father!
(Extra points for the reminder that the poverty with which the People of God must most be concerned is not  want of coin.)

Receiving the Sacraments, the Way We Live Now

Be courageous, go to Confession!

So urges Pope Francis.
God bless him, he has made commendation of this sacrament a centerpiece of his pontificate, God prosper his work.

In preparing a class on the "Sacraments of Healing" it suddenly hit me - not only has the Church of most of my lifetime, at least in this country, taken rather different tacks with the two sacraments that are most available and one would think would be those by which each of us is blessed most frequently with an outpouring of God's grace...

It has likewise turned the practice of the 2 sacraments of healing on its ear!

I have long laughed at the inconsistency of the .... what, "progressive"? not really, but whatever... of the Catholic establishment in its demands, (that amount to bullying,) regarding frequent reception of the Eucharist, (especially under both species,) and its simultaneous denigration of the sacrament of Reconciliation.
Yes, I said "denigration," and I meant it.
The "box" is disparaged, priests chase penitents away for wasting the priest's time with petty sins, catechists have discouraged inculcating reception of the sacrament by making much of the fact that canon law does not absolutely "require" it prior to a child's first Communion, the condtion of Confession for gaining Indulgences elicits the same kind of contempt indulgenced practices themselves do, the specification of "mortal" is always now highlighted in the precept of the Church dealing with the sacrament of penance, (if, indeed, anyone is so backward or ill-bred as to mention the Precepts of the Church).....
It seems never to have occurred to them that what makes confession of mortal sin terrifying is that by deprecating and making difficult if not downright unavailable the confession of venial sin, (who is going to make the effort to receive "by appointment" for "hitting my brother"?) confession itself has been turned into a daunting "emergency procedure."
The prospect is as horrifying as a root canal - how can someone who has never brushed his teeth be less than sick at the thought?
Or perhaps that was the intention? to eliminate confession entirely?
Guilt and shame are baaaaaad.
Do away with them by neutering the concept of sin, of there being anything for which one should feel guilty.

But as our beloved Holy Father has said, "“It’s healthy to have a bit of shame… It does us good because it makes us more humble.”

But strangely, at the same time as the practice of confession has been frittered away to nothingness, reception of the sacrament of the Sick is growing by leaps and bounds!
Some parishes offer it at every single Mass on a weekend, two or even three times a year, and everyone is encouraged to partake, Getting a scratchy feeling, might be a cold coming on, sign me up!

I literally know a normally healthy, walking around, living-her-life adult who has received the Sacrament of the Sick far more times than she has been to Confession.

How did this happen?

Do you think Francis can change how things are?

"Let us pray to the Lord to help us be 'infected' by His mercy" - 12 Quotes from the Holy Father on Mercy and Forgiveness

1."Jesus Christ is divine mercy in person: Encountering Christ means encountering the mercy of God. The mercy of Christ is not a cheap grace; it does not presume a trivialization of evil. Christ carries in His body and on His soul all the weight of evil, and all its destructive force. He burns and transforms evil through suffering, in the fire of His suffering love."

2. "The secret of the true happiness of individuals and peoples: to believe and proclaim that the Lord has done marvellous things for us and that His mercy is from generation to generation on those who are faithful to him."

3. "God loves us in a way that we might call 'obstinate' and enfolds us in His inexhaustible tenderness."

4. "We are all sinners but God heals us with an abundance of grace, mercy and tenderness."

5. "How many people also in our time are in search of God, in search of Jesus and of His church, in search of divine mercy, and are waiting for a 'sign' that will touch their minds and their hearts! Today, as then, the evangelist reminds us that the only 'sign' is Jesus raised on the cross: Jesus who died and rose is the absolutely sufficient sign."

6. "Wherever people are suffering, make it your task to serve them."

7. "To understand and accept God's merciful love: May this be your commitment, first of all in your families and then in every neighborhood"

8.  "Forgiveness is above all a personal choice, a decision of the heart to go against the natural instinct to pay back evil with evil."

