Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I (notice the personalization of the letter.  Rather than employing the formal Pontifical ‘we,’ the Pope chooses a more personal salutation as he is writing to his brother bishops here) therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church. (While it is true that at Supreme Pontiff, the Holy Father doesn’t owe an explanation to anyone why he chose to lift the excommunications, he nonetheless feels it necessary to explain his position so as to prevent division – this is truly a humble and pastoral move.)

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately (The Holy Father makes it clear that the four bishops were indeed validly ordained but not licitly.  I don’t think there was much debate about this among most but maybe among some.) suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. (This should be an indicator to those who have accused Pope Benedict of being Anti-Semitic that Christian-Jewish relations are at the forefront of his mission as Pope) That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. (This is an amazing statement from the Holy Father.  As members of the cu podcast, we’ve always pushed for technology at the service of the faith and its excellent to see the Holy Father indicting that the Holy See will make better use of the Internet as a source for information in the future.) I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. (I think many of us are saddened by those who have chosen to do this) Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake , which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. (notice the Holy Father doesn’t make excuses for what has happened with regards to the Williamson situation but clearly says it was a mistake as was a lack of an extended explanation about the lifting of the excommunications) The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions (See the distinction here, the status of the individual bishops has changed not the status of the SSPX). An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. (This is always the aim of excommunication, it is not meant to punish but rather as a disciplinary measure that is meant to call one to conversion.  The Holy Father has noted that this method of discipline was not effective so it seems rather he has turned to mercy as an avenue for reconciliation.) This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. (There is a twofold problem that is at hand – disciplinary issues and doctrinal issues.  The Holy Father, in his mercy, has lifted the excommunications based on a genuine perception that the four bishops have recognized the primary of the Holy Father and the office of Peter.  It appears he has therefore lifted the excommunications as a means to reconcile the bishops at the disciplinary level in the hopes of restoring them at the doctrinal level.) The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. (This is a key point.  Simply because the excommunications have been lifted does not mean that these bishops automatically assume roles as prelates and clerics within the Church.  They still remain members of a Society which has no canonical status and as such are simply members of the Church with no authority to exercise ministry) There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. (Just in case it wasn’t clear the first time.)

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. (An excellent point, while there can be legitimate preference for liturgy of 1962, there cannot be a rejection of the teaching authority after this time) But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: “You… strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: “Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses “to the end” (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. (and it is precisely this disunity that is truly scandalous to the message of Christ himself.) Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love “to the end” has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who “has something against you” (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? (This is the real meat and potatoes of the situation – the lifting of the excommunications should be viewed as an act of mercy and an attempt at reaching out to the bishops for reconciliation, not as an act of “giving in” on the part of the Holy See) Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. (This is clearly the case.  Look at the sheer number of the members of the SSPX who have been reconciled to the Church since 1988, many directly as a result of the death of Pope John Paul II.  We can only hope for a complete return of all of the members of the SSPX to Church) But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.” I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this “biting and devouring” also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

Sundays are neither considered part of the Lenten season nor is Lent forty days in length.  To explain this requires a little history of Lent.

In the first stage we see that as far back as the year 384 that Lent comprised six weeks and was officially called Quadragesima – literally 40 days.  Quadragesima consisted of the forty consecutive days immediately before the start of the Triduum¹.  This put Lent beginning on the First Sunday of Lent and lasting through Holy Thursday.  Holy Thursday was not part of the Triduum and the Triduum was not part of Lent.  We know all of this to be true because of the writings of St. Leo².  Even though the preceding forty days were all days of Lent, not all of them were fast days so much as they were days of spiritual combat.  Sundays have never been considered days of fast and we can see in the Early Church an Apostolic Constitution³ tell us that a man who fasts on the Sabbath is guilty of sin.

The second stage of Lent happens around the time of the fifth century and lasts until Pope Paul VI’s reform of Holy Week in 1969.  In the fifth century we see the development of the Triduum into Holy Thursday – Easter Sunday.  In doing this the character of the forty days was changed and, in an effort to maintain the forty fast days, Lent was reformed to begin on Ash Wednesday, which had previously been not part of Lent but rather a day of preparation, and last through Holy Saturday, essentially overlappting with the Triduum.  We can look to the Gelasian Sacramentary of this time as it was the first official text to refer to Lent as beginning on Ash Wednesday.  It is important to note that at this time in History the forty days of fast overlap with the Lenten season, but this has not always been the case and isn’t the case currently.

The third stage of the reform happened by Pope Paul VI in the year 1969.  At this time the season of the Sacred Triddum was restored.  Doing this shortended the Lenten season from 40 days to 38 days, if you count all of Holy Thursday.  The reform of Paul VI stated that the Triduum would begin with the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday and Last through Evening Prayer on Easter Sunday.  It was also at this time that Paul VI removed the obligation to fast from all days except for Good Friday and Ash Wednesday.  Here we have the nature of the fast removed from the Lenten season.  This revision returns us back to the original calculation and meaning of the Triduum and Lent.  The norms of the Tridduum note that on Good Friday and (if possible) and Holy Saturday the Easter fast is to be observed⁴.  So how to we get 40 possible fast days?  You add the 38 days of Lent and Good Friday and Holy Saturday and you end up with 40 possible fast days, though there is no obligation to fast on those days except for Good Friday.

