I'm not even pro-TLM (I have no issue with it, but prefer NO), but the micromanagement is so weird to me. Not allowing parisioners to receive communion while kneeling if they choose seems antithetical to being a true shepherd to your flock.
I get Monday-morning QBing a bishop is easy from my couch, but there just seems to be so many self-inflicted wounds from Martin here. I know you can't please everyone, but activiely antagonizing people is a weird choice.
Yeah, at some point you'd think there'd be some kind of "look, I think we got off on the wrong foot" moment from the bishop, but he just keeps plowing ahead heedlessly.
He was annoyed by the leak, sees "spies" everywhere, and seems to want to go back to the felt banners of the late 1970s and 1980s. He seems to have taken the understandable and human reaction of wanting to double down. I do hope he has prayed about these changes and the response. I pray +Martin gets on his knees before the Blessed Sacrament and says, "Speak, Lord, your servant is listening." Then open your ears to God's voice and do what He tells you.
I could understand if he thought there were just a few turbulent priests leaking to sympathetic press outlets and making Very Online Trads angry. But I know for a fact he's been drowning in letters from parishioners in Charlotte, and now there's a letter with a quarter of his priests' names on it. At some point, you can't hide behind "oh it's just a few malcontents."
And regarding that letter--most of the signers were pastors. Pastors have more canonical rights than parochial vicars, which means there are probably more PVs who agree but maybe didn't want to put their names to it. (In fact, I would imagine there were some PVs who were discouraged from adding their names by the pastors, so as to help them avoid some episcopal blowback.)
When 1/4 of your priests, all of whom took an oath of obedience to the bishop who ordained them and the bishop's successors, sign their names to a letter to the Vatican saying the duly appointed bishop is banning licit practices expressly authorized by the GIRM and other documents from the Pope or the Dicastery, then it should be clear that something is seriously wrong. +Luther has shown what appears to be a cold indifference to everything that was done before his elevation to his current position. He's not going to exile 1/4 of his priests.
He could exile them, no problem. After all, after alienating enough parishioners he will not need to staff as many church buildings. That MIGHT be the plan.
Setting aside rumors, the only issued directive is to discontinue moving out portable furniture during Mass. That one action hardly seems to rise to a pattern of micromanagement.
Regardless of how one feels about the proposed changes, it makes more theological snd ecclesiological sense for a bishop to micromanage his priests instead of a pope micromanaging bishops.
Sorry, but No. it is a big mistake to put the various states of life and ranks of the Church into discrete boxes as though they have nothing to do with each other. The Bishop is the Father of a family. The harm done by an obsessive compulsive, micromanaging paterfamilias who insists that his whims (Thou shalt not have a missal stand on the Altar!!) have the rule of law is devastating— in a diocese, an abbey, a parish, a rectory, a convent, a family. It is not how the Lord led the apostles, is it?
The problem with the micromanager is that, instead of intelligently delegating, being there as a resource but allowing those in his care to grow, discover and develop their gifts, the micromanager’s entire little empire rises and falls on his own strengths and weaknesses. And you can bet that the intelligent and creative of his “subjects” are dancing around behind his back accomplishing things when he is not looking.
Under the pontificate of Pope Francis, the atmosphere of the Roman Curia was said to be “like North Korea.” Someone else apparently noticed this — did you notice that line in Pope Leo’s address to the Curia at Christmastime, when he shot out that line asking whether it is possible to be friends within the Curia? I think we will be finding that Pope Leo aspires to a collegial style. Truly, I mean; not just talking about it while issuing diktats. —Fr Wilson
I am not arguing in favor of micromanaging on any level as it causes a lot of problems, but I am asking if a bishop has the authority to do so with expectation of obedience from his priests?
Also, it used be more common that priests would tweek the texts and rubrics of the Missal, often in a liberal direction. I knew a priest who would avoid using masculine pronouns like “his” for God (which annoyed me). If a bishop stops this is this micromanaging?
There's a pretty substantial difference between a bishop stopping priests from doing something that is forbidden (e.g. changing the words in the Missal on the fly) and stopping them from doing things that are expressly permitted (intinction, use of altar rails and kneelers).
