Excellent article by Ed Peters affirming parents rights vis a vis the education of the children in the Faith

A CANON LAWYER LOOKSAT HOME SCHOOLING
by Edward Peters

The Code of Canon Law has taken great care to protect parental primacy in seeing to the education of children, whether that parental right and duty is legitimately entrusted to others, or whether it is directly exercised by those who will most immediately answer to God for the raising of their children.

What most impresses me as a Catholic parent and lawyer, however, is the level of ecclesiastical protection which the parental choice to home school enjoys under the laws of the Catholic Church.

Canon lawyers know that the 14 principal provisions of the 1983 Code concerning education (see Canons 793-806) were, for the most part, settled upon by the middle 1970s, that is, at a time when home schooling was hardly being discussed in Catholic circles. The Holy Spirit was already seeing to it that the 1983 Code would be, as Pope John Paul II put it, "a great effort to translate conciliar teaching into canonical language." The rich affirmations the Second Vatican Council gave to the primacy of parents in matters of their children's education (located chiefly in the Council's Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum educationis, did make it into both the letter and the spirit of the revised Code of Canon Law.

Lest anyone be tempted to write off [simingly]semantic changes as mere Roman word games, one has simply to read the whole of Canon 793, especially the phrase which declares the right of Catholic parents "to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of their children ..." Such unambiguous language is, I suggest, the Holy Spirit's way of answering a question which had not even been posed yet: How far will the Church go in recognizing the right of Catholic parents to choose the options which they feel will best serve their children's education? Apparently, quite far.

For, having enunciated the natural and ecclesiastical right of parents over the choice of means and institutes for their children's education, the Code immediately grounds that right in the vocational duties of parents and spouses. "Because they have given life to their children, parents have a most serious obligation and enjoy the right to educate them; therefore Christian parents are especially to care for the Christian education of the children according to the teaching handed on by the Church." (Canon 226 2). In directly discussing the effects of marriage, Canon 1136 states, "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of the children."

A decade ago, not one person in a hundred had heard of the information superhighway. Today, not only is the Internet an active presence in millions of American homes, but we have witnessed a simultaneous explosion in the number and quality of self-guided computer learning systems, all sorts of multi-media educational broadcast avenues, creative learning board games, and so on. The end of all of this is nowhere in sight, and yet each step taken down the path makes only more feasible the basic goals of home-based education. All the more prophetically, it seems, does Canon 793 speak of parental freedom of choice over educational means as well as institutions.

Within the current situation of most parents utilizing, to some extent, a traditional school, canon law also encourages Catholic parents to make use of Catholic schools. Even here, however, the Code immediately stresses that what is of prior importance is the parental pursuit of a Catholic education for their children, by whatever means available (Canon 798).

When he promulgated the Code of Canon Law in 1983, Pope John Paul II wrote that "the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, and charisms ... in the life of the Church. On the contrary, the purpose of the Code is to create such an order in the Church which ... renders their entire development easier, both for the ecclesial society and for the individual persons who belong to it." (Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Legis). Catholic parents are specifically graced by Christ to exercise the charism of teaching their children in accord with the magisterium of the Church.

One could hardly have expected, therefore, the Code of Canon Law to place juridical obstacles in the way of parents exercising their vocational charisms. To the contrary, the Code of Canon Law has taken great care to protect parental primacy in seeing to the education of children, whether that parental right and duty is legitimately entrusted to others, or whether it is directly exercised by those who will most immediately answer to God for the raising of their children.
Edward Peters has doctoral degrees in canon and civil law. He serves as a canonical consultant to many ecclesiastical institutions and persons, and his writings have appeared in a wide variety of Catholic publications.

Article’s editor’s notes:
Put clearly in the language of the street, Canon Law states with precision that the inalienable rights of married parents to specifically choose both the means and institutions of religious education for their children trumps any pastor’s or chancery bureaucrats’ perceived obligations to implement general programs and policies grossly violating or even subtly impinging on those God given rights.

Important Homeschooling Info re the Rights of Parents to Educate their Children in the Faith

Given the current anti-homeschooling climate that is being perpetuated by those pastors who are either not aware of or are conveniently ignoring what the Church actually teaches about faith education, this article from Bendict Nguyen provides an apologetical approach to defending parents rights.

Home Schooling in Canon Law BENEDICT T. NGUYEN (Full Article)

Throughout 2003, the question of the legitimacy of home schooling by Catholic parents arose when three respected priests, Fathers Vincent Rogers, Peter M.J. Stravinskas, and Clarence Hettinger, attempted to defend the view that Catholic parents generally do not have the right to home school their children.

Not Catholic enough?

Many times, the decision by parents to see personally to the Catholic education of their children is misunderstood to be a determination that a parish or diocesan school is “not good enough” or “not Catholic enough.” In response to this perception, the objection is sometimes raised that Catholic parents do not have the right to decide whether a school is “Catholic” or not. This is only for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. However, this charge only confuses the issue. Whether or not a Catholic parent can formally determine the Catholicity of a school is not the issue. Only the competent authorities, referred to in Canon 803 §3, can determine this. I would submit, however, that this is not what is going on canonically. Home-schooling parents are not determining whether a school is Catholic (they do not have the canonical right to do so), but rather they are determining what is the best means by which they believe their children can attain a Catholic education. In other words, they are not making an official determination about the school per se, but rather they are discerning whether or not their children would best receive a Catholic education through the means of a particular school. The determination concerns what is best for the children, not for the school. Under Canon 793 §1, we see that it is not only the parents' right, but their duty to make that determination.

Just as parents do not have the power to designate what is a Catholic school and what is not, pastors do not have the canonical right to decide which particular means are the best means for a particular child to receive a Catholic education. The duty and the right to determine which schools are Catholic schools lie with the competent authority, usually the bishop. (cf. can. 802 §1 and 803 §1) The duty and the right to arrange everything so that the faithful can have a Catholic education belong to pastors of souls. (cf. can. 794 §2) But, the duty and the right to determine which means are the best means for a particular child to receive a Catholic education lie properly with the parents of that child. The idea that Catholic parents do not have the right to choose home schooling as a legitimate means for the Catholic education of their child seriously goes against the norms of Canons 793 §1 and 1136.