9. "'Thus says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning'. But is this return to God possible? Yes, because there is a force that does not reside in our hearts, but that emanates from the heart of God and the power of His mercy. ... It is possible to return to the Lord, it is a 'grace', because it is the work of God and the fruit of faith that we entrust to His mercy. But this return to God becomes a reality in our lives only when the grace of God penetrates and moves our innermost core."

10. "Love never ends or fails. Love never ends. Everything must be based on love - the relation between two friends, my ministry, my service; the church services in every field must be based on love. Why? Because God is Love."

11. "We must note that Christ, in revealing the love-mercy of God, at the same time demanded from people that they also should be guided in their lives by love and mercy. This requirement forms part of the very essence of the messianic message, and constitutes the heart of the Gospel ethos."

12. [Our Lenten fast is not accomplished with mere abstinence from food, but with good deed; moreover]  "it should lead to personal amendment and domestic harmony... Let faults be forgiven, let bonds be loosed, offences wiped out, designs of vengeance fall through, that the holy festival through both Divine and human grace may find all happy, all innocent.
...................
Ah, but which Pope, you ask?  Well, 2, 6, 8,  and 11 are from Pope Saint John Paul II; 4 from Pope Francis; 10, Pope Theodore II; and 12, Pope St Leo the Great. The others and the title are Pope Benedict XVI.

AMORIS LÆTITIA - of Content, Conjugality and Conjunctions

So, at long last... what?
The post-synodal exhortation from the Synod on the Family has finally been released and it contains, well, not very much.
Rules are rules, and reality is reality, and Truth is Truth - and we should all be kinder to other people.

My only quibble (well, apart from Amoris Laetitia being released in the annoying PDF format, rather than a nice web page)?

A conjunction.

A short, solitary little word, (emphasis supplied.)

I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.”

It's about that "but."*
Surely Pope Francis cannot be saying that he prefers making statements to the Faithful which do leave room for confusion?
(That ain't merciful.)
Surely he meant to say, "I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion AND SO I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness."
Because it is precisely the presence of this "room for confusion," in what they have been told, what they have been exposed to, what they have seen, what the world teaches them, that allows us who, (yes, I agree with Anne Frank,) are basically good to be lured into actions that are basically sinful.

It is not just weakness, it's believing that regardless of circumstances or consequences  I "deserve to be happy,"  and the drumbeat of It's no big deal, it's no big deal, it's no big deal, that leaves me in the situation where I need the Church's help to find goodness.
The Good Shepherd does not come out to join me in the wilderness, but to disentangle me from the brambles and sling me over His shoulder and carry me home, and the good shepherd knows it is his job, (note the lower case "g", "s" and "h",) to do likewise.

*(And no, it's not a big "but", Peewee.)

Is That Really the Spin Being Put On the Pope's Long Awaited Exhortation?

(For instance:)
The writer(s?) here.
Yes, critique and exegesis has already begun on a document some of the commentariat may not even have seen.
What did the Pope say? Why, of course, being right-minded he said exactly what we wanted him to say, what we would have said were we pope! It may seem otherwise, but this is why what he said means what we say it says rather than what the words might indicate to someone less right-minded!

But the same could go for the commentary on the commentary. (Or do I mean the commentary on the commentary on the commentary? They don't call it "spin" for nothing.)

This agitation might indicate that the post-synodal exhortation will not contain any doctrinal novelties or breaches. Rather, the text will focus on pastoral recommendations for the integration of the divorced-and-remarried.
This agitation was evident in the three articles published during the last week.
One article is by Enzo Bianchi, a layman who in 1965 established the Ecumenical Monastic Community of Bose in Italy. Brother Bianchi wrote a March 14 commentary in L’Osservatore Romano about the gospel account of the woman caught in adultery.
In general the commentary gave an ordinary interpretation of the text. But at its very end, Brother Bianchi stressed that “Jesus did not condemn her, because God does not condemn, but he gave her the possibility to change with his act of mercy.”
Brother Bianchi added that the Gospel “does not say that she changed her life, that she converted or that she became a disciple of Jesus. We just know that God forgave her through Jesus and delivered her to freedom, so that she could return to life.”
Vatican internal observers have interpreted this phrasing as an open door to the reception of Communion by Catholics who have divorced-and-remarried. A source told CNA March 22, “Brother Bianchi emphasizes God’s forgiveness, no matter what she will actually do,” as if “Communion might be given, no matter what you had done.”

