Category Archives: John Paul II

2023-07-29 · 6:05 am

UPDATE: 1988 FSSPX consecrations of bishops NOT schismatic. They’re fully regularized. They just don’t know it yet.

I’ve no skin in the game, as I’m not a member of the FSSPX. And I’m no Canon Lawyer. But I have assisted the FSSPX perhaps more than they know. I did keep the TLM going in Australia, and bring back the TLM to Lourdes, and to the Josephinum, etc. But over the decades many hundreds have made comments much more erudite than those that follow, much more fulsome, going into many volumes in length. I have not read what they wrote. So, I’m a fool. Writing is my way of learning. Catch me if you can, correct me if you can. I am so willing to be admonished. Am I wrong? Let me know. It’s an act of charity to instruct the ignorant. I do mean well. Be nice.

Firstly, let’s review the relative law of the Church. We’re in Book VI, Part I, Title III, just one canon with one of the sub-paragraphs.

  • BOOK VI. Penal Sanctions in the Church
    • Part I. Offences and Punishments in General
      • Title III. Those Who Are Liable to Penal Sanctions
      • Can. 1323— No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
      • 4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.

The next canon with just one of its sub-paragraphs adds nothing to the argument:

  • Can. 1324— § 1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
    • 5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or who acted by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the offence is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.

The Consecrator and those consecrated spoke of a “reason of necessity.” That reason of necessity regarding liturgy, doctrine, morality, Tradition was rejected. At least the effectuating of the Liturgical Rites for the Consecrations was not judged to be “intrinsically evil.” And yet, another accusation was proffered, that the Consecrations were tantamount to an act which “tends to be harmful to souls,” viz., divisory.

But was this event of the Consecrations divisory? I was 28 years old in 1988, already with degrees in philosophy and theology, with already very many years in Rome with seminarians and priests and bishops and cardinals from all over the world. From that time until today, now with much broader experience in dozens of countries and in all sorts of situations, I can say that I have not met even one person whose soul was harmed specifically because of those Consecrations. Instead, I many times witnessed the effect such steadfastness had on the consciences of those who had themselves abandoned the faith, and yet were continuing their studies as seminarians and priests. The fact of the consecrations acted as an examination of conscience.

But it was the now canonized Pope John Paul II who employed the vocabulary of schism. But is the act of the Consecrations schismatic, incurring for those involved an automatic excommunication, later declared by the sainted Pontiff?

Let’s take a look at Book VI of Canon Law, Part II, but skip Title I about offences also against the unity of the Church, including, specifically, schism, because Canon Law does NOT consider any Consecration of a Bishop without a mandate from the Pope to be a schismatic act. Surprise, surprise. Instead, we move to just one short canon under Title III, on offences (and this is very interesting) on offenses against the Sacraments:

  • Book VI. Penal Sanctions in the Church
    • Part II. Particular Offences and the Penalties Established for Them
    • [Title I. Offences Against the Faith and the Unity of the Church]
    • Title III. Offences Against the Sacraments
      • Can. 1387— Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

We can all understand that this is a grave offence that does in fact deserve excommunication, but only if all things are equal, as they say. But all things are not so straightforward all the time. The Consecrations of 1988 were said to have been done for a “reason of necessity” which, ipso facto, removes it from being an act which “tends to be harmful to souls.” People understand necessity. Also, the Consecrations were not “intrinsically evil.”

An excommunication cannot legitimately be declared effected by a schismatic act if there was no schismatic act. An excommunication may certainly be declared for certain offenses against the Sacraments, such as the Consecrations without a Pontifical mandate. But wait…

The question now revolves around whether or not there was a legitimate reason of necessity. The Holy See said a thousand times that there was no reason of necessity. But, that’s the point. Of course such individuals in the Holy See are going to say that. The Consecrations are an accusation against them.

Those involved in the Consecrations had a reason of necessity. 35 years later, can we say that the Consecrator and those thus consecrated were correct? I think we can. The excommunications do not stand. They were lifted much later. But that changed nothing. The excommunications were illegitimate in the law. I think John Paul was misled. Many name names. I think Benedict thought the same about his predecessor. Bergoglio has done much to further regularize the standing of the Fraternité sacerdotale Saint-Pie-X.

The FSSPX are not in schism now. Nor were they ever.

What does that mean? That means that the Bishops always had the mandate and could always legitimately grant faculties to their newly ordained priests, and that as long as the situation perdures, any new Consecrations of bishops carries the mandate that enables the granting of faculties to priests.

All those Confessions, Last Rites, Marriages witnessed? All good, always.