Of note also is the language of Canon 798. In the Latin (the only official language for the Code of Canon Law), it does not use the construction “parentes debent” — “parents must” — which would be the strongest obligatory language in canonical usage. Rather, it uses the subjunctive construction “parentes concredant” — “parents should entrust” — which carries a lighter shade of recommendation. Thus Canon 798 is an exhortation and not an absolute mandate.
It is important to note also that Canon 798, if it were interpreted as a mandate, would seriously limit the exercise of a parental right and thus must be subject to strict interpretation under the requirement of Canon 18. When one applies a strict interpretation to Canon 798, it is simply impossible to change an exhortation for parents to provide a Catholic education to their child into a mandate for parents to send their child to a Catholic school.

Any interpretation that sees Canon 798 as an absolute mandate would render Canon 793 §1, in particular, meaningless. Catholic parents — who are said in no uncertain terms to possess the duty and the right to determine the means of providing for the Catholic education of their child — would mysteriously lose this right. Why would the Church go to such great lengths continually to emphasize the right and duty of parents to determine the proper Christian education of their own children, only to legislate that the only way this can be done is through the neighborhood parish school? This would also put the Church in the hypocritical position of demanding from the state a true freedom for parents in the choice of means and schools, on the basis of natural-law argumentation, while absolutely denying this natural-law right when it comes to home schooling.
What Rome thinks
The Pontifical Commission for the Family (PCF) first reiterates the norm found in Familiaris Consortio: that the right and duty of parents to educate their children is essential, original and primary, irreplaceable and inalienable. Quoting Canon 226 §2, the letter underscores the principle that since parents have given life to their children, parents have the most serious obligation and enjoy the right to educate them. Then, giving the proper interpretation of these rights, the Council cites the canons on Catholic education, stating:
It is in the light of these canons [226 §1; 774 §2 and 793 §1] that the rights and duties of ecclesiastical persons are to be interpreted. These persons are to assist the parents in fulfilling their sacred obligation and in executing their sacred right, not to take them over. (emphasis in original)

Far from stopping at theoretical principles, The Pontifical Commission for the Family (PCF) goes on to apply the principles to the concrete question of home schooling. Nowhere does The Pontifical Commission for the Family (PCF) state that the Church requires parents to send their children to Catholic schools, whether in Canon 798 or Gravissimum Educationis 8 or anywhere else. On the contrary, it strongly and clearly states:
The role of the pastor, therefore, is to give a service of assistance by providing the parents with the means to form their child. The parents, however are not obliged to accept this assistance if they prefer to exercise exclusively their obligation and right to educate their own children. This is a natural right, and is not altered by the right of the Church. E.g., cc. 793, 914. (emphasis added)

There is no doubt that The Pontifical Commission for the Family (PCF) sees no canonical obligation for parents to make use of parish sacramental programs or even Catholic schools if, after a reasoned and prayerful consideration, parents decide to undertake the obligation of educating their children themselves. This right of parents is perfectly in line with canon law, and indeed is protected by canon law. Recall that Canon 796 §1 states that schools are the principal assistance to parents in fulfilling the function of education. As the Pontifical Council underscores, parents are under no obligation to accept this assistance.

The PCF leaves no ambiguity, directly addressing the relationship of this right and obligation of parents with regard to the Catholic school, and not just catechetical instruction:
In times past, parents were only too happy to be assisted by the Catholic school system in the formation of their children. Now, however, this is no longer the case in many a diocese where Catholic schools are permitted to use certain catechetical texts which, though bearing an imprimatur, are gravely deficient in following the magisterium.

Following the norm of Canon 226 §2, The Pontifical Commission for the Family (PCF) then reminds parents that should they elect to undertake their children’s education personally, it should be done following the teaching which is handed on by the Church.

In the end, the claim that canon law forbids the option of home schooling under normal circumstances does violence to canon law itself by misreading some canons, dismissing other canons or rendering them meaningless. Home-schooling parents must remember that they are to hold schools in high esteem (cf. 796 §1) and to support the Catholic schools in whatever ways they can, proper to their situation. They also must keep in mind that they indeed do belong to a larger community of the Church as manifested in the parish and the diocese. However, these obligations in no way preclude the right of Catholic parents to choose home schooling. Neither Vatican II nor canon law forbids the right of parents to undertake personally the Catholic education of their children. On the contrary, the canonical laws of the Church protect this right.
Benedict T. Nguyen. "Home Schooling in Canon Law." Catholic World Report (April, 2004): 52-57.

THE AUTHOR
Benedict T. Nguyen is the chancellor of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, where he also serves as Defender of the Bond before the diocesan tribunal.

Compilation of recent analyses of AJ TLM policy

Check out what Fr. Zuhlsdorf has to say about the "guidelines" in place in Altoona Johnstown re the TLM:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/09/older-mass-guidelines-for-the-d-of-altoona-johnstown-read-these-schnell/

A kind reader sent me a transcription of the guidelines for implementing Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown where His Excellency Most Reverend Joseph V. Adamec presides. We have seen this diocese’s work on the Motu Proprio before back on 5 August. The original statement was very guarded. Now we can see the actual guidelines.I did not make the transcription. I had to clean it up a bit. So, with that disclaimer…My emphases and comments.

GUIDELINESFor the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary FormDiocese of Altoona-Johnstown The Holy Spirit has prompted our Holy Father [This is a promising start!] to address the matter of the [so-called] Tridentine Mass. With his issuance of a Motu Proprio, taking effect on the 14th of September, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI has allowed priests [Well… okay. But we need to start moving away from the idea that this is a special permission. It is now merely part and parcel of the priests regular options.] of the Roman Catholic Church to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal, without any further permission but under certain conditions. Since it is important to read the document carefully, I wish to issue the following guidelines for our Diocesan Church. This I do for the sake of liturgical unity and integrity, in accord with the Holy Father’s admonition to us bishops. In his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, he wrote the following: "... I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese." [cough] The Holy Father acknowledges the fact that many priests may not demonstrate a rubrical or linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. In that case, a priest may not celebrate that particular form of Mass nor is he obligated to learn to do so. [This is an odd way to put it, no?] Provided that a priest possesses the required rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass, the following come into play.