In Concusion, Lent is not forty days long but rather 38.  Sundays are not and never have been calcuated as part of Lent. Even the current regulation notes that Lent runs from Ash Wednesday – Holy Thursday, exclusive⁵ (meaning some days in between are not part of Lent, namely the Sundays.)  We also see that from the history that the penitential season of Lent and the 40 days of fast are two separate entities that have not always been one in the same.  This is evident from our current practice where the possible 40 days of fast include the 38 days of Lent and two days of the Triduum.

Misconception #3:  Beginning at 4pm on Saturdays we being observing the Sabbath and therefore can endulge on what we have given up as a penance.

Not true.  There is a great difference between an anticipated Mass and the beginning of the Sabbath observance.  An anticipated Mass (which typically begins at 4pm) is a Mass in which the obligation for attendance at Sunday’s Mass is fulfilled.  The Code of Canon Law Can. 202 §1, specifically notes that for time calculation purposes, a day begins at midnight.  However, the Church has had a long standing custom of observing the Sabbath beginning at evening of the previous day.  This is noted in the General Guidelines of the Liturgical Year.  Even if we followed this thinking, the Sabbath observance does not begin until true evening, not a set time.  This is the same guidelines that are used to calculate when an Easter Vigil mass can be celebrated (which is usually never before 7pm).  The point to make is that there is a distinction between the sabbath observance and an anticipated Mass and at the very earliest the sabbath observance cannot begin before evening⁶.  The Code of Canon law should be looked too as the authoritative source on this because its 1983 promulgation supercedes the 1969 Liturgical Guidelines.

1. It is important to note also that in the General Norms for the Liturgical Year that the Sundays of Lent and Advent are clearly noted as “Sundays of Lent and Advent” respectively whereas Sunday during ordinary time are referred to “Sundays in Ordinary Time.”  This is even denoted in the Sacramentary which clearly says “Second Sunday of Lent” and “Second Sunday in Ordinary Time” noting that Sundays of Lent are not in Lent but of Lent.

2.  See St. Leo the Great’s Sermon #39

3.  250-300 AD Apostolic Constitutions Do you therefore fast, and ask your petitions of God. We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestow upon the needy; every Sabbath-day excepting one, and every Lord’s day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord’s day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 5)

4,5.  General Norms of the Liturgical Year and the Calendar

6.  http://www.blessedsacrament.com/theology/emmanuel/huels.html

For More information, see Abbot Patrick Regan, O.S.B’s article “The Three Days and the Forty Days” in Worship #54 (1980). Most of the Information for this article was taken from Abbot Patrick’s article.

Have you heard the CU team talk about CamTwist, the Mac video manipulation software only to wish there was a PC equivalent?  Are you a PC user who dissatisfied with the various video manipulation options offerered by the different online video streaming services?   As a weekly user of UStream for “Finding Your Keys” I have found Ustream’s options for video overlays wanting.  This led me on a search for a way to increase the quality of my show.  This search led me to Webcam Max.  Webcam Max isn’t a webcam replacement but rather acts as an intermediary between your computer’s webcam, camcorder, or other video source and “hijacks” the video allowing you to add your own personal touch to any video.  Webcam Max isn’t limited to only streaming but can be used if you simply want to record a video message to post on YouTube.  Some of the great features of this software is its ability to allow to overlay text and images and choose how to transition them in and out.  If you’re looking for quick effects, WebCam Max has a host of standard effects already built in with the ability to create your own custom effects as well.  Another favorite feature is the ability to replace your background with images (Green screening on the fly) as well as facial transformation, frames, etc.  Another feature that can come in handy is the “doodling” function which allows you to use your video as a whiteboard – very helpful during video conference calls.

In addition to live video, WebCam Max allows you to choose from various sources including existing videos and images on your hard drive as well as your own desktop allowing you to show other exactly what’s going on right there on your own computer.  WebCam Max comes with multiple licensing options – but by far the best deal is the $49.99 lifetime license which allows you unlimited use forever!  For anyone who is serious about live video or video editing, WebCam Max is the piece of software for you.  Not completely convinced yet that you want to purchase it?  They currently allow you to download a free trial that lasts 30 days so you can get aquainted with the software before making the decision.  For PC users, there’s no other piece of software that comes close to matching the versatility and functionality of WebCam Max so head on over to http://www.webcammax.com and download your free trial today.  I can assure you that you won’t be disappointed.

at&t apparently violated the conditions of the e-rate program which requires a fair and competitive bidding process and provides a list of eligible services.  I can say that I haven’t always had the best of luck with at&t and so I’m really not surprised at their dishonest business tactics.

Bishop O’Donnell was bishop whenever I entered St. Joseph Seminary college back in 1998 and I can truly say that I’m grateful to him for allowing me to enter the seminary – it has changed my life for the better.   Bishop O’Donnell was eulogized as being a man who was focused on others rather than himself .  He didn’t believe in living a life of luxury.  I can still remember him driving around Lafayette in his Subaru hatchback.  I say I had the privilege of attending his funeral because indeed he was my spiritual father- not only as a seminarian but as a lay person living in his diocese.

I think too often we neglect in looking up to our bishops as our spiritual fathers but are rather more often concerned with judging and condeming them.  Just as we all are, bishops are human and have their faults and Bishop O’Donnell was certainly no exception.  Despite this failings he was a man who was concerned with the people whom God gave him to Shepherd.  Requiescat in Pace Your Excellency.