Are there dangers of, say, tolerating a precedent, so that the bishops in Germany might think that they have grave reasons to consecrate bishops without a pontifical mandate? Sure, there are dangers from idiots always and everywhere. That didn’t stop Jesus. We must respect Canon Law. This doesn’t mean legal positivism. There is nothing of legal positivism in any of this argument above.

Does what I write here change everything? I think it does.

I COULD BE WRONG! Please, correct me.

UPDATE: Maybe I overthink things, but here are some analogies about the happenstance provision of the power of keys outside of “normal” ways and means:

Say a priest was automatically excommunicated because, say, all secretly, he absolved a partner in sin. No one else knows this, and he continues hearing confessions and providing absolutions, even though he has no “normal” faculties to do so. Well, well, the Church supplies those faculties (ecclesia supplet) should the penitent be ignorant to the priest having otherwise lost his faculties.

Or, say that there are no priests at all for the foreseeable future, and one has fallen into mortal sin and there is not presently any way to go to individual sacramental Confession. One is to make an act of perfect contrition, that is, not just sorry to have sinned because one dreads the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but because one has offended God’s love for us, a personal sorrow directed to the Lord. But not only that, one is to make an intention that if it ever becomes possible, one is to make an individual sacramental Confession to a priest as soon as this is possible.

An act of perfect contrition which thus respects inasmuch as is possible the Sacrament of Confession is possible only with sanctifying grace supplied directly by God to the soul, thus flooding the soul with grace, thus bringing about the forgiveness of sin.

In the same way, it must be that any such Consecrations of bishops wrought outside the “normal” ways and means must be that which is brought to the Church if and when that becomes possible. That intention has to be there among all the participants in order for them not to be excommunicated.

3 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis, Holy See, John Paul II

Tagged as , , , , , ,

2023-05-30 · 1:50 am

Mary, Mother of the Church, Mater Ecclesiae

You may remember when, on November 21, 1964, Saint Pope Paul VI declared Mary to be Mother of the Church, Mater Ecclesiae.

  • “We have felt it opportune to consecrate in this very public session, a title which was suggested in honor of the Virgin from various parts of the Catholic world and which is particularly dear to us because it sums up in an admirable synthesis the privileged position recognized by the council for the Virgin in the Holy Church. Therefore, for the glory of the Virgin Mary and for our own consolation, we proclaim the Most Blessed Mary Mother of the Church, that is to say of all the people of God, of the faithful as well as of the pastors, who call her the most loving Mother. And we wish that the Mother of God should be still more honored and invoked by the entire Christian people by this most sweet title.”

You may have heard the back story of this declaration, that there was a fierce argument among the bishops of the Second Vatican Council regarding the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, as to whether there should be a chapter on Mary at the end of the document or whether there should be a separate document for her. It was decided that she is essential to life of the Church and must be included in Lumen Gentium itself. Before this, Paul VI made the declaration above. The response was a standing ovation wrought by all present. There are various accounts, but it is said that the applause went on for some 12 minutes. If you’ve ever experienced a lengthy applause of over thirty seconds you know that by 45 seconds your hands are about to fall off. Twelve… Minutes…

You may remember that soon after Saint Pope John Paul II was shot in Saint Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981, he ordered that an image of our Lady be enshrined in Saint Peter’s Square. He wanted this to be Mary, Mother of the Church. A mosaic from Constantinian Basilica of Saint Peter’s, later in the Basilica designed by Michelangelo that we see today, was restored and ready by December 8, 1981 (pictured above).

You may remember that the residence of Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican Gardens was called Mater Ecclesiae…

All of this speaks to a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In mentioning the title Mary, Mother of the Church, to a group of priests many years ago, I was instantly reprimanded that this was not a traditional title of our Lady. I just as instantly mentioned passages in Sacred Scripture and in the lengthy Magisterium of the Church so as to emphasis that this is a most Catholic and proper title of our Lady. He wasn’t convinced. I mentioned the unanimous applause, acclamation if you will, of all the bishops as one. He said: Ah, yes, Vatican II, the beginning of the end of the Church. As he was saying this, he literally got up and ran away. Yep.

Mary, Mother of the Church, is especially the Mother of priests. Pray that our bishops and priests return from their flight from Calvary, and return to accompany Mary under the Cross, and then hear those words of Jesus, “Woman, behold, your son. Son, behold, your Mother.” Hail Mary…

In the Novus Ordo liturgical calendar, Mary, Mother of the Church, is an obligatory memorial as a feast which falls every year on the Monday following Pentecost Sunday, given that, most oddly, the Octave of Pentecost was suppressed. I very much love this new feast day for our Lady. I am saddened that the Octave of Pentecost was booted in favor of another spirit of Vatican II. Meanwhile, this year, the Monday following Pentecost was 29 May, which is the feast day, an optional memorial, of Saint Pope Paul VI. I find the coincidence of those two feast days, Paul VI and Mary, Mother of God, on the same day to be rather appropriate, given that he is the one who proclaimed this title back in 1964. Am I wrong?