1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is to be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer [This is a very odd phrase. Lex orandi lex credendi isn’t really a juridical point. It is a theological concept. This statement seems to be mixing categories in a strange way.] of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. A priest celebrating Mass according to the extraordinary form may not do so exclusively; but, needs to celebrate also the Mass in the ordinary form as an expression of his not denying the validity of the Mass commonly used today. [This is strange. If a priest were in, say, a parish established by the bishop where only the older form is celebrated, then he would not be "required" there to say the newer Mass. But this language of "may not" and "needs" in order to prove he doesn’t "deny" something is odd. What jumped into my mind when I read this, and this is truly an exaggeration on my part, is the requirement during the era of persecutions in the early Church that Christians offer a sacrifice of incense to the genius of the Emperor. An exaggeration, of course. But in a weird way, I had this image of a priest being jumped in the dark, a hood put over his head, and being taken to a dark room where diocesan chancery personnel would then invite Father to celebrate the newer Mass in their presence as a sign of "unity".]

2. Any priest of the Latin Rite that [who] has the rubrical and linguistic ability may celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form without the Faithful (privately) at any time except during the Sacred Triduum. Christ’s Faithful who spontaneously request it, may join the priest. No permission is required.

3. Communities or Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life of either pontifical or diocesan rite may use the extraordinary form of the Mass for their community celebrations in their own oratories by permission of their own major superior.

4. Should a pastor decide [And the provisions of Summorum Pontificum say that the "pastor…parochus" is the one to decide.] to celebrate or allow the celebration of one of the regularly scheduled Masses in a parish in accord with the extraordinary form (Missal of Blessed John X)(ffl), it must be in response to a request from a group (coetus/association) ["association"...hmmm… that makes coetus sound a bit more formal, or formalized, that is, less fluid, than it is.] within his particular parish (member parishioners) that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly (that is: for some time; stabiliter [NO! NO! NOT STABILITER! NO! The word is CONTINENTER!] existit) [This is very interesting. Whoever wrote this is trying to stick closely to what the Latin of Summorum Pontificum says. For that the writer is to be commended. However, if that is the case, there are problems. First, to say "existed and has been attached" suggests two verbs in the Latin. In the Latin the concept "attached" is expressed in an active participle going with the fidelium (genitive plural) who make up the coetus. This confusion of the verbal forms creates an problem down the line with the idea of "steadfastly", even if the writer of this document (and I can’t think the bishop would have misquoted the Motu Proprio), had actually quoted the M.P. accurately. The adverb continenter goes with exsistit and not with adhaerentium! What the diocesan statement suggests is that the attachment of the coetus fidelium has to have been steadfast. What the provision in Summorum Pontificum says is that the coetus has to be around steadfastly. It does not have to apply to the presence of a group in the past. It can also refer to the present and future. So, this statement is looking in the right direction, I think. It is sloppy, however.]. He may not do so as a result of his own personal preference. [Remember: the priest himself can be one of the faithful who make up of the coetus.] I ask that requests be presented to the pastor in writing, including names and addresses. These should be kept on file at the parish. [And then the pastor, or perhaps trusted parishioners wearing armbands, must stand at the entrance of the church and match the addresses on file with the id’s of those attempting to enter for Mass, saying: "Give me your PAPERS!" Once the id’s are confirmed, the attendees will be required to wear a yellow traditional looking cross on their clothing while on the premises.] In order to preserve unity within a parish, the Parish Pastoral Council is to be consulted in regard to any change. [A parish council does not have any authority in this matter, nor are parish councils mentioned by the Motu Proprio. The PASTOR is, however.] Groups composed of individuals belonging to various parishes are to approach the Diocesan Bishop. [So that they can be examined, their addresses confirmed. "No papers?! RAUS MIT EUCH!"]

5. The entire schedule of Masses in a parish may not be in accord [What does that mean?] with the extraordinary form, as this would make it a "personal parish" for which the diocesan bishop’s permission is required.

6. Whenever Mass is celebrated according to the extraordinary form, all rubrics for that form of Mass must be observed; including prayers, language, vestments, Holy Communion under one form on the tongue, only boy altar servers, and postures (both of the celebrant and the faithful if present [Okay… this seems to say that people may not stand (even if they are crippled) nor may they receive Communion in the hand, even if they prefer. Got it.] ). The Roman Canon is always used. [Does the writer not know that this is the only possibility in the older book?] 7. In order to assure that a priest has the rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, acknowledgement of such is to be obtained from our Diocesan Office of Liturgy. ["Guten Abend, Pater. Dein Ausweis, bitte!"] This is only logical. [Nooo… this is only a double standard. Will priests saying the newer Mass be required to obtain a special "license", or should I say Ausweis, from some chancery mandarin whose Latin and rubrical knowledge should be a matter of scrutiny? Let’s say there is a priest from Nigeria celebrating the newer form of Mass in that diocese. Will he be examined to determine if every person in the congregation can understand him at the altar and ambo? Say there is a home-boy of the diocese who is to say Mass in Spanish. Will there be a test? Will the chancery also test priests to see if they understand the readings at Mass? What of the ordinary prayers? What do they really mean? Will they test their knowledge of the GIRM? THAT would be only "logical" given this "guideline".] Many of our priests have never celebrated Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. [And I wonder if we can say also, "Many of our priests have never adhered to all the rubrics of the Novus Ordo."] Others, who have, have not done so for some time. Our seminaries assure bishops that those leaving to function as priests have the necessary knowledge and facility to celebrate Mass in the current form. Perhaps, in the future, they will also do the same in regard to the extraordinary form. In the interim, the matter will be handled ["Your PAPERS! AUSWEIS SCHNELL!] on a diocesan basis. The Holy Father asks for charity and pastoral prudence [1]in any consideration of celebrating the Mass in accord with the extraordinary form (according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII). That same charity and pastoral prudence [2]need to be exercised within our own Diocesan Church. The guidelines delineated above are intended in such a spirit of charity and prudence. [cough I take this opportunity to encourage the appropriate reverence and harmony in celebrating the Mass according to either form, ensuring the unity of which it is to be a sign. [This is a very good statement.] The Eucharistic Liturgy of the Church is a treasure currently entrusted to us to preserve and pass on to future generations of the Faithful. (Most Rev.) Joseph V. AdamecBishop of Altoona-Johnstown August 20, 2007Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania

What would the modern day ecclesiastical equilvalent of the Horst Wessel Song be,... perhaps Gather Us In? I’m just musing, of course. Just a non sequitur.