Now, I can't read the original Italian, and the tense of the verbs is paramount to understanding this.
But it seems to me that no one could argue with what the good brother is said to have said.
let me repeat:

A source told CNA March 22, “Brother Bianchi emphasizes God’s forgiveness, no matter what she will actually do,” as if “Communion might be given, no matter what you had done.”

Who would disagree with that, of COURSE it might be! That is the entire point of God's mercy!
No matter what you had done He would forgive you!
What He won't condone is what you WILL do.
And that is clear in the story of the woman taken in adultery.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "Has no one condemned you? then neither will I. Now get back to bed work, you knucklehead, those tricks aren't going to turn themselves!"

No, as Brother Bianchi is reported and translated to have said, (emphasis supplied,)

 "God forgave her through Jesus and delivered her to freedom, so that she could return to life."

She could, though she might not have.
We don't know if she returned the "The Life," or to Life, the choice was hers, because Free Will. 
Scripture is silent on this point, just as on so much else. We don't know if the Dutiful Son ever joined in the Welcome Home festivities when the Prodigal returned. We don't know if the Rich Young Man thought about his riches for a while, and how much he would miss them, and then chucked them to follow the Lord. We don't know if the Centurion went on to some other assignment, eventuallyw went back to Rome, years later heard about this cult coming out of Palestine, realized its import and gave up all to be a follower of Christ.

And you know what, it's good that we don't.

Because if we don't know the end of the story, it's easier to understand that it's our story, that the ending is still up to us, and that God leaves it that way.

Because, um.... free will.

Another Day, Another "Wait, WHAAAT? ....That's Not What He Said"

One of my husband's siblings has a calling, in life: to take the joy and fun out of any pleasant reminiscences by droning, "That's not the way it happened...."
Now, I don't mean this person corrects libels, our postman, growin' up, killed his best friend so that he could marry the widow, I always heard) or contradicts life-threatening advice, (yup, gramps drank a quart of motor oil every day, and that's why he lived to be 103.)

No, this is more like interrupting to deliver unnecessary information such as that the rooster that attacked the five of them that day at the swimming pond was red, not white, and belonged to to Old Man Otto, not the Pederesons, and anyway, we shouldn't have skipped school -- thereby sucking the life out of the presentations of some very, very gifted Blarney-mongers.

But I am here to apologize for the ill-will this has provoked in me over the 15 years I've known the family, as I now see such people are absolutely vital.
Several of them should travel with the Pope at all times, and others should be dispatched to  keep an eye on every journalist who thinks to report on what Francis is purported to have said.

What can be done about bloggers, I don't know....

Francis stopped reading the written text and said... Communion is a vital form of the Church and the unity of Her Pastors is evidence of Her veracity… There is no need for “principles” but for a community of witnesses to the Lord.

Huh?
We need not have PRINCIPLES??!??!??
Well, no.
"Princes."
He said the Church don't need no stinkin' "princes".
An honest mistake by Rorate, or Google translate, or whoever, the two words are the same in Italian.
So I think we need not to get worked up about what was said to have been said, as I said.

But here's the other problem - official translations coming out of the Vatican seem, often, to be very slow in coming, (not this case.)

Whose fault is this?

Doesn't at least a little of it devolve on the person who insists on going off script, not giving those who serve him any kind of heads up, ignoring the fact that the Prince of Lies is having a field day with those of us who think what the Pope has to say might be important and so WANT to pay attention, and tossing handfuls of ammo to those whose agenda is to destroy this "communion", this "unity"?

Just a thought, Holy Father.

And Interwebs, how about a little compassion for the Mexican episcopacy, who need to try to hear and understand him even more urgently than we laity do - isn't it possible some of their reaction is to what it was said that the Holy Father said rather than what he actually said? For that matter, my Spanish is lacking, but some of the reaction to their statement may be based on faulty understanding of what they said and what they meant.
Charity.