5 Comments

Filed under John Paul II, Paul VI, Pope Benedict XVI

Tagged as , , ,

2023-05-13 · 8:25 am

Our Lady of Fatima & Saint John Paul II – assassination attempt

fatima pope john paul assassination

13 May 1981, when Mehmet Ali Ağca , Soviet puppet, pulled the trigger, our Lady of Fatima redirected the bullets. Saint John Paul II survived. Where were you at the time? I was a seminarian and at that moment I was just outside of Rome, looking back at the City. The panorama is burned into my mind.

This was just five years after I had the privilege to be one of the Cadets of our Lady of Fatima who were chosen to help carry her statue for the main candlelight procession during the vigil of the July apparition, the night of 12 July, 1976, amidst a crowd of 2.1 to 2.2 million souls, when I was sixteen years old. My sister had introduced me to the scapular and rosary and the Blue Army when I was only six: 1966. She’s the one who paid for the trip when I was sixteen, something like $350. That must have been subsidized. I thank her for the great Catholic formation I received on this pilgrimage with Father Robert J Fox. Anyway, on that same trip with many other cadets, we went to Coimbra and met Sister Lucia.

It seems that the more you know about Fatima the more you realize you know pretty much nothing about Fatima, for instance, about the third secret.

Here’s what we know: The powers that be are scared to death to publish that secret. That opens up a raft of more questions.

6 Comments

Filed under Fatima, John Paul II

Tagged as ,

2022-08-23 · 8:37 am

It’s complicated. Personal note. Jesus Christ You are my Life.

Amidst all the wars and floods and earthquakes and persecutions right around the world, causing so many to be murdered, displaced, and amidst all the weirdness of the complications of world-politics and church-politics, that weirdness being an occasion by which people can lose their souls, I’ve nevertheless allowed myself to be distracted, self-absorbed, as Pope Francis says, in my own tiny little world.

I’ve been doing some preps for a medical intervention at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, a teaching hospital, recommended precisely because it is a teaching hospital by my own doctor and a specialist surgeon, both outside of that health care system. There are complications. Two hospitals were fighting for me to be their patient. I’m grateful.

It’s a super-easy, super-common, merely outpatient intervention. A generous parishioner is driving me there and back. But medicine is a practice, right? If there is a rather catastrophic complication, some logistics will have to be confronted. Since as a priest I’m quite continuously in hospitals, I’ve personally seen that complication. Alas, it’s best to be prepared.

It’s one of those situations whereby… “You have to confront the trees when going through a forest.” This is our lot in life, attempting to be a steward for the entire forest, but, in trying to have oversight of the panorama, we can walk right into individual trees. Bonk. Thus, the distraction.

The upside of any such would-be complication in my little world is that it might well save me from another possible intervention, which I’ve been warned by specialists would necessarily be catastrophic. So, one regrettable complication saving me from another. That would be really cool. I love that. I’m patient. But chances are there will not necessarily be another complication.

Anyway, that’s why I’ve not been posting much. Busy with preps. Chances are chances. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst. Lots of people don’t have that opportunity. I’m grateful to be able to get psyched, as they say. Still doing the usual sprinting from Holy Hours to Confessions to Holy Mass to Communion calls, to Last Rites… and feeding Shadow-dog… all those things that I have hopes of continuing to do regardless of any complications one way or the other. It’s complicated, but obstacles are not insurmountable. For the record: “Not insurmountable.” Sometimes it has to be said.

P.S. That picture up top of John Paul II, who, like that young man, would then himself be transferred into a wheelchair…