http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/09/scrooged.html

http://hancaquam.blogspot.com/2007/09/double-trouble-boil-and-bubble.html

Fr. Z. fisks the latest episcopal response to the Holy Father's M.P. This time we have Bishop Joseph V. Adamec of Altoona-Johnstown creating faux regs out of thin air. There must be some sort of Q-document out there floating around that our M.P.-resistant shepherds are lip-syncing to. The groove in the vinyl is getting deeper and deeper. Several innovations keep popping up in diocesan letters to clergy. The Fifty Person Rule seems popular. As does the translation/interpretation given to “stable group.” (NB. The overall implications of the Latin here is something like “a group that is continuously present” or “a group of the faithful with a steadfastly presence.” As Fr. Z. points out, M.P.-resistant bishops are translating the Latin so that the adverb “steadfastly” or “continuously” modifies the faith of the group requesting the E.F., thus making it sound as though the only ones eligible to request the E.F. are those who have “steadfastly adhered to the faith of the older form.” In fact, our Holy Father is saying that the E.F. may be requested by any “group of the faithful with a steadfast presence”).
There are other lip-synced lines from the anti-M.P. Q-document. For example, from the good bishop’s letter:
“In order to assure that a priest has the rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, acknowledgement of such is to be obtained from our Diocesan Office of Liturgy. This is only logical. Many of our priests have never celebrated Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Others, who have, have not done so for some time. Our seminaries assure bishops that those leaving to function as priests have the necessary knowledge and facility to celebrate Mass in the current form. Perhaps, in the future, they will also do the same in regard to the extraordinary form. In the interim, the matter will be handled on a diocesan basis.”
Now, no one will dispute that a priest must have the “rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate” the sacraments of the Church. In fact, knowing the language that one is using is pretty darned important. It is also extremely important that the priest know and follow the rubrics of the rite. So, given all this, here’s my question: why is the bishop requiring priests who want to exercise their option to use Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to get a license from his diocesan liturgical office (an office staffed, no doubt, by good, hard-working people who know absolutely nothing about the 1962 Missal, Latin, or anything else liturgical prior to 1983)? Priests who want to opt for the Ordinary Form are not being tested for rubrical and linguistic competence. Nor, apparently, are they even being required to demonstrate the minimal competency that our Holy Father is requiring of those who want to use the E.F. Why the double standard? I’m certainly delighted that some of our bishops have suddenly developed an intense interest in how liturgies are being celebrated in their dioceses. However, one must wonder where this interest was when Fr. Hollywood was warbling his homily on a Mr. Microphone while wearing a faux diamond-studded stole; when Fr. Oprah spent thirty minutes during the penitential rite berating his congregation for voting Republican; when Fr. Hippie jammed Sisters Polly and Ester into spandex leotards and paid them good money to “dance the consecration prayer”?
Episcopal concern for the integrity of the E.F. now would be a lot more credible if it had been preceded by an equally vigorous concern for how the O.F. was celebrated. I'm not sure what we are supposed to do with the bishop's own attempt to deflect charges of a double-standard. He writes: "Our seminaries assure bishops that those leaving to function as priests have the necessary knowledge and facility to celebrate Mass in the current form. Perhaps, in the future, they will also do the same in regard to the extraordinary form. In the interim, the matter will be handled on a diocesan basis.” I will take this as a good sign and wait for the anti-M.P. bishops to require their seminarians to take courses in the celebration of the E.F. How many out there will hold their breath with me while we wait on this novel requirement?
Posted by Fr. Philip N. Powell, OP at 11:20 PM

Canon Law and Parents Rights

Given the amount of confusion, be it intentional or unintentional, regarding the education of children in the Faith, I decided it would be prudent to post the exact text of the Canon Laws as well as excerpts from Familiaris Consortio and Gaudium et Spes for parents to reference. It is indeed a sad situation that there are individuals who would attempt to usurp the rights of parents to educate their children in the Faith. It is far sadder that these individuals would use the Holy Sacraments as leverage, threatening to deny young innocent Catholics of the Eucharist based soley on the families rejection of an institutionalized program in favor of embracing the solemn duty within the home. In this blog I will address the many ways in which institutionalized education structures - better characterized by Fr. Hardon as "substitute educations," harm the souls of young children and threaten to do further damage to the Domestic Church.

CHAPTER II : CATECHETICAL FORMATION

Can. 773 It is pastors of souls especially who have the serious duty of attending to the catechesis of the christian people, so that, through doctrinal formation and the experience of the christian life, the living faith of the people may be manifest and active.

Can. 774 ß1 The care for catechesis, under the direction of lawful ecclesiastical authority, extends to all members of the Church, to each according to his or her role.

ß2 Before all others, parents are bound to form their children, by word and example, in faith and in christian living. The same obligation binds godparents and those who take the place of parents.

Can. 775 ß1 While observing provisions made by the Apostolic See it is the responsibility of diocesan Bishops to issue norms concerning catechetical matters; to ensure that appropriate means of catechesis are available, even by preparing a catechism, if this seems opportune; to foster and to coordinate catechetical initiatives.

ß2 If it is thought to be useful, the Episcopal Conference may, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See, publish catechisms for its territory.

ß3 The Episcopal Conference may establish a catechetical office, whose principal purpose is to assist individual dioceses in catechetical matters.

Can. 776 By virtue of his office, the parish priest is bound to ensure the catechetical formation of adults, young people and children. To this end, he is to avail himself of the help of clerics attached to the parish, as well as of members of institutes of consecrated life and of societies of apostolic life, being mindful of the character of each institute; and the assistance of lay members of Christ's faithful, especially catechists. All of these, unless they are lawfully impeded, are not to refuse to give their labours willingly. The parish priest is also to promote and to foster the role of parents in the family catechesis mentioned in can. 774, ß2.

Can. 777 In a special way, the parish priest is to ensure, in accordance with the norms laid down by the diocesan Bishop, that:

1ƒ an adequate catechesis is given for the celebration of the sacraments;
2ƒ children are properly prepared for first confession and first holy communion, and for the sacrament of confirmation, by means of catechetical formation over an appropriate period of time;
3ƒ children, after they have made their first holy communion, are given a richer and deeper catechetical formation;
4ƒ as far as their condition allows, catechetical formation is given to the mentally and physically handicapped;
5ƒ the faith of young people and of adults is strengthened, enlightened and developed by various catechetical methods and initiatives .