Initiates and the Uninitiated

When I as a young whipper-snapper, the catechesis of callow Catholics was in a dormant stage, at least in my neck of the American woods.
We painted rocks and sang along with a guitar wielding high school girl from red plastic books, (the red plastic books may be a false memory, as Glory and Praise had not yet blighted the landscape - on the other hand, the girl in question, a friend of our family, was a world traveller, very sophisticated, she may have brought it back from somewhere exotic, like France. I'm just remembering, she was also the one who explained the meaning of "to sleep with." At a drive-in, us little ones tumbling in the back of the station wagon like pajamed puppies, adults and semi-adults in the two bench seats, there was a "coming attraction" touted which I now think must have been the Cardinal, while we waited to see something like 3 Lives of Thomasina. In it, a woman in a confessional said, "I slept with a man." I asked her later how sleeping could be a sin, and she explained that not much sleeping often occurred during the act of "sleeping with.")
Until Confirmation class virtually anything I learned about the Faith was from the way people behaved in church, which was very powerful, and from my parents, both by osmosis and deliberately.
As is only right.
But I digress.)
In any case, until I was an adult I never heard the specific phrase "sacraments of initiation." (My own confirmation was a good long ways after what we now know should have been the final of the three, I had skipped a grade and was allowed to make my Communion with my older class-mates, but according to the diocese, IIRC, had to wait for the Seven Gifts until I was the "right age." Although I was lucky, very lucky, suddenly, after years of strum and hum and craft projects, they wheeled an ancient nun with a hair-sprouting mole out of the back, wearing a mask like Hannibal Lecter, who TAUGHT us actual THINGS. You know, facts, and precepts and principles and doctrines. I shall be forever grateful to Sister Clare Cornelius.)
Another digression, sorry.

ANYWAY.

Since I am now in possession of this expression, the sacrament of initiation,  I was struck rather forcefully by a snippet I read.
"Family Day" in Italy was apparently an enormous outpouring of popular support for the Traditional, might I say Normal? notion of "family," despite possible neglect by, or at least ambiguity from the Pope and outright hostility on the part of some Italian bishops.
In following links to see what manner of man was head of the bishops' conference, I came across this from some time ago. It was,

reported that he said the Eucharist “is and must remain a ‘universal assembly’”, and that it must also be an “eloquent sign of the divine and his free gift for the ‘uninitiated’.”

I have nothing to say.
That was kind of a long way to go, I suppose for nothing to say.
Maybe I AM the Dutiful Brother.
But I want my prodigal brother to come home, I want him to!
But not to pop in for dinner, drop off his laundry for Mom or the servants to do and take off again, after pawning the finest robe and ring and sandals so he could squander the proceeds by resuming his life of dissipation.

Is that just me being selfish? Or is it me remembering that the spiritual acts of mercy are "not a devotion," they are required of us who dare to bear the name of Christian?

“When in the evening of life, we are asked if we fed the hungry and gave drink to the thirsty, we will also be asked if we helped persons come out of doubt, if we were committed to receive sinners, admonishing and correcting them, if we were capable of combatting ignorance, especially that concerning the Christian faith and the good life. This attention to the works of mercy is important: they are not a devotion. It is the concreteness of how Christians must carry forward the spirit of mercy.”

My Chicken Little Moment, and the See of Peter

My dearest husband is a worry-wort. Yes, Himself is anxious over many, many things, yet always has time to include another scenario in his Litany of Terrible Things That COULD Happen.

Not that "seem likely to," note - but no matter how unlikely still could.
(And he almost always believes them to be more likely than they are, I should add.)
Most of them have to do with politics, and many, many, many of them seem to be inspired by political thrillers he watched an an impressionable age, Manchurian Candidate, 8 Days in May sort of stuff.

He grew up ducking and covering, (how sad that I was born too late to share in that....) and worrying about missiles in "Cuber," and he is not above remarking to people that what didn't happen could've happened, if it had happened, even though... well, it didnt - e.g. a coup by Nixon and his cronies? Could've happened.

"End Times" has just never been the future which my mind's eye envisious when awful occurances loom.
I simply never imagined apocolyptic results of elections, disasters, atrocities....