  • I put that poignant photo there because my memory is jogged regarding what a certain papabile said to me about that sainted pontiff, that he, JPII, is an embarrassment to the Church in front of the world. What a shame, he insisted, a pope in a wheelchair. He added: We’re trying to figure out a way to have him removed. Get that? But I’m sure it wasn’t because of physical infirmity that there was a desire to discard JPII like trash. JPII’s crime was that he was Catholic while being pope. This same papabile said that Jesus was a “kind of failure”, you know, a loser, for having been crucified.
  • I recall a priest saying of me already decades ago now that I myself was an embarrassment to the Church in front of the world, you know, because at the time I was in a wheelchair. I was just as much of an embarrassment to the Church in front of the world as was another priest in a wheelchair in his diocese. He was an out-and-out Marxist, so, for him, rusty cogs in the machine are to be discarded like trash. I’m sure it wasn’t because of my physical infirmity at the time that there was a desire to get rid of me. My crime was that I was being Catholic while being a priest. It would only be a year or two and I would wheel myself in my wheelchair a couple of miles away to the Missionaries of Charity, giving them the wheelchair, making brave to walk away on crutches, and then, later, walk miles on those crutches to Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and place my crutches, as a kind of statement of thanksgiving, behind the altar-rails at the side-altar of St Pius X, making brave to walk away, and I did.
  • Years later, I recall a seminarian asking about a limp of mine which at some times is more pronounced. I told him what had happened. While spinning about and walking away quickly, dismissively, he called out, “What a loser!” you know, with an attitude, as in, “What a f***ing loser!” — Like… wait… what? If I’m a loser for having a limp, is Jesus a loser for having been crucified?

Anyway, the present intervention for which I’m distracted with many preps has nothing to do with any lifetime quasimodo ambulation. Chances are there will be no complication, which might be complicating, a veritable forest of trees:

Meanwhile, that’s just my own little world. Boring.

It’s Jesus who is the One. The only One.

I get that. I can’t even count how many times JPII traced the cross on my forehead.

The cross. That’s about Jesus. Jesus is our Life.

6 Comments

Filed under John Paul II, Spiritual life

Tagged as , , ,

2020-02-11 · 9:00 am

The Pride of Graham County: TitleTown Saint Pope John Paul II on Sports

wp-15808358524952485905516370408335.jpg

There are still celebrations going on for The Black Knights, the Football Team of the Graham County High School on the North Side of Robbinsville.

They’ve taken their 14th A 1 State Championship. But I wouldn’t want to give the football team too much publicity. Graham County excels in plenty of other sports on the State level, particularly wrestling.

Sports have done much for Graham County. It’s one of the very poorest, marginalized counties in all of North Carolina, and in the Appalachian Mountains throughout the Eastern USA. That they so very frequently finish up in first place says much of the local spirit.

Another sport has been added very recently: marksmanship. How well do they do with that, you ask? Well, those of you who are as old as I am may remember a skeet-shooting session in the The Beverly Hillbillies. It’s kind of like that:

Sports have done so very much to promote unity among people of different backgrounds and of different wherewithal on whatever level and in whatever way. I’ve seen this before in Rosman and Brevard North Carolina, where there have been some amazing coaches. I am reminded of Saint John Paul II’s words on sports:

  • “Playing sport has become very important today, since it can encourage young people to develop important values such as loyalty, perseverance, friendship, sharing and solidarity.”
  • “Sport is a factor of emancipation for poor countries and helps to eradicate intolerance and build a more brotherly and united world.”
  • “Sport…protects the weak and excludes no-one…frees young people from the snares of apathy and indifference and arouses a healthy sense of competition in them.”
  • “Sports, in fact, can make an effective contribution to peaceful understanding between peoples and to establishing the new civilization of love.”
  • “Sports contribute to the love of life, teaches sacrifice, respect and responsibility, leading to the full development of every human person.”
  • “Every Christian is called to become a strong athlete of Christ, that is, a faithful and courageous witness to his Gospel. But to succeed in this, he must persevere in prayer, be trained in virtue and follow the divine Master in everything.”
  • “Sport trains body and spirit for perseverance, effort, courage, balance, sacrifice, honesty, friendship and collaboration.”
  • “Give thanks to God for the gift of sport, in which the human person exercises his body, intellect and will, recognizing these abilities as so many gifts of his Creator.”
  • “Lord Jesus Christ, Help these athletes to be your friends and witnesses to your love. Help them to put the same effort into personal asceticism that they do into sports; help them to achieve a harmonious and cohesive unity of body and soul.”

Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Filed under John Paul II

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

2019-12-14 · 10:10 am

Pope Francis rejects seven popes on Co-Redemptrix

I’m going to offer a critique of Pope Francis’ impassioned rejection of Mary as Co-Redemptrix at Mass in Saint Peter’s Basilica for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe the other day, December 12, 2019. The video above is the entire homily.

And yes, I’m aware through second hand information – I know, “second-hand” – and from a private conversation with then Cardinal Ratzinger – I know, “private” – that the then Prefect’s opinion of the title co-redemptrix could be misleading, but not that it was wrong in itself. Analogously, that’s what Saint John Henry Newman said about Papal Infallibility, right? It’s entirely correct, but maybe that wasn’t the best time to be proclaiming that truth of the Gospels in Matthew 16, what with the sum of all heresies running rampant in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican get-togethers at that time (it’s no different today). I would counter that the best time to preach the truth is all the time: “Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient [in season or out of season]; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Anyway, that objection of “it’s correct but the wording could be misinterpreted” is all a far cry from Pope Francis’ putting the absolute worst spin on that title for Mary – Co-Redemptrix – that he could possibly ever dream up in some nightmare, having it that not only is it misleading, but wrong, he even saying that efforts with this are “stupidities.”