Can. 778 Religious Superiors and Superiors of societies of apostolic life are to ensure that catechetical formation is diligently given in their churches and schools, and in other works in any way entrusted to their care.

Can. 779 Catechetical formation is to be given by employing all those aids, educational resources and means of communication which seem the more effective in securing that the faithful, according to their character capability, age and circumstances of life, may be more fully steeped in catholic teaching and prepared to put it into practice.

Can. 780 Local Ordinaries are to ensure that catechists are duly trained to carry out their office properly, namely, that continuing formation is available to them, that they have an appropriate knowledge of the teaching of the Church, and that they learn both the theory and the practice of the principles of pedagogy.

Because they have given life to their children, parents have a most serious obligation and enjoy the right to educate them; therefore Christian parents are especially to care for the Christian education of their children according to the teaching handed on by the Church. Canon 226, para. 2

The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others.Familiaris Consortio, Part III, chap. 36

Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state…Graced with the dignity and office of fatherhood and motherhood, parents will energetically acquit themselves of a duty which devolves primarily on them, namely education. Vatican II, Gaudiem et Spes Chap. 1.48

The pastor is obliged to see to it that the word of God in its entirety is announced to those living in the parish…he is to see to it that the lay Christian faithful are instructed in the truths of the faith, especially through the [Sunday] homily… and through the catechetical formation. Canon 528, para. 1

Altoona-Johnstown reaction to the Latin Mass

GUIDELINES
For the celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown

The Holy Spirit has prompted our Holy Father to address the matter of the Tridentine Mass. With his issuance of a Motu Proprio, taking effect on the 14th of September, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI has allowed priests of the Roman Catholic Church to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Missal, without any further permission but under certain conditions. Since it is important to read the document carefully, I wish to issue the following guidelines for our Diocesan Church. This I do for the sake of liturgical unity and integrity, in accord with the Holy Father’s admonition to us bishops. In his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, he wrote the following: “... I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese.”

The Holy Father acknowledges the fact that many priests may not demonstrate a rubrical or linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. In that case, a priest may not celebrate that particular form of Mass nor is he obligated to learn to do so. Provided that a priest possesses the required rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass, the following come into play.

1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is to be regarded as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer of the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite. A priest celebrating Mass according to the extraordinary form may not do so exclusively; but, needs to celebrate also the Mass in the ordinary form as an xpression of his not denying the validity of the Mass commonly used today.

Response: While this logic is valid it is not carried out to its appropriate conclusion. If a priest who is inclined to say the Extraordinary Mass must demonstrate an affirmation of validity of the Novus Ordo by continuing to say the Novus Ordo, shouldn’t those who choose to say the Novus Ordo be likewise obligated to demonstrate acceptance of the Latin Mass by their learning how to say the Latin Mass (Extraordinary form) and at least occasionally celebrating it?

2. Any priest of the Latin Rite that has the rubrical and linguistic ability may celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form without the Faithful (privately) at any time except during the Sacred Triduum. Christ’s Faithful who spontaneously request it, may join the priest. No permission is required.

Response: Spontaneous attendance at the private Mass was not a stipulation of the Motu Proprio. It is not sinful for the Faithful to desire to attend and make proper arrangements to attend a private saying of the Latin Mass in advance. The word spontaneous is being utilized as a gross mistranslation of what the Pope in fact wrote which was: Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may -- observing all the norms of law -- also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

3. Communities or Institutes of Consecrated Life or Societies of Apostolic Life of either pontifical or diocesan rite may use the extraordinary form of the Mass for their community celebrations in their own oratories by permission of their own major superior.

4. Should a pastor decide to celebrate or allow the celebration of one of the regularly scheduled Masses in a parish in accord with the extraordinary form (Missal of Blessed John X)(ffl), it must be in response to a request from a group (coetus/association) within his particular parish (member parishioners) that has existed and has been attached to the previous liturgical tradition steadfastly (that is: for some time; stabiliter existit). He may not do so as a result of his own personal preference. I ask that requests be presented to the pastor in writing, including names and addresses. These should be kept on file at the parish. In order to preserve unity within a parish, the Parish Pastoral Council is to be consulted in regard to any change. Groups composed of individuals belonging to various parishes are to approach the Diocesan Bishop.
Response: The Latin words Stabiliter Existit were not used in the Motu Proprio. The use of those words significantly changes the meaning of this paragraph. Per this Bishop’s conditions – what exactly constitutes a group, numerically speaking? How many fulfills the definition of group? More importantly, how could a group that is attached to the Latin Mass have existed for “some time” when it was not clear to anyone that this Motu Proprio was inevitable? What about the millions of Catholics who are under the age of 50 who have not had cognizant exposure to the Latin Mass? Recent popular reports suggest that the greatest interest in the Latin Mass is from the younger members of the Faith who have not had free access to it in their lifetime. Why would we deprive these individuals of this treasure?

At the very least, anecdotal evidence supports the thesis that those who attend the Latin Mass have a greater devotion to the Faith. Perhaps allowing an open borders approach could result in a significant flocking to the more traditional values of the Faith such as: God centered worship, Hierarchal authority structure, disciplined life-styles, unambiguous and uncompromising doctrinal purity, and objective moral integrity. An increase in devotion would surely foster a greater demand for orthodoxy within the diocese.

5. The entire schedule of Masses in a parish may not be in accord with the extraordinary form, as this would make it a “personal parish” for which the diocesan bishop’s permission is required.

6. Whenever Mass is celebrated according to the extraordinary form, all rubrics for that form of Mass must be observed; including prayers, language, vestments, Holy Communion under one form on the tongue, only boy altar servers, and postures (both of the celebrant and the faithful if present). The Roman Canon is always used.
Response: It is refreshing to see that we are going to fully embrace the rubrics for the Latin Mass in this diocese, as clearly anyone with a devotion to this liturgy would expect, demand, and deserve. While edified that we are going to make a real effort to not hybridize or bastardize the Latin Mass, I remain concerned about the questionable practices that occur within the Novus Ordo under the guise of “full participation” of the laity. Why is this Latin rubrical standard of purity not applied to the Novus Ordo? Why do we tolerate some parishes using bastardized versions of the Nicene Creed, taking liberties outside of the realm of poetic license or artistic expression in order to fulfill an agenda, i.e. the promotion of women’s ordination, political agendas specifically related to moral issues i.e. abortion, homosexuality, and etc?