So whence the dread as I read this?

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Synod of Bishops...and the synod secretariat will be hosting a symposium Saturday through Tuesday to “build a discussion” on the topic [of decentralization]... the nature of the Pope’s speech [on the topic] one that aims to pay more attention to the concerns of bishops and their faithful and offer them greater autonomy — has caused some concern. If inappropriately devised and executed, critics say, it could threaten unity and possibly even lead to schism.

Why did I see the dissolution of the Church and the End of Days?
I am not one of nature's pessimists, I don't live my life in fear of judgement day, I know the gates of hell will not prevail against God's Church...
So what is this foreboding?
I can tell you, I don't want to be a member of the American Church, still less of the Church of Gary or the Church of Newark or the Church of Venice, I don't even consider myself particulalry bound to Rome nad its rite, (going to a liturgy in Aramaic soon, as a matter of fact,) but I do consider myself bound to Peter's succesor.
I put not my faith in princes, even, or perhaps especially, princes of the Church.

a major concern about the proposed reform is that it could be especially vulnerable to abuse, particularly if it facilitates national or regional conferences gaining authority to approve pastoral practices that are not coherent with doctrine.

I see the promulgation of doctrinal developement and the handing on of teachings and Tradition becoming like some massive game of telephone.
It is hard enough to trust in Pete's successors, trying to muster confidence in the successors of all the apostles just multiplies my doubts by 12.

Famous Persons Not From the Realm of Filmdom Appearing in Movies?

Methinks Bolingbroke Henry IV would be ag'n' it. (as is the Holy Father):

Had I so lavish of my presence been,
So common-hackney'd in the eyes of men
So stale and cheap to vulgar company,
Opinion, that did help me to the crown,
Had still kept loyal to possession
And left me in reputeless banishment,
A fellow of no mark nor likelihood.
By being seldom seen, I could not stir
But like a comet I was wonder'd at;
That men would tell their children 'This is he;'
Others would say 'Where, which is Bolingbroke?'
And then I stole all courtesy from heaven,
And dress'd myself in such humility
That I did pluck allegiance from men's hearts,
Loud shouts and salutations from their mouths,
Even in the presence of the crowned king.
Thus did I keep my person fresh and new;
My presence, like a robe pontifical,
Ne'er seen but wonder'd at: and so my state,
Seldom but sumptuous, showed like a feast
And won by rareness such solemnity.

Doctrinal Congregation?

Who needs'em?

Yes, I am being facetious.

Alas, I am not being irrelevant.
Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation devoted to the family will be published by the end of March....

[It] will be “a hymn to love, a love that wants to take care of the welfare of the young, to be close to wounded families to give them strength, a love that wants to be close to children as well as to all mankind in need. "...
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has studied the draft and sent a long note with several doctrinal remarks, rumored to be 40 pages in length. 
A senior Vatican source told the Register last week that the CDF has offered “all kinds of observations” on other documents as well during this pontificate, “but none of them are ever taken." The dicastery, like much of the Roman Curia, is largely left out of such processes.

Because what difference does doctrine make? as long as you're a nice person God doesn't care what you do. It's not as if we can't all come up with the Truth on our own, who needs to be taught? And it's not as if teachings are supposed to affect how we live our lives, right?

St Joseph, Guardian of the Family, Patron of the Universal Church, Terror of Demons.... pray for us.

On the other hand. what do I know about what's really taking place? (Although I have great trust in Edward Pentin.)
Be not askeered!

"What Does This Mean?" Indeed....