Lets see what he himself says at 2’17”:

  • “Fiel a su Maestro, que es su Hijo, el único Redentor, jamás quiso para sí tomar algo de su Hijo. Jamás se presentó como co-redentora, no: discípula.”
  • “Faithful to her Master, who is her Son, alone the Redeemer, she never desired to take something of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as co-redeemer, no: disciple.”

Well, that’s all true:

  • She was faithful to her Master, who is her Son, He alone being the Redeemer.
  • She never desire to take something of her Son for herself.
  • She never presented herself as Co-Redeemer. [nor does she have to for this to be true.]
  • She was, in fact, a disciple.

The problem is that Pope Francis contrasts all this with the title Co-Redemptrix, attacking the historical interpretation of that title by, say, the “Servant of God” (first step toward canonization) Sister Lucia of Fatima, and by, say, Pope Saint John Paul II, who used that title a half-dozen times (and also a few more times for all the rest of us, by the way, inasmuch as we are to be evangelizers of the redemption). The title was also used by Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII. Anyway, let’s move on:

In the video, at 2’55”:

  • “Nunca robó para sí nada de su Hijo. Lo sirvió porque Madre. “
  • “She never robbed anything from her Son, but she served Him, because she is Mother.”

Fine. That’s all true as well:

  • She never robbed [stealing by way of arrogant violence] anything from her Son.
  • She served Him as Mother.

But that has nothing that contradicts her being Co-Redemptrix. With overwhelming irony, all that misses the point of her being the woman and mother that she is, as we will see. Let’s move along…

Then, at 6’07” (he’s mumbling a bit…):

  • “Quando vengan con historias de que de declarala esto a ser trato como un dogma o esto – non la perdamos in tonteras.”
  • “When they come with stories of having to declare this [Mary as Co-Redemptrix] to be a dogma or whatever – let’s not lose her in stupidities.”

“Stupidities.” This, of course, is not a named, but is nonetheless a direct attack on seven previous popes, as well as, it seems to me – and this is perhaps to the point – on Mark Miravale, who has made this title of Co-Redemptrix a life project. He’s done a lot of excellent work on this. What Pope Francis does is simply offensive. If he wants to pick a fight, he should name his adversaries who are alive today instead of hiding behind a bully pulpit. All stupidities about Mary? Really?

Let’s do some reasoning about this:

Pope Francis considers the title Co-Redemptrix to be falsely assigning Mary a function which she steals violently from her Son, as if being a woman and mother wasn’t enough for any woman, including Mary, to have dignity.

But this is missing the point altogether. It’s so dark, so dismal, so unable to see goodness and kindness in being a woman, a mother. Here’s the deal:

  • It is because Mary is a faithful woman, mother and disciple that she is Co-Redemptrix. Only she could be so faithful, such a mother, and such a disciple.

Let’s unpack that a bit…

  • Mary is free of original sin as we know from Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28 (see my thesis on Genesis and Ignace de la Potterie’s study on Luke 1:28).
  • That means she has purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of vision such that she sees the contrast between God’s goodness and our sin. In looking upon her Son on Calvary, she sees all the sin of all mankind wrecked upon her Son. As a woman, as a mother, as His mother, she is in solidarity with Him while He accomplishes our Redemption, He alone our Redeemer. In her immaculateness, with her clarity of vision, seeing what we need perfectly, she perfectly intercedes for us in that solidarity, heart to Heart, with her Son.
  • Here’s the point: it is entirely fitting in justice that one of us mere human beings (only she is capable what with her being free from original sin) asks for all that we need in Redemption. Her request, in all justice, and her Son’s answer as a command to His Heavenly Father (Father! Forgive them), makes of them co-workers in our Redemption. She asks. He provides. That’s what the title Co-Redemptrix for Mary is all about. Nothing more. But nothing less.
  • Being Co-Redemptrix is the flourishing of her being a woman, a mother, His Immaculate Virgin Mother, and ours. She’s not brutally, violently stealing anything from Son to make herself look good. No. How sick is that? Instead, she serves Him in unimaginable suffering as only a good mother could. How could anyone look into her eyes and insult her that her motherhood is not flourishing here under the Cross?

We are also to be co-redeemers of sorts, co-workers with the redemption, evangelizing the redemption. Is that so bad, so blasphemous? No. It isn’t.

