Richard Chonak – Page 6 – Catholic Light

Sunset at La Salette

The La Salette Shrine in Enfield, New Hampshire is apparently going to be closing at some time in 2015, 87 years after they took over from the Shakers. So says an announcement from the Missionaries of La Salette, recently received at the Shrine and reported in the local press.

I can’t say this is a surprise. This isn’t the first La Salette apostolate in New England to close, and may not be the last. It may be hard to attract visitors to a site that is mainly an outdoor shrine, with only a rather minimal chapel.

There was once an attractive church open to visitors, complete with a Casavant Freres organ. The missionaries’ marykeanechapelfrontal 0907Riley_Rehearsal first major work on the site was across the street from the current Shrine. In 1927 they bought a property previously occupied by a settlement of the Shaker sect, and they built a stately chapel in 1930-31 along with a seminary high school and a junior college. The college was later relocated and the school closed in 1974: the student body had produced few vocations. The Mary Keane Chapel remains today, now deconsecrated, as part of the local museum that documents the history of the Shaker and LaSalette presence at the site. It is used as a site for weddings and concerts.

Activity at the Shrine in Enfield has been very low in recent years. An annual display of Christmas lights on the hillside attracts visitors; and the Sunday Mass serves locals and probably some tourists in the summer, but, going by this pamphlet of activities, Mass is only said at the Shrine chapel four times a week by the three priests on the staff. Normally, three priests would be saying Mass 21 times a week somewhere. Maybe they’re busy somewhere else.

The current Shrine chapel, as you can see, is rustic, but I have always thought it was just a euphemism for ‘miserable’ in this case, dark and poor. Perhaps it is so dark and poor in solidarity with the poor of the world, and for the sake of nearness to nature. The ministry activities the missionaries offer include a preached mission focused on reconciliation with creation, creation spirituality, water conservation, and other related topics.

The Shrine grounds also feature a “peace walk” area marked with a peace pole and portraits of “modern apostles”. The Japanese “interfaith” group that provided the pole says: “Thought forms create an energetic field strong enough to empower the course of planetary destiny.” Very inspiring, no doubt.

Anyway, the order, falling in numbers, has withdrawn from some parishes it formerly staffed. Closer to me, it sold its shrine and retreat house in Ipswich, Massachusetts in the 1980s, even though the church there once bore the title “National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette”. The title was moved to their shrine in Attleboro, Mass. (between Boston and Providence), and that became the site of a substantial new church for pilgrims in 2002.

As for the shrine in Enfield, perhaps (God grant it!) some other religious community could take it on and make it a home. New Hampshire, a state with one of the most unchurched populations in the country, needs people inspired with the light of the faith.

A church musician’s ditty for the Triduum

I’ll be at th’end of my tether /
By the time that Holy Week is done /
‘Twill be time for beef and beer then /
‘Twill be time for having lots of fun /
Still we can’t sing alleluia /
‘Till the scho–la’s finished Gloria I (one).

[tune: UNION SEMINARY]

Did Cdl. Bergoglio disagree publicly with Pope Benedict?

Here’s a little piece, just for the record.

There’s a bit of talk on the net lately based on a March 2013 piece in the Telegraph which portrays “Pope Francis’ run-in with Benedict XVI over the Prophet Mohammed“. It says that Cdl. Bergoglio sharply disagreed with Pope Benedict’s magisterial lecture at the University of Regensburg in 2006.

I’ve seen this story cited as a justification for making one’s own critique of the Pope. After all, if Bergoglio thought it’s OK to diss Benedict’s statements, no one can complain when people talk back about Pope Bergoglio’s surprising remarks. Right?

Well, that’s the argument.

On the other side, I’ve seen at least one defender of Pope Francis suggesting that the Telegraph made up the whole story in a fit of typical British-press sensationalism.

The truth is between these.

As you may recall, Pope Benedict’s speech cited the writing of a Byzantine emperor who lamented what he saw as the harmful influence of Mohammed and Islam. He denounced the use of force by Muslim invaders and their use of forced conversions. This evoked much tumult at the time of the Pope’s speech, as did his (quite accurate) discussion of Islam’s concept of God, which would make God so transcendent that He could contradict reason, or contradict Himself. That’s contrary to the Catholic faith, which posits that divine revelation and human reason are consistent and can be integrated.