From a report on this morning's "fervorino":

Saul was rejected by God as King of Israel because he disobeyed, preferring to listen to the people rather than the will of God. The people, after a victory in battle, wanted to offer a sacrifice of the best animals to God, because, he said, “it’s always been done that way.” But God, this time, did not want that. The prophet Samuel rebuked Saul: “Does the Lord so delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the command of the Lord?”
Jesus teaches us the same thing in the Gospel, the Pope explained. When the doctors of the law criticized Him because His disciples did not fast “as had always been done,” Jesus responded with these examples from daily life: “No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak. If he does, its fullness pulls away, the new from the old, and the tear gets worse. Likewise, no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins are ruined. Rather, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins.”
“What does this mean? That He changes the law? No! That the law is at the service of man, who is at the service of God – and so man ought to have an open heart. ‘It’s always been done this way’ is a closed heart, and Jesus tells us, ‘I will send you the Holy Spirit and He will lead you into the fullness of truth.’ If you have a heart closed to the newness of the Spirit, you will never reach the full truth. And your Christian life will be a half-and-half life, a patched life, mended with new things, but on a structure that is not open to the voice of the Lord—a closed heart, so that you are not able to change others....
It is the sin of so many Christians who cling to what has always been done and who do not allow others to change. And they end up with half a life, [a life that is] patched, mended, meaningless.”
The sin, he said, “is a closed heart,” that “does not hear the voice of the Lord, that is not open to the newness of the Lord, to the Spirit that always surprises us.” This rebellion, says Samuel, is “the sin of divination,” and obstinacy is the sin of idolatry:
“Christians who obstinately maintain ‘it’s always been done this way,' this is the path, this is the street—they sin: the sin of divination. It’s as if they went about by guessing: ‘What has been said and what doesn’t change is what’s important; what I hear—from myself and my closed heart—more than the Word of the Lord.’ Obstinacy is also the sin of idolatry: the Christian who is obstinate sins! The sin of idolatry. ‘And what is the way, Father?’ Open the heart to the Holy Spirit, discern what is the will of God.”
Pope Francis noted that in Jesus’ time, good Israelites were in the habit of fasting. “But there is another reality,” he said. “There is the Holy Spirit who leads us into the full truth. And for this reason he needs an open heart, a heart that will not stubbornly remain in the sin of idolatry of oneself,” imagining that my own opinion is more important than the surprise of the Holy Spirit.

I'm serious. I know it may be a translation problem, but I have no idea what the Holy Father means half the time. I'll read one sentence or phrase, think I understand the sense of it, and then be completely flummoxed as to what the next sentence has to do with it.
The Splendor of Huh.

Speaking of the Infant Jesus and Infants in General....

I just find myself confused sometimes.

...We know little of the Child Jesus, but we can learn a lot from Him if we look at the lives of children. It is a good habit that parents, grandparents, have, to look at children, what they do. We find out, first of all, that children want our attention. They must be the focus, why? Because they are proud? No! Because they need to feel protected. And it is necessary for us to put Jesus at the center of our lives...
Children, finally, love to play. To play with a child, however, means abandoning our logic to enter theirs. If we want them to have fun, you need to understand what pleases them, and not be selfish and make them do things that we like. It is a teaching for us.

I have to admit, rather than turn my thoughts to higher things, all these words of the Holy Father did was remind me of an Onion article from a few years ago.

MINNEAPOLIS—A study published Monday in The Journal Of Child Psychology And Psychiatry has concluded that an estimated 98 percent of children under the age of 10 are remorseless sociopaths with little regard for anything other than their own egocentric interests and pleasures.
According to Dr. Leonard Mateo, a developmental psychologist at the University of Minnesota and lead author of the study, most adults are completely unaware that they could be living among callous monsters who would remorselessly exploit them to obtain something as insignificant as an ice cream cone or a new toy.
...According to the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, a clinical diagnostic tool, sociopaths often display superficial charm, pathological lying, manipulative behaviors, and a grandiose sense of self-importance. After observing 700 children engaged in everyday activities, Mateo and his colleagues found that 684 exhibited these behaviors at a severe or profound level.
The children studied also displayed many secondary hallmarks of antisocial personality disorder, most notably poor impulse control, an inability to plan ahead, and a proclivity for violence—often in the form of extended tantrums—when their needs were not immediately met.
...Because children are so skilled at mimicking normal human emotions and will say anything without consideration for accuracy or truth, Mateo said that people often don’t realize that they’ve been exploited until it is too late. Though he maintained that anyone can fall victim to a child’s egocentric behavior, Mateo warned that grandmothers were especially susceptible to the self- serving machinations of tiny little sociopaths.