I have much to say about this connection between the motherhood of Mary and her title of Co-Redemptrix, foundationally in my thesis, and then more precisely and especially  in the conference on Mary, Mother of the Church Militant, which I gave back in 2013:

So, we pray for Pope Francis and for each other, doing this as, um… co-redeemers… and we ask Mary to show us all her motherhood, you know, as the Co-Redemptrix:

Monstra te esse matrem! Show yourself to be a mother!

9 Comments

Filed under John Paul II, Mary, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , ,

2019-12-13 · 8:58 am

Praying for & then to Paul VI, Sheen, JPII

Pope Paul VI died August 6, 1978. I remember listening to a talk by the Venerable Fulton Sheen put out shortly after that on cassette tape by Keep the Faith, Inc. Archbishop Sheen said that when he heard the news of the death of Paul VI, he first said a Hail Mary for the repose of his soul, and then prayed a Hail Mary in his honor asking also for his intercession. That was blazoned in my heart and soul. I then immediately did the same regarding Paul VI. The Archbishop died not long after, on December 9, 1979. I did the same as he had done: I prayed a Hail Mary for the repose of Fulton Sheen’s soul, and then another in his honor asking also for his intercession.

saint pope paul vi Karol Wojtyła

I don’t know how many times – I think eight direct encounters – that I met up with Saint John Paul II. I always felt close to him. When he died – I was there at Saint Peter’s (a story all on its own) – I did the same thing: I prayed a Hail Mary for him, and then offered a Hail Mary in his honor also asking his intercession.

I do feel vindicated against all the haters at the time:

  • Paul VI was canonized.
  • John Paul II was canonized.
  • Fulton Sheen is now venerable, and on his way to being canonized.

When I heard of the recent nay-saying by certain elements of the US Bishops Conference against the Venerable Fulton Sheen being beatified, my very first thought was this:

  • Way to go, Fulton! You have the honor also in your death of taking on the abusive, homosexualist lobby. You did all things well. You will be vindicated. You rendered honor to our Lord during your life, and now you continue to do so in your death.

Disclaimer: Paul VI and his teaching in Humanae vitae was extremely formative in my life. I absolutely loved Fulton Sheen’s homilies and retreats and conferences and books; he was extremely formative in my life. John Paul II captured my heart and soul so much that I signed up to and took classes at the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family.

5 Comments

Filed under Fulton Sheen, John Paul II, Paul VI

Tagged as , ,

2019-10-22 · 5:20 am

Happy Feast Day Pope John Paul II!

george-david-byers-john-paul-ii

Of so very many personal meetings with Saint John Paul II, my most memorable took place in the interior courtyard at Castel Gondolfo. Without any tickets for the audience, and with only minutes to go, I convinced the Swiss Guard out front that John Paul would surely like to meet with a friend of mine, an ex-prostitute who was now assisting women in getting out of that life.

I feel kind of badly to this day, as the Swiss Guard, bless their hearts, went inside and extracted two priests who had come all the way from Poland for this “private” audience. We took their places. The ex-prostitute had a Polish heritage. At the end of the audience when those of us who were there were meeting personally with Pope John Paul, she exclaimed, “MY Holy Father!” Pope John Paul was most gracious. :-)

As a side note, can you guess what that volume is under my arm? Pope John Paul signed it for me…

4 Comments

Filed under John Paul II

Tagged as

2019-07-30 · 7:46 am

My PTSD symptoms at the destruction of my Alma Mater: John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family

In the early mid 1980s I was finishing a semester of licentiate coursework at the Lateran’s John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family. Institutional founder (later Cardinal) Carlo Caffarra (+2017) was my professor for a course on some entirely fascinating passages from the great Saint Thomas Aquinas, particularly De Veritate, the Summa Theologiae, and some bits and pieces from his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. At the time, there was a war going on between the JPII Institute and the Redemptorists’ Alphonsianum, their school of “moral theology,” or more precisely between John Paul’s Caffarra and their heretic Bernard Häring. The JPII Institute and the Alphonsianum were only some stone’s throws from each other in Rome. I happened to live between the two, only a couple of stone’s throw from each.

The place where I lived had plenty of brave students at the JPII Institute, bucking the mafia-esque bullying of political correctness, but the powers that be sided with Bernard Häring (+1998) and had him give a lecture in the our library located just below my room. I went down to listen to the enemy. A dialogue? No. The tyranny of relativism. The bullying consequent to the abandonment of the Christ of the commandments. The ambiguity ensuring that no one, not now, not ever, will live in that love who is God, that love stronger than our situations, stronger than our weakness, stronger than our temptations, stronger than death. The JPII Institute was about growing in the strength of the love of Christ Jesus. The Alphonsianum was about never coming to know the strength of that love.