As the press was gathering reactions to the speech, Cdl. Bergoglio’s spokesman told Newsweek Argentina that Pope Benedict’s remarks “don’t represent me”, and that they were “unfortunate”.

The Telegraph piece suggests that Cdl. Bergoglio nearly got sacked over the dispute (that sounds unlikely), and that he cancelled a trip to Rome because of it. He even supposedly passed up attending the Synod of Bishops. That is a little puzzling, since (as far as I can tell) the Synod met in 2005 (regarding the Eucharist), and not again until 2008 (on the Word of God). So it’s not clear what event Cdl. Bergoglio passed up in October 2006. Still, it does seem that he passed up something, and there was a real fuss at the time.

I can say for sure that the Telegraph didn’t make up this story in 2013, because it was covered in the Spanish-language press in 2006. I’ll summarize the headlines:

October 8, 2006, El Clarin: “The Vatican is furious with Bergoglio’s spokesman”
October 10, 2006, La Razón: “Tension with the Church: Bergoglio has suspended a trip to the Vatican”
December 10, 2006, Religion Digital: “Cdl. Bergoglio’s spokesman terminated for disagreeing with the Pope”
December 14, 2006, El Litoral: “Bergoglio changes his spokesman”

So the fuss started with remarks like these from the press spokesman: “It’s a pain. When one insists on doctrinal differences, it necessarily leads to confrontation. . . . When the Pope enters the field of debate about truth, whether it’s true or not, the declaration becomes unfortunate (infeliz)“.

According to the Clarin story, Vatican sources called this “unheard-of”.

The story in La Razón said Cdl. Bergoglio was cancelling a trip to Rome — though it didn’t attribute this decision solely to the Islam fuss, but also mentioned political conflicts within Argentina at the time.

Then some more stories in December 2006 reported that the Cardinal was replacing his spokesman. The El Litoral story said this:

“Fr. Marcó will give up the direction of the press office in order to dedicate himself with more freedom to spread Christian thinking through the media, as he did before, without the responsibility that his words may be interpreted as the thought of the archbishop,” said an electronic statement.

This suggests that Fr. Marcó’s statement was unauthorized and reflected his own thinking, and perhaps not anything that Cdl. Bergoglio had said.

So — to give a bottom-line assessment, based on what I’ve seen so far — the Telegraph was mistaken about the existence of a dispute between Bergoglio and Benedict on the subject of Islam. But the mistake is understandable: their piece reflects what the Argentine press wrote in October 2006. Unfortunately, they didn’t catch the December 2006 follow-ups.

I think it was a bad choice for the Telegraph to present a quote from Horatio Verbitsky, without mentioning that he wrote a book accusing Cdl. Bergoglio of silent complicity with the “dirty war”. I’d expect that in the Guardian, not the Telegraph — well, at least the reporter labelled him accurately as “left-wing” — he was a former armed guerrilla.

Verdict Watch for Medjugorje

The jury has finished its deliberations and submitted its judgment to a higher authority. Now we’re on verdict watch. What will it be?

I refer, of course, to the disputed apparition case of Medjugorje.

It’s A Wrap!

What has the Holy See said?

2014-01-18 Vatican Radio

(Vatican Radio) The Director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, confirmed on Saturday that the international commission investigating the events in Medjugorje held its last meeting on 17 January. The commission, created by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is presided by Cardinal Camillo Ruini.
The commission has reportedly completed its work and will submit the outcomes of its study to the Congregation. (source)

And we don’t know much more than that about the process.

Who Will Speak?

The decision, when it comes, could be issued by one of three sources. First, CDF could make an announcement itself, since CDF’s ordinary authority delegated from the Pope allows it to do so.

The Pope might make a pronouncement directly, in order to eliminate any talk of appealing a CDF decision to the Pope personally.

Or CDF might encourage the local bishop to make the statement, as they did with Bishop Lennon in the Cleveland diocese’s “Holy Love Ministries” case.

No Change?

Speculation in the Croatian press says that the Commission might recommend a verdict of non constat de supernaturalitate and might recommend a policy that visits to the place not be impeded; which is to say, they’re speculating that the current judgment and policy of the bishops’ conference remain in place.

That’s the “best” apparition supporters can hope for; the Church is not going to give a positive endorsement to an apparition while it’s underway. But I doubt that the Church would want a commission to work for four years and then issue a report that says nothing new and proposes no change to the situation. And Church authorities are tired of the issue: at least Cdl. Puljic has said so.