The reason that changing the words of the mass are forbidden is because the Pope said so which is a form of micromanaging. Can a Bishop forbid things that a Pope has not expressly forbidden?
Changing the words of the mass is forbidden because it affects the validity of the sacrament. Micromanaging isn't just any discipline, it's obsessive control over those below you.
I didn't think the priests were actually not asking if the bishop is allowed to micromanage them, but rather whether the bishop is allowed to forbid legitimate options in the GIRM, most of which are legitimate options because they are traditional - and tradition actually has some real authority in the Catholic Church, far more than novelty has. Priests have a real responsibility to pass on that tradition, they are not mere functionaries of the bishop, and bishops don't have arbitrary authority over the liturgy of the Church.
If a pastor is pushing the Traddening too fast then a bishop has to put out some "why the rest of you can no longer have nice things without asking me first (and sometimes the answer will be no)" messaging - but the Diocese of Where-I-Live managed to do that without generating multiple (or even one [edit: okay, one]) Pillar articles, leading me to believe that it is not hard to steer the right line between scylla and charybdis.
My former pastor once said, following a particularly dumb spat involving parishioners disagreeing angrily about some minor something-or-other, that the most important lessons in life are learned in kindergarten.
The way to steer between Scylla and Charybdis is to listen, be nice, and use your words. As you say, it's not hard. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Ah, there was at least one Pillar article about the Diocese of Where-We-Both-Live, Bridget. If you search The Pillar along with our former Bishop’s name, you will find it.
Definitely not to the level Charlotte has been covered but we didn’t go unnoticed. :-) If I recall correctly, we were pretty early in all this, but you’re correct, that the line was managed better.
Boil that frog or freeze that frog, as long as it's slow. Sudden temperature shifts cause frogs to complain to their bishop (although most frogs will just jump out of the container).
The Detraddening. I haven't seen that much given I'm in the Diocese of Where-I-Live, which is a big subscriber to the Traddening, but it will be very curious to encounter it eventually, as is inevitable.
In principle I agree, but I think the issue here is the speed and scope of +Martin's directives and the clear lack of pastoral sensitivity. Bishops aren't politicians, and newly elevated bishops should not be like a governor who "course-corrects" after unseating someone of the opposite party and just vetoes every prior policy because it had red/blue ink. By many metrics, the Diocese of Charlotte is among the fastest growing and healthiest in the entire country, so a bishop coming in and turning the whole diocese around because he's from a different "party" despite the clear success and growth of the flock is not pastoral AT ALL and is the type of thing the Vatican should take a look at. To the outside observer it looks like +Martin just wants to mold the diocese to his particular theological opinions regardless of who lives there and what their needs are. As another commentor posted when the altar rail letter came out: "Pope Francis reminded us that pastors need to smell of their sheep, It appears that Bishop Martin took one whiff of his flock and gagged".
We also have to remember that the Holy Spirit works on both sides of the altar. The faithful have the responsibility not to fund the bishops who engage in petty human folly. That will cause them to reconsider the source of their actions. There are plenty of other parts of the Church that need help.
I know from talking to parishioners in Charlotte that some people will continue to go to the rail. Priests will leave the sanctuary and stand in front of the rail, but they don't think they can deny people communion if they kneel at the rail.
So even after the rail is banned, there's still going to be some Communion at the rails. There's potential for things to get really spicy depending on how much of that happens, and how long it goes on.
If parishioners continue to go to the rail, and the bishop has expressly forbid it—and let's say for the sake of argument that the dubias come back with an answer that he can do this—would the parishioners be committing some sort of sin by willfully disobeying the bishop's directives?
Out of pedantic accuracy (my favorite kind!), is there a USCCB directive that clarifies that a bishop cannot *forbid* people from kneeling for Communion; or just that they cannot be *refused Communion* for kneeling? Those seem like somewhat different things
I'm feeling for the people of Charlotte, it's worrying to think about how this whole situation is affecting people's hearts as they receive the Lord. How can you be focused on Him if in the back of your mind you're half expecting to be denied communion, or have an awareness that you're doing something forbidden by kneeling and mustn't chicken out at the last second.. so many places to be tempted to distraction and being focused on yourself here.