In the picture above I am just days before getting on a plane to be on my way Stateside. The picture with JPII was taken just after early morning Mass in the tiny chapel behind the “library” up in the Apostolic Palace of the day. The book, published by the JPII Institute, was a collection of some of the writings of John Paul II himself. If I reckon correctly, it was the eighth time I had met with the sainted Pontiff.

Yesterday (end of July 2019) I dedicated some time to catching up on what’s happening at the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family. I perused the new constitutions, read up on the backgrounds of some of the new players, such as Paglia, and allowed myself to get upset, rightfully so. This brought out what seems to be some post traumatic stress from those ever-so-dark-days in Church history in Rome. So dark. All the horror of those days came flooding back. All of it. The demonic attitudes of the heretics, the loss of souls scandalized, the fright of seeing self-centered, absolutely narcissistic arrogant pride lusting after the power of being “the one, the only one” of importance in the universe. This set me to experiencing that hell as if for the first time all over again. A nightmare. Getting the legs cut out from under oneself? Yes, I know what that feels like. (That’s me in the picture having literally had that happen). That was my day yesterday.

What shocked me is that nothing at all has changed for the heretics over all these decades… Nothing! It’s all the same lust for power, lust for prestige, lust for… lust. All so very disgusting. It’s all the same arguments. So tired. So nothing. So lifeless. So boring. So very full of lies. So very predatory.

I, for one, am tired of it all, fed up, upset, but not despairing, not giving in, not caving in. This new scandal of the destruction of the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family – following up on the 2017 warning – was, of course, good for me. You know the drill: It was character building. I now stand more confirmed – How to say? – more validated, more vindicated in standing with the truth of the “old” JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family, with Him who is Living Truth. Jesus is the One, the only One. It’s a sin to give up! We must stay strong. We must remain with Christ Jesus.

Alright. I should be more honest. I’ll be more graphic about my darkness. What came to mind yesterday in my darkest moment was a demonic twist of story line, an analogy with the Wizard of Oz, you know, with the proclamation that the wicked witch is dead. In my upside-down, back to front, inside-out analogy, in my dark and beady heart, the munchkins singing are the same as the overlords of the destruction of the “old” JPII Institute: The “old” JPII Institute in this twisted analogy is the wicked witch that the heretics are so happy is dead. The heretics also hold themselves to be the ever so innocent Dorothy.

Having said all that, it’s a sin to be lost to hopeless bitterness. So, it needs to be said that I’m not better than Paglia or Häring or, to drudge up old names, Richard A. McCormick, Charles E. Curran, Joseph Fuchs, or even their guiding “light” Karl Rahner with all of his confusion of the natural and supernatural. Jesus is the only one who is good.

Having said all that, I don’t think it’s a sin to point out heresy and the spread of darkness. Nor do I think it is a sin of presumption to want to remain in the joy of the Holy Spirit even in the face of the darkness of all the heresy all around us. Blessed are we if there are two things going on:

  • We see the darkness so as not to fall into the error. The JPII Institute will now be a cesspool of heresy.
  • We see our salvation in the light of Christ, salvation from the darkness and error. We can know His truth.

“They” might say that Saint John Paul II is dead. They might say that the Church is dead. “They” might say Good riddance! But the sainted Pope is still with us in heaven. And Jesus is still with us. Jesus sees all these things. He wants that we be faithful in Him no matter what. Don’t be mistaken. Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire.

We read in the Book of Revelation: “The one who gives this testimony says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon.’ Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all.” (Apocalypse 22:20-21)

5 Comments

Filed under John Paul II, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

2019-04-15 · 11:39 am

The Necessary Co-Redemptrix

SISTINE MADONNA detail

While preaching this Palm-Sunday on what would be an appropriate meditation for this Holy Week for my parishioners – the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and then the 4th and 13th Stations of the Cross: Jesus meeting his mother after getting smashed down by the cross for the first time and then Jesus being lowered from the cross into her arms, ever so dead – in preaching on all that… well… I mean… I suppose I could put the audio of the homily up… It’s just that it’s embarrassing as I got entirely choked up a number of times, entirely unable to speak for at least what seemed like ten seconds… thirty seconds…

Here’s the deal: Not that it at all came out in what I said necessarily, but it was in preaching on Jesus and His good mom that I “understood” – beheld quite directly, if you will – the dynamic, if you will – by which it is entirely necessary that Mary be Co-Redemptrix. To me this wasn’t just an “insight”, but rather an invitation to behold what’s really going on with our Redemption, ever so personal for Jesus about Mary, the good Son of a good mom. It was like seeing Mary as Mother from the eyes of her good Son.

