Pentecost Papal Parade by Popemobile

Well, 'parade' is probably the wrong word, but I liked the alliteration.

At the end of Mass on Pentecost, the Pope greets the people on the Popemobile.  Below is a very short video at the very end of the route, as Pope Francis heads back into Vatican City.

Taking Pictures During Mass

I try when I can to avoid taking pictures during the big Masses, so most of these are either before or after the Mass. I did try to take a video of the entrance procession with the Pope at Pentecost.  But I did not realize that my camera was out of space, so the video stopped just before he entered (a sign from God, perhaps?), and it took me a second to realize what was wrong.

The main reason I don't take pictures is because I think it is disrespectful to do so during Mass.  The second reason is so that photos like this never happen (look in the upper-right corner of the photo):

That will teach me.

Pentecost, the Pantheon, and Rose Petals

One of the great liturgical events in Rome each year is on Pentecost at the Pantheon.  The Pantheon was originally a pagan temple, built in first century or so.  It is unusually in that the dome of the building is open--there is a large hole at the top of the ceiling to let in sunlight (and also rain, wind, and the occasional snow).

The feast of Pentecost recalls the event detailed in the Acts of the Apostles, occurring 50 days after Our Lord's Resurrection:

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

Acts 2:1-4

The feast is often referred to as the "Birthday of the Church", and focuses especially on the coming of the --Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ.  The symbolism of the day is the color red--originating from the description of the tongues of flame.  Say what you will about the Romans, but they love a good spectacle.  So, this event of Pentecost is given firmer form here in Rome when thousands of red rose petals are dropped down from the hole of the Pantheon (fittingly enough, by Roman firemen, I'm told) after the main Mass of the day.  

I was not able to attend this year, but I did see it last year.  Here are my pictures form Pentecost 2012 at the Pantheon:

Pentecost Sunday

This year was a beautiful and bright Sunday for the feast of Pentecost in Rome.  They usually need a lot of priests and deacons (and occasionally, seminarians) to help distribute communion.  Like every Vatican event, this requires a ticket.  So, I was able to obtain one, as I did for the Easter Sunday Mass.  There were far fewer dignitaries at this Mass than there were for Easter, so I was able to sit much closer to the Pope than I did for Easter Mass.  Here was my view for the Mass:

I thought at Easter they had far too few priests helping with the distribution of Holy Communion.  For the Mass at Pentecost, they had way, way too many.  There must have been 200 priests, deacons, and seminarians distributing Holy Communion.  For Mass, we sit together up near where the altar is.  During the offertory for Mass, we are taken into St. Peter's Basilica.  This time we went in a line to the Immaculate Conception chapel, where they had prepared hundreds of ciboria with hosts.  The are rather plain brass ciboria.  The innovation is that they have a clear plastic top that revolves.  This allows you to see how many hosts are there.  You can also slide a top piece to create an opening, and then slide it back to cover everything in the ciborium and keep them safe from the elements.

We then stand in the Basilica for the Mass, holding the ciboria with the hosts for the consecration.  Towards the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, we are brought outside to take our place among the 200,000 or so people gathered for Mass.  Some of the people distributing have guides with yellow and white umbrellas to show them where to go.  I just followed the line until one of the Italian staff pointed to a place by the barricades for me to distribute.  Then you give out as many hosts as possible.

To minimize the chances for desecration--accidental or intended--communion is given out only on the tongue, with the Latin verse Corpus Christi.  So, you have lots of people sticking their hands at you, and you have to tell them only on the tongue.  (And I also make the men remove their hats first).  This means they have to get close for me to be able to give them communion.  The problem is when you give communion at the barriers that mark the route of the Popemobile.  People want to be right at the barricade to get the best view of the Pope when he goes by--and they do not want to give up their spot.  So people behind them want to receive communion, but the people with their spots at the barricade will not move out of the way.  The most creative solution I saw was the family that simply ducked to get out of the way, and still keep their spot.

Here are the pictures from Mass at St. Peter's:

Media Bias in New Jersey

I have said before that the media is often biased against the Catholic Church.  By that I do not mean that the media is biased simply whenever they put out a negative story about the Church's leaders or members.  The Church is full of sinners--that's rather the point of it--and especially when those in positions of trust abuse that trust, that it is fair to report as news.  The problem comes when the media holds the Church to a very different standard.

A case in point is the recent unfortunate facts that have come to light in the Archdiocese of Newark, NJ, regarding a priest who confessed to criminal sexually contact of a child some years ago.  In this post I try to point out the double-standard in the mainstream media (in this case the Newark Star Ledger) and why this bias damages, not the Church primarily, but the public at large.