What Are The Options?

First, when no judgment has been made by the Church, the Church’s “customary prudence” is to act with reserve: to withhold acceptance of supernatural claims.

The classic three options for a judgment are these:

Favorable: constat de supernaturalitate: The supernatural nature of the event is confirmed, according to the human testimonies of the event and the criteria of the Church.

Most negative: constat de non supernaturalitate: a non-supernatural cause has been identified, such as mental illness or deception.

The more common negative verdict: non constat de supernaturalitate: the event has not been confirmed as supernatural in nature, but a cause has not been identified.

Implications Of The Judgments

In the case of a negative decision, the judgment is normally accompanied by pastoral directives warning the faithful not to engage in devotional activity (pilgrimages, prayers, etc.) based on a presumed belief in the alleged apparition.

In the case of a positive decision, the faithful are permitted to believe in the apparition on the basis of human testimony, including any verified miracles. The Church deems the story credible, but does not put her authority behind it, so the faithful are not obliged to believe in it.

Limits Of A Positive Decision

Did you notice the different effects of the two decisions? A negative decision comes with a warning, while a positive decision comes with a permission.

That is, a negative decision comes with directives which are authoritative, while a favorable decision, a permission, is not binding on the faithful.

We might wonder: why doesn’t the Church make a positive decision binding?

The difference has to do with when the events happened, and how we know them. The Church holds that every doctrine revealed by God comes from the time of Christ and from the apostolic era. These are the doctrines we profess in our baptismal vows, and we believe them (and are obliged to believe them) because God revealed them. These doctrines revealed in the apostolic age are the “Deposit of Faith”, and this revelation is infallible, because God cannot err or deceive.

In contrast, an apparition event that took place after the death of the apostles is not directly revealed by God; we know it through human testimonies, so it is later than the Deposit of Faith and it is believed on a human basis. This human faith is fallible, and the Church does not have authority to impose it. Thus positive verdicts only create a permission.

An Opinion: What Would I Like To See?

I think it is not possible to identify the specific cause of the initial events, whether it was psychological or perhaps diabolical, but it’s one or both; so I think there is enough demonstration of falsehood in the initial events to produce a judgment of constat de non supernaturalitate: the event is proven not supernatural.

Along with that judgment, there should be a ban on promoting the apparition claims or messages, and a ban on pilgrimages, conferences, and other devotional events based on a claim of supernatural origin. The seers should be prohibited from making public statements on religious matters for five years. Unauthorized religious communities operating in the area should be rebuked by the Holy See and directed to comply with the local bishop. Foreign priests and religious should be forbidden to conduct ministry within the diocese without the bishop’s permission.

Do I expect all that to happen? No.

A Good Commentary

Lastly, let me recommend Diane Korzeniewski’s fine column on why it has taken so long for Church authorities to make a decision on the Medjugorje case.

Songs for next Christmas

John Schultz and his brother Fr. Steve, co-founders of this blog, were kidding today about making a Christmas album together. It’s not too far-fetched an idea; after all, they were both music majors, and they have performed Christmas music together before. For example, here
[click the ‘read more’ to display the video, if you’re viewing the main blog page]:

Certainly proper and dignified. But the song titles that their friends suggested ran in a different mode:

“Boar’s Head (Deli) Carol”
“I Saw Three Chips”
“Go Tell It In The Sin Bin”
“Children, Go Where I Send Thee (To The Overflow Hall)”
“Come, Thou Long Expected Full House”
“They Came Upon The 4 p.m. Clear”
“God Rest Ye Merry, Cookiepuss”
“Lo, How An Onion Blooming”
“Riu, riu, Cheeto”

Here are a couple of the lyrics I was inspired to offer:

In the bleak mid-winter
and on Easter day,
we see folks in pews who
never come this way.
Lilies, palms, and ashes
call them back to here;
would that God could reach them
more than thrice a year.

and

The first pizzell’
was vanilla, they say;
but to make them with anise
is just the best way.
And chocolate is good,
we can have that one too,
but a flavor of bubble-gum
makes us say ‘Ew!’
Pizzell’, pizzell’, pizzell’, pizzell’,
These weird fakey flavors should just go to hell.

It’s a work in progress.