7. In order to assure that a priest has the rubrical and linguistic ability to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, acknowledgement of such is to be obtained from our Diocesan Office of Liturgy. This is only logical. Many of our priests have never celebrated Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Others, who have, have not done so for some time. Our seminaries assure bishops that those leaving to function as priests have the necessary knowledge and facility to celebrate Mass in the current form. Perhaps, in the future, they will also do the same in regard to the extraordinary form. In the interim, the matter will be handled on a diocesan basis.

Response: Is it equally logical to place the Dumb at the mercy of the Dumber? Is not the priestly portion of the Diocesan Office of Liturgy composed of this group also, “Many of our priests have never celebrated Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII. Others, who have, have not done so for some time?” Since the Pope has said “the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his ordinary,” in exactly what does the bureaucratic, agenda driven, and politically motivated “Liturgy Office ‘acknowledgement’” consist ?

The Holy Father asks for charity and pastoral prudence in any consideration of celebrating the Mass in accord with the extraordinary form (according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII). That same charity and pastoral prudence need to be exercised within our own Diocesan Church. The guidelines delineated above are intended in such a spirit of charity and prudence.

I take this opportunity to encourage the appropriate reverence and harmony in celebrating the Mass according to either form, ensuring the unity of which it is to be a sign. The Eucharistic Liturgy of the Church is a treasure currently entrusted to us to preserve and pass on to future generations of the Faithful.

(Most Rev.) Joseph V. Adamec
Bishop of Altoona-Johnstown

August 20, 2007
Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania

Response: Even though he has produced the quintessential CYA liberal-church-speak document it should be noted that nowhere in his two page Politically Correct screed against the Latin Mass does this bishop refer to the Bishop of Rome’s present intention for, and future vision of, his having broken the chains on this Catholic Treasure. Benedict uses no PC liberal-speak when he writes in his accompanying letter to the bishops:

It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two rites.' Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite....

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a 'Forma extraordinaria' of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood....

Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them...

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching... The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage [The Latin Mass]. The surest guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal....

"I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church...

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.

One wonders why, in light of the fullness of what the Pope has written, this bishop has chosen to so narrowly restrict the availability of the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, in stead of, giving them their proper place. Why has he chosen to ridicule his priests and demean their (apparently faulty) educations rather than set up short term workshops to train them in what earlier generations held as sacred [and what] remains sacred and great for us too.

Is this not the same bishop about whom this was posted only a few weeks ago?

Pa. bishop rejects Tridentine MassMatt C. AbbottApril 16, 2007On Saturday, April 14, 2007, St. Clare of Assisi Church in Johnstown, Pa., concluded its Divine Mercy Novena. Preceding the Mass, a dinner and question and answer session with Bishop Joseph Adamec of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown was held.During the 'Town Hall'-style question and answer session, one parishioner asked Adamec about recent articles in the local Catholic newspaper regarding an anticipated papal document, and whether our diocese had plans for making a Tridentine Mass available.Adamec responded, 'No.'He said the Tridentine rite is only a concession to the Lefebvrites, and there is no need for it here because that situation does not exist here. Adamec said a Latin Mass could be made available [referring to the Novus Ordo with some Latin], but if the Tridentine rite is offered, it is a different rite, and you have to go back to the old forms of spirituality that went with it. He also said you have to go back to the old forms of sacraments, fasting and other aspects.He asked why the parishioner was asking.The parishioner said they have attended Tridentine rite Masses in the past, and that parishes offering the Tridentine rite were flourishing, with many young, large families who took documents like Humanae Vitae to heart, to which the bishop made an unintelligible remark that nonetheless seemed derogatory.

Good News for AJ

From the Fatima Mirror:

(1). Father Zatalava discusses with Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis his intention to spend the following eleven days in training at the Institute of Christ the King for the saying of the Latin Mass, what Pope Benedict calls the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

(2). Archbishop Burke and Father Zatalava concelebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass called the Novus Ordo.

(3). Archbishop Burke, Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, and Father J.D.Zatalava, Founder and Editor-in-chief of Catechismclass.com, pray the Morning Office before the Archbishop delivers the Keynote address to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in Saint Louis, MO.

The Archbishop has long supported wider use of the Latin Mass in his Archdiocese. He was called to Rome to represent the American Bishops in advising the Holy Father prior to the publication of Summorum Pontificum,the document which gives all priests greater latitude in saying the Latin Mass.

The following resolutions were issued at the conclusion of the four day gathering on July 19th:

1. We express our deep gratitude and respect for church leaders like Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis who courageously, consistently and faithfully defend Holy Mother Church and all her official teachings and disciplines. We strongly support his stand on denying Holy Communion to any Catholic candidate or politician whoopenly and notoriously supports abortion and/or euthanasia.\
2. We embrace the magisterial teaching of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in its recent document on the unicity and necessity of Catholic Church, in which the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, fully subsists.When understood in the full context and accurate context of papal and conciliar decrees ('Dominus Jesus' and'Lumen Gentium'), this doctrine is not a hindrance to ecumenical endeavors nor does it deviate from previous and perennially taught dogmas on the ecclesiological nature of the church.
3. We thank Pope Benedict XVI for his recent motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum' and hope it will be fully, freely and universally implemented in every diocese throughout the world. We see the invaluable treasure of preserving the old Latin “Tridentine” Mass, (extraordinary form of the Roman Rite), for the spiritual benefit of all thefaithful who request it. We furthermore affirm the necessity of reverently and properly celebrating the vernacularNovus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, (ordinary form of the same Roman Rite). Our prayer is that this will bring back many ofthe clergy and lay faithful who have gravitated to schismatic groups in reaction to serious abuses committed bysome priests who have irreverently celebrated the new Mass in English since the Vatican II.
4. We urge the bishops of the English speaking nations to quickly endorse a totally accurate translation of the Roman Missal which would be completely faithful to the typical Latin text. As celebrants of the Holy Mass, we see the necessity of and urgency of restoring sacred language and replacing all pedestrian verbiage in Divine worshipsince the Holy Eucharist is the ‘source and summit of Christian life.’
5. As we prepare for the 40th anniversary of 'Humanae Vitae' next year, we encourage our brother priestsand deacons to reacquaint themselves with this prophetic papal encyclical of Paul VI and we commend our Americanbishops for the recent USCCB document on Natural Family Planning, 'Married Love and the Gift ofLife' (November, 2006).
6. We pledge as faithful sons of the Church our continued prayers and complete obedience to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, and eagerly await his first pastoral visit to the United States.