I asked a specialist in psychology and priests about this fault of mine, getting choked up, which the Brits would call weakness, and even worse. He knows me well, and is my spiritual director. He straight up laughed at me for stupidly even asking the question, saying that Freud would say that it all has to do with an unresolved conflict with my own mom. But, then he said that Freud has been discredited on saying everything like this must be a “conflict,” adding that surely this was, in fact, for me, a valid religious experience. And then he went on to mention some of his own like experiences.

I say all that just to rid some of such unnecessary distraction so that they might pay attention to what is important. Here are some points spelling out a bit what I didn’t entirely spell out in the homily because of my getting choked up:

  • Only Adam was responsible for the “breath of the living ones” which was only given to him with its intention that he and his offspring be alive and then reaffirm this life should he eat from the tree of the living ones, that is, living with good choices, instead of eating, as it were, from the tree of knowing good mixed with evil, a kind of epistemology of dumbed-downness by which the power of his agent-intellect was corrupted not only for himself, but for us. Adam changed the intention of the breath from life to death. We no longer have the wherewithal to keep matter and spirit, body and soul together. We start to drop into the grave the moment we are conceived.
  • Any offspring have a share in the breath of the dying ones, and are dumbed-down, weakened, unable to love that which, the One – God – whom they don’t know, as they otherwise should, and so are immediately in sin, what we call original sin.
  • God creates the soul which is concomitant with that life, that dying life at the choice of Adam, not of God. God is just respecting Adam’s choice for himself, for us. We are created good up to the point Adam chose. And that’s the point: up to the point that Adam chose. Adam chose to descend to the level of where his wife bid him to go, not more nor less.
  • In justice, in our Redemption, Jesus should redeem us, recreate us only inasmuch as, only to the point that one of us would ask for this, Mary’s intercession for us.
  • Mary, free from original sin, and therefore with purity of heart and agility of soul and clarity of (spiritual) vision so that she could see exactly what we needed as she looked upon what sin has ravaged on her Son. She was in perfect solidarity with Son, her Immaculate Heart, His Sacred Heart.
  • Jesus followed up on her intercession for us, and only up to the point she desired this for us, which, of course, was perfectly. She’s the perfect mother. Our mother.
  • That maternal intercession of hers was necessarily for Him. It is this to which He looked. And only this. Jesus had a human nature. In justice, He should use this human nature. It is in His human nature that He received the intercession of His mother for us. He was going to do exactly what she wanted for us (which is, of course, exactly what He wanted for us precisely as her children, with Him).

Just to say it:

Our Redemption by Jesus is equal, not more, not less, to the maternal intercession of Jesus’ good mom for us. He looked to her, the Son to the Mother. Just as Adam looked to his wife as to just how far he should fall, so did the new Adam look to The Woman to see just how far He should lift us back up. Being Immaculate, she saw our need perfectly, and, in perfect solidarity with her Son, interceded for us perfectly. Having said all that, it is she who set us before our Redemption. Jesus would not have done it without her indicating that Redemption. Mary is entirely necessary as Co-Redemptrix for our Redemption.

Academically, the point is entirely valid with all my years of doctoral studies on Genesis 2:4–3:24 (including 3:15). I have much to say on all this, drawing out all the implications, drawing out the incisive ironies. I am overwhelmed with the entirely and very personal dynamic, if you will, of what is happening with our redemption, Jesus looking to His good mom: “Woman! Behold! I make all things new!”

Finally, this provides me the engine – how to say it? – to draw out a popular version of the thesis. I pray that I’m able to accomplish this. I pray that this works toward what has been called the fifth Marian dogma.

Now it’s more personal than it ever was. It’s like a project with Jesus.

I entirely realize that making it personal makes me look to be the fool. Delusional. An idiot. Fine. Whatever. I know what I know. It’s all come together. Whatever authority by which I write anything has nothing do with me. It’s to be judged on consistency with the Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Magisterial interventions of the Church. It’s to be judged on the reasoning. Yes.

All I can say is that, right now, at the start of Holy Week, I’ve been shaken to the core of my being before God that Mary, our good mom, is necessarily Co-Redemptrix. It has to be that our Redemption in entirely involved with Jesus looking to His good mom. And, yes, she was singled out in Genesis: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and The Woman [in context, the future Mother of the Redeemer].

In saying that, what is left to say? Just this:

Jesus, Immaculate Mary’s Divine Son, has done all things well.

10 Comments

Filed under Immaculate Conception, Jesus, Jewish-Catholic dialogue, John Paul II, Mary

Tagged as , , , , ,