Obama's Fair-Minded Words?

In his controversial 2009 Commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, President Obama presented himself as the grand unifier on the issue of abortion. He did so with this story about how conciliatory he was:

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." 

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

This year for the first time ever, a sitting President addressed Planned Parenthood.  When speaking to a Catholic audience, known for its pro-life views, he encouraged conciliation and common ground.  Does he encourage abortion supporters to do the same?  Of course not.  That is, the President want's his political opponents to be conciliatory to his view, but wants to rouse his ideological friends with the rhetoric he so recently condemned.

...there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century...

That’s absurd.  It’s wrong.  It’s an assault on women’s rights. 

Mississippi is a conservative state, but they wanted to make clear there’s nothing conservative about the government injecting itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.  And folks are trying to do this all across the country.

When you read about some of these laws, you want to check the calendar; you want to make sure you’re still living in 2013.

Mr. President, can you honestly say that these are "fair-minded words"?

English Crowns, Mixed Marriages, and Canon Law

There has been a recent story in the English press on the question of the ability of a member of the Royal Family to marry a Catholic.  Currently, the law of England (the 1701 Act of Settlement) prohibits the ruling monarch of England from being a Catholic (or, to use the term of the Act, the "Popish Religion").  He may be Muslim or Jewish, Atheist or Agnostic, but he may never be Catholic.  In addition, the England's monarch may not even be married to a Catholic.  This requirement has blocked at least two members of the Royal Family from ever ascending to the throne.  From the website of the British Monarchy:

Two examples of members of the current Royal family being removed from the line of succession are that of The Earl of St. Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent, who both lost the right of succession to the throne through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England.

Recently, the British Parliament has begun discussing amendments to the Act of Settlement.  Specifically, they plan to permit one who is married to a Catholic to ascend to the throne, although it will require that the monarch be in communion with the Church of England.

One of the issues that has been raised is the question of the Church's requirement that a child of Catholics be raised in the faith.  The English Episcopal Conference has apparently weighed in:

Church leaders have told the British Government that members of the royal family who marry Catholics under recently passed legislation will not be obliged to bring up their children in the Catholic faith.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness, speaking on behalf of the Government, said he had been assured personally by Msgr Marcus Stock, general secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, that the canonical requirement of Catholics to raise their children in the faith was not always binding.

“I have the specific consent of Msgr Stock to say that he was speaking on behalf of Archbishop Nichols as president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and can inform the House that the view taken by the Catholic Church in England and Wales is that, in the instance of mixed marriages, the approach of the Catholic Church is pastoral,” he said.

“It will always look to provide guidance that supports and strengthens the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. In this context the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses to sincerely undertake to do all that they can to raise children in the Catholic Church. Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law,” Lord Wallace continued.

But what does the law actually say?  The marriage of a Catholic to a Baptized non-Catholic is what the canons refer to as a "Mixed Marriage".  Such marriages are specifically prohibited by canon law (CIC 1124), unless a dispensation is given by the local ordinary.  Such dispensation is routinely given in the U.S. and, I assume, in England.  Note that this means that, under canon law, Catholics do not have the automatic right to marry non-Catholics.  Even if the granting of permission is routine, the Church warns against it, precisely because of the danger of defecting from the faith.  That is, if one believes that a relationship with God is the truest and best good, and that it is most perfectly found in the Catholic faith, then the natural goods of marriage can never outweigh the supernatural good of adhering to one's Catholic faith.

For this reason, before permitting a mixed marriage the Church requires that Catholic party to do two things:

1. To declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and
2. To make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.

In the prior law, promises also had to be made by the non-Catholic party.  This is no longer true, and the non-Catholic party must merely be informed of the promises that the Catholic party makes.

The canons allow the various Episcopal Conferences to determine how these obligations are fulfilled.  However, in doing so, the canons are quite clear that the declaration and promise are, nonetheless, "always required".  (CIC 1126)  These are required, and my not be dispensed by the Bishop.

What about the statement that the Catholic parent who allows his child to be brought up non-Catholic is not subject to censure?  This also is untrue.  The Code of Canon Law provides quite specifically:

Parents, and those taking the place of parents, who hand over their children to be baptized or brought up in a non-Catholic religion, are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty. (CIC 1366)

In other words, any Catholic parent--whether married to an heir to the British Throne or to a footman--is obliged in morals and in law to raise his children as Catholic.  Now, the Bishop might decide not to pursue the matter--and most bishops do not--as a matter of prudence.  Nonetheless, those who violate the law on this still remain subject to an ecclesiastical penalty for violating the law.  The statements of Msgr. Stock to the contrary are morally and legally incorrect.