Learning to Celebrate The Tridentine Mass At Saint Francis de Sales Oratory Saint Louis, MO

During this historical moment, we offer priests the opportunity to be introduced to the Rites of the ClassicalRoman Liturgy individually or in small groups while living with the Institute’s community at one of our Oratories in the United States or at our International Seminary near Florence/Italy. Thus, our fellow clergy is kindly invited to live the daily celebration of the Roman Liturgy in an atmosphere based on the spirit of faithful Romanity cherished since its beginnings by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. The demand is growing and we may have to ask for your patience. However, time frames can be adapted to the circumstances of our priestly confreres.

Having been Ordained in 1970 Father Zatalava was neither trained to, nor ever actually celebrated as a priest the Mass of his youth. To ready himself for whatever may develop locally in regard to the public celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass Father attended the first training session offered to an individual priest by the Institute of Christ the King, the Sovereign Priest at their Saint Louis house, Saint Francis de Sales Oratory. The program is run by Abbá Karl Lenherdt. Father Z’s personal instructor was the newly ordained Father William Avis. Father Avis was tasked with introducing Father Zatalava to the Tridentine Mass rubrics and language and setting a course for further self-study. Father Z plans on celebrating his first Mass privately (per the Pope’s permission) when the Motu Proprio takes effect in September. Until then it’s practice, practice, practice.

Barbara Kralis writes on July 30, 2007

The Supreme Vicar of Christ on earth, Pope Benedict XVI, has recently spoken in a most wonderful way for the spiritual benefit of all the universal church, for the living and the dead, and for the memory of the victories of the Saints who have gone before us.

In releasing his Motu proprio, 'Summorum Pontificum,' on July 07, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI gave precise rules for the Catholic clergy and the faithful laity's wider access to the Traditional Latin Mass, without fear of stigma or marginalization.

A great treasure of the Catholic Church, the Traditional Latin Mass draws the faithful out of their ordinary lives into the world of Christ. It promotes through its beautiful liturgy of prayers and postures the ultimate reverence of the faithful imbued with the sacred reality of Christ.

Pope Benedict's Motu proprio allows any duly ordained priest who is to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without permission from his bishop. Codified in the 16th century, the very reverent Traditional Latin Mass has been the Mass of the many Martyrs and Saints before us and delivered to us as a precious heritage.

Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

This Motu proprio or Apostolic Letter, published originally in Latin, makes it very clear that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated and therefore the faithful may assist at it without any scruple of conscience.

Priests and lay faithful may appeal to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Die in case of litigation or of the non-fulfillment of what is ordered in the Motu proprio. To do so, contact:

Dario Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos,

President of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei' Palazzo della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede Piazza del Sant' Uffizio, 11, 00l93 Rome, Italy, Europe.

Phone: 011.39.06.69.88.53.13

or 011.39.06.69.88.84.94;

Fax: 011.39.06.69.88.34.12.

"Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of
the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published
by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI
in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For
such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need
for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

"Art. 4.
Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms
of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be
admitted.

Ave Maria Town

Checked out the Ave Maria town on Sat (July 28, 2007) and found the Catholic town to be very impressive. The Oratory is located in the middle of the town and all of the various communities spiral out from it. Despite the controversy surrounding the Oratory it was very beautiful. It was not made out of glass as was originally intended. The front and back were stone and the body was metallic with windows. They intend to consecrate this Oratory this coming week and it will be used primarily for celebration of the Latin Mass.

The town itself was charming, pristine and well thought out. It will be a walking community and each subdivision (housing, university, commercial, condo, townhome) will have their own satellite chapel for Eucharistic Adoration and Daily Mass.

It's worth a visit and the University is definitely top notch as far as it's orthodoxy/authenticity is concerned. It's also expanding rapidly - expected to have 6000+ students soon, and the law school opens in a few weeks. It remains to be seen how this community concept will work out!

Ryan (1) in front of the Oratory in Ave Maria. 75 foot Crucifix being installed near where he is standing.
The back of the Oratory.
This is a picture of the town area - surrounding the Oratory.
View from the far side of the University area.
The town area (under contstruction still) leading up to rear of the Oratory.

Most recent column by Bishop Vasa re use of the term Church - must read!

Thoughts on differentiating the ‘Church’ from ‘churches’
07/20/2007 Bishop Robert Vasa