Is it Canon Law, or Canon Suggestion? That is a real question I have had and have been asking other priests, because I am confused. The consensus among the gen x and older priests whom I spoke to is certainly that liturgical and canon law are just suggestions and basically you do whatever you want at the end of the day. Among millennial priests and younger they say that even if we have to abide by it, the bishop can do whatever he wants - he can dispense from anything and can make any new regulation he wants - so I have the same question as these priests - what is canon law? Ultramontanism on any ideological side is a problem, but what, if any, are the constraints on a bishop? I really don't know and it makes my life as a priest difficult and confusing...
That's a really important question that gets at the heart of Vatican II. The council was (among other things) about decentralizing out of Rome and empowering the bishops to not merely be vicars of the Pope, but to be genuine successors of the apostles. But what happens if you replace one arbitrary ultramontanism in Rome with 1000 arbitrary little ultramontanisms (so to speak) in every chancery? How do balance the tension between empowering bishops while still constraining them from running wild?
I'm sad for those who think canon law or even the moral law are mere suggestions. We pay for it in this life, and their souls will pay for it in the next.
Here is my question though - I thought violating canon or liturgical law was sinful - but other (especially older) priests clearly do not - they are shocked when younger priests don't just - for example - celebrate way more masses in a day than are allowed - they think the good of the people demands it and we are being selfish and using the law (which it seems in their minds is a sort of manual of good practice) to justify it - it is a real difference of understanding - and I am unsure whether I am right...
There is a fine line between pride and true conviction. I recommend you find the place of true conviction with humility. I would read the work of the canonized as the sure path.
For example, a priest lied to the judicial vicar. No saint condones telling a falsehood, even to protect the life of someone, only deception is allowed in particular cases presuming the 3 rules are followed: nobody is injured, the individual did not have a right to the knowledge (which every proper authority has), and no malice in the intent- (through which deception is morally tolerated and not commanded). Can the action of the priest who lied to the judicial vicar be denounced? Yes. Always denounce it. Even if every single priest in the diocese condones it, including the judicial vicar himself, we can know with certainty from those who are with God that the action is not allowed because no saint allows such an action, and it was even clarified by Pope Innocent XI. So we can have certainty in this knowledge. Similarly, you can too.
I urge you to stop listening to others and read the saints. Perhaps you lack any saintly around you. Please fortify yourself in Truth so you may lead others to Christ. I will offer my prayers at my next Mass for you and others who struggle with your uncertainty.
Every young generation reacts against some previous generation, because that previous generation has been taking things too far in one direction or another, and can't see it, but it's obvious to fresh eyes.
The people who are very old *now* were once very young, and they grew up seeing one thing or another thing done wrong, and they have firmly resolved not to be THAT guy. They will not have THAT particular beam in their eye, they will not worship *that* particular idol, and they will not do that specific wrong thing. The people are laboring under too heavy a burden which has been laid on their backs, or else the people don't even know that some things are a sin. They will teach the next generation the right way to do things and they will *explain* to them what is a sin and what is not a sin and everything will be great as soon as they are in charge and can do this. They will explain what God is really like.
Now some of them, or the people they taught, are the next next generation's fresh new kind of "THAT guy - I'm not going to be him."
Its true - there are always actions and reactions and generational swings - and I don't want to blindly react either - but it does live me with real doubts sometimes...
There is a clause, I think toward the end of canon law, that talks about the good of souls being the primary rule and interpreter of the rest.
I should think though, that for law to be law at all, those exceptions should either be requested of the appropriate authority (which is at least sometimes explicitly stated, for extra Masses it's the bishop) or be an unusual event, without the possibility of contacting the appropriate authority, and presumably have something more than popular preference at stake. I've heard there's a general principle in Italian law that you are trying to match the "mind of the Legislator" rather than the letter of the law, so more a sense of familial authority (which should nevertheless be actually respected...) than the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I think I have now successfully stood on both sides of the question?
But really, how should something be considered even a "manual of good practice" if it is perpetually disregarded? Either it doesn't lay out very good practices, or the disregarