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

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to the editorial run in Abbeville Meridional on January 21, 2009 concerning President George Bush. Realizing this was an editorial, a matter of opinion, I shall not attempt to dispute the facts of your editorial however printing such a piece that so boldly attacks the former President of the United States on his first day out of office is simply disrespectful, distasteful, and imprudent. How convenient to have a complete change of heart once the President has left office – but never say a word edgewise in the past eight years.

I find it equally appalling that the Meridional chose to run such a piece on the Front Page, something that would have never happened with any other editorial run by this paper. I am greatly disappointed that the Meridional chose this opportunity to allow a writer to express rash judgment and political bias in a periodical whose position should be unbiased and who should be more concerned about reporting the news rather than subjecting its readers to their opinion about it. Furthermore, opinions should be that of individual editors or publishers. To say this piece speaks for an entire newspaper speaks volumes of the Meridional’s professionalism.

The Meridional has categorized Mr. Bush as the worst president in History – a man as filled with “ineptness and incredible incompetence.” I would rather let history be the judge of President Bush and I assuredly hope your readers don’t judge the Meridional with the same measure as your editor has judged President Bush for I assure you, just as President Bush will never win an award for intelligence, the Meridional shall never win an award for grammar.

Joshua R. LeBlanc

Abbeville, LA  

 http://gthing.net/the-true-price-of-sms-messages/

The USCCB uses a firm by the name of Atlantic Video to stream their media across the internet as well as to host many of their audio/video projects.  The Columbia Journalistic Review (CJR) reports that News World Communications, Inc. is the parent company of The Washington Times and Atlantic Video.  CJR also reports that News World Communications is owned and operated by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.The Unification Church, if you recall, is the same group which backed former Zambian Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo's call for an end to celibacy as well as the figure that celebrated the "wedding" of he and his alleged wife. 

Now the question necesssarily arises – Why would the USCCB hire a company owned by Sun Myung Moon to produce its audio/video?  To put it mildly, this is slightly more than problematic, especially something for which they're going to ask a special second collection. I think the USCCB should provide some answers as to why this partnership was allowed to take place and needs to immediately cease doing business with Moon and his Church.  To continue to do business with this group only furthers the Unification Church's dangerous ideas and Milingo's endeavors.  Archbishop Milingo must be laughing at the fact that the United States bishops are actually giving him money!

See also Freedom of Mind

 Also, yours truly is available to speak at your next event or seminar.  If you're interested in having me come to your parish, talk with your pastor and contact CMG Booking.  Make sure and tell them I sent you over.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy

Now my question is..what does that make this:

Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth

Nonetheless, to administer Plan B pills in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape a pregnancy test to determine that the woman has not conceived is sufficient.  An ovulation test will not be required.  The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present.  To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.

Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened.

Now the bishops are correct on some points.  It has been pointed out by some notable individuals, such as Jimmy Akin, that Humanae Vitae prohibits the use of contraception within the conjugal (marital) act.  Pope Paul VI is very specific in his use of the term "conjugal" as it refers to the marital act.  It is therefore presumed legitimate to use contraception outside of conjugal relations so long as the Generative Process (namely conception) hasn't occured (cf. Humanae Vitae, 14)

I can understand this thought from a theological level.  Pope Paul VI is clear that inside of the marital covenant there are no licit reasons to use contraception ever because this is one of the very terms of the covenant — to willingly and lovingly accept children as a gift from God.  However, it seems that it licit in cases of rape, incest, etc. that are outside of marital covenant to use contraception that would prevent ovulation, but not contraception that would prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus.  Using contraception that prevents ovulation doesn't kill an already created child so I can see no real moral problems with this thought, though I'm opened to being corrected here.

My issue comes with the fact that I know of no method of contraception which definitively works only to prevent ovulation and does not prevent implantation of the child in the womb.  My real problem with the entire situation is the bishops line that "since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape." especially when the Plan B website itself says:

2. How does Plan B® work?
Plan B® contains a dose of the hormone levonorgestrel that is higher than in a single birth control pill. Levonorgestrel has been used in birth control pills for more than 35 years. Plan B® works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus (womb), which usually occurs beginning 7 days after release of an egg from the ovary. Plan B® will not do anything to a fertilized egg already attached to the uterus. The pregnancy will continue.

In the case of Plan B, it is very clear that one of the ways it works is as an abortifacient.  I understand the bishops are saying that if you can use Plan B to prevent ovulation, then the option of it working as an abortifacient never comes into effect but It also doesn't seem clear if Plan B always prevents ovulation.  My point is can Plan B fail in preventing ovulation and then therefore work as an abortifacient as a backup?  If this is the case then you could, as the bishops propose, give someone an ovulation test and see they have not ovulated, administer Plan B, Plan B could possibly fail to prevent ovulation and therefore act as an abortifacient.  If this even happens 1 in 1000 times, then it is too many and not a licit means of solving a problem, namely preventing the conception of a child because of rape.  To make such an argument licit, I think you have to show that either Plan B prevents ovulation in 100% of the cases or that there is a drug that only prevents ovulation and doesn't act as an abortifacient (which there may be and I'm not aware of).  I think it is irresponsible to say that since we're not sure how Plan B works, then it is OK to use it.  It is precisely because we don't know exactly how Plan B works that we should refrain from its use, lest is even lead to the death of one of God's innocent children.

The Gospel from this past weekend, the 24th Sunday in Ordinary time, focused on the love of God and what that means for us as His children.  God’s love for us is unconditional.  He doesn’t love us only in those times when we love him, yet he doesn’t force his love on us.  The love of the Father is always there for us to receive it.  It is we who turn away from God, not he who turns away from us.

There is a thin line between love and indifference.  Many in our modern society confuse the both.  A few years ago I heard a priest give a homily in which he assured all in the congregation of God’s love, and for them that meant that no one had to fear the pains of Hell, for God’s love would prevent any of us from going there.  He continued that an all loving God does not send us to Hell.  In a way, Father’s homily was true.  God doesn’t send us to Hell, we freely choose Hell by turning our backs to him.  If I turn my back to the Sun, does the Sun become evil because I feel the cold of winter upon my face?  It is I who have chosen to face the dreary winter instead of the warmth of the Sun.  It is I who have chosen evil.

The love of God has to be given greater meaning than the mere superficial.  God’s love is so profound that he willingly gives us all of the things that we need to love and serve him.  He did so for Adam in the garden in a very direct way — by telling him not to eat of the tree.  We know that the consequence of Adam’s actions is what we today call original sin.  Turning away from God has always resulted in bad consequences for humanity.  You see, in the garden God did not tell Adam "Adam, its OK.  I love you so there shall be no consequences for your actions."  No, God’s love remained but in a very true way.  How many times do we hear that when a parent loves a child, the result is discipline so that child will be formed well?  As the evangelist Matthew writes "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"

As we think about the Love of the Father, let us remember that love is giving those whom are its object what they really need and deserve as long as we turn to him with a sincere and contrite heart.  While God never forces his love on us, He is always willing to give us the things we need to make us grow in holiness.  No God doesn’t will any of us to Go to Hell, but he does allow it because in his great love, he respects the choices we make – even if that choice is eternal separation from Him.