Prior to his being elected to the Office of Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI made it clear that one of the great dangers facing the Church was what he termed “the dictatorship of relativism.” He used this phrase in contradistinction to the other types of worldly dictatorships which have attempted to destroy the Church over the centuries. Perhaps before I continue, a brief statement about the meaning of relativism would be in order. Relativism comes in many shapes and sizes. At its core it is a mindset which judges the truth or reality of a thought or event or thing on the basis of subjective feelings, attitudes or personal values. Those afflicted with the disease of relativism attempt to ignore the fact that there is such a thing as objective truth. In fact, they often despise and disparage the very concept of truth. Perhaps you have heard the refrain from relativistic friends, “Well, that may be true for you but it certainly is not true for me!” Obviously there is great confusion about the meaning of the very word truth itself. There are ways in which the phrase used above would make perfect sense. For example, I can recall as a child being informed that liver tasted good. That claim was not consistent with my personal experience. Looking at the claim that liver tasted good I later realized that the claim should have been phrased by the liver lover, “I like liver.” This is a clear subjective, personal statement. It is not a universal claim of objective truth. I am, at the same time, perfectly free, while preserving the philosophical reality of truth, to make the contrary statement, “I do not like liver.” It is, however, important to note that there are certain objective things which can be said about liver. It provides a certain, quantifiable level of nutrients, vitamins, minerals and the like, and so one could make the statement, if liver does in fact provide some of these things, that liver is good for you. This is something which is true or not true regardless of whether I happen to like liver or not.
In our seriously misspoken and relativistic age we have otherwise good and faithful Catholics making subjective statements, that is statements which they hold personally to be true, but they make them in absolute ways. Thus we hear, “The Church is wrong in her teaching about the sinfulness of contraception.” The speaker is making a definitive declaration but doing so does not establish a fact. In truth, what the person means is that they do not accept, understand or intend to follow this clear teaching of the Church. A rejection of the teaching authority of the Church or a rejection of the truth of the teaching is a lot different than an acknowledgement of both the authority and the teaching and a subsequent recognition that one is not personally disposed to give assent to that teaching.
I bring this up at this time in order to try to understand the vehement outrage at one of Pope Benedict’s recent clarifications issued through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. According to news reports the document states: “Christ established here on earth only one church.” The necessary conclusion drawn in the document is that the other Christian communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession - the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles. This clarification of the theology of the Catholic Church is described as having a “harsh tone” which is another ploy of relativists. When something is said that is difficult for them to accept, rather than engage in substantive discussion about the truths at stake the whole matter can be dismissed because it might make some people feel bad.
The Holy Father notes that dialogue between the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, in order to be constructive, “must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith.” In other words, there are truths which cannot be ignored in the name of simply wanting to get along. As I understand the statement, its internal logic goes something like this. Jesus came to save us from sin and to establish a Church which would continue His saving work. “Church” is the word used to identify this very specific Christ-established reality. This “Church” has an objective God-given reality. While we often use the word church in a very generic, non-specific fashion, the truth remains that the formal and proper use of the word “Church” has a meaning given to it by Christ Himself. Giving formal recognition to other churches, as “Churches” implies that they do, in fact, completely fulfill the definition of Church intended by Christ. Since we believe that Christ established only one Church, then either all of the churches equally fulfill the intention of Christ and are really “one Church” or there is one true Church and those which are not substantially identified with that one Church are really something else altogether.
In our relativistic age in which feelings take precedence over objective reality, it is judged that such a claim is “harsh,” lacking in sensitivity and unnecessarily divisive. In this view it is better to bury a truth, allow people to continue to coexist in a beautiful relativistic complacency and avoid the tough questions. The common tendency is to create a new definition of church, meet that definition and then make the claim that we are all one big happy church. If church is a coming together of various people to give praise to God, then this is certainly a very good thing but such a church has little need for Jesus. If church is a coming together of like-minded people to provide charitable service to the poor, then this is again a very good thing but this does not require the passion, death or resurrection of Jesus. If church is a gathering of people whom God’s word has convoked and who are themselves, by virtue of being nourished with the real Body and Blood of Christ, constituted as the Body of Christ, then we have something more closely identifiable with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church about which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has spoken.

Protecting God's Children's Souls

Much energy and effort has been expended by the Church in helping to assure that no child is ever the victim of abuse, especially at the hands of Church employees. While these efforts in theory are most commendable, Protecting God’s Children does little more than protect society’s insurance companies. The materials promoted by these insurance companies are often deceptive and show less concern for our children than they do for the underwriters of judicial settlements. Many have observed that a primary objective of this program appears to be the build up of massive paper trails which, when tragedy occurs, can be used in court to demonstrate that there was no neglect, benign or malignant, local or systemic, on the part of the institutions or persons subsequently in the sights of aggressive litigators.

Concern must extend beyond protecting God’s children from physical, sexual or emotional harm. We must, in addition to protecting their human bodies, be vigilant about protecting the immortal souls of our children. Popes, parents, and priests all have important roles to play. But a crucial role for the salvation of our young people’s souls is entrusted to the local Director of Religious Education, i.e. the parish or diocesan D.R.E.

Space available here does not allow for a complete listing of everything a D.R.E. must be. We can, however, list a few things a D.R.E. must not be. A D.R.E. should never profess disloyalty to the Church through membership in or sponsorship of dissident, anti-Catholic groups. A D.R.E. should not support dissident groups by acting as a member, speaker or contributor of any kind at any time. Seriously problematic groups like Future Church (demanding an inclusive priesthood, i.e. the ordination of women and married priests) and Call to Action (promoting dissent against Church teachings on a broad range, including women's ordination, homosexuality, creation spirituality, married priesthood, and liturgical reforms, while incorporating new age and Wiccan spirituality) should be avoided by competent D.R.E.’s (and all loyal Catholics in general) at all times. Membership in, allegiance to, or commitment to any organization that denies the Magisterial teachings of the Church while at the same time being appointed to teach what the Church teaches can only redound to absolute confusion for and harm to our little ones. Acceptance of the authority of the Church and a reverence for what she teaches, whether definitively or through the ordinary Magisterium, must stand at the very heart of what a DRE must be. External or formal support of groups which deny the Catholic Church’s teaching on any issue should automatically disqualify a person from official teaching roles in the Church, especially when that role involves imparting or overseeing instruction of innocent children and potential converts. Whether you agree with Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz or not, the fact that he formally excommunicated anyone affiliated with the above groups should at least raise the question about suitability for educational ministry. The delicate minds, hearts and souls of our children demand vigilance.

The relevancy of this issue is manifested in the fact that there are a plethora of Directors of Religious Education who fit the above description. It is difficult to accept that anyone is permitted to function as a D.R.E. while simultaneously adhering to positions diametrically opposed to the clear teachings of the Church. It should never be tolerated that a D.R.E. who has a direct impact on the minds of the young people of the Parish can publicly (or even privately) reject the Magisterial authority and teachings of the Church. If some church employee tampers with a child’s sensitive body or tender psyche, charges can be made to a Board and that person can be removed and dealt with severely. But where does a parishioner turn to redress grievances against a spiritual abuser who subtly and sweetly infects a child’s mind with heterodox lies and endangers a child’s soul with her own ecclesial agenda? Perhaps a nationwide or Diocesan-wide program of intellectual, academic, and doctrinal background checks on D.R.E.s would be a good step in keeping our children safe. No diocese tolerates physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children, yet there seems to be total obliviousness to this most insidious form of detrimental spiritual abuse.

To protect its treasury almost every diocese has in place a user friendly mechanism by which priests and directors of religious education who violate children and young peoples’ bodies can be put out of commission. Probably no diocese has a user friendly device by which priests and directors of religious education can be taken out for damaging minds with false and misleading information and destroying souls with formal and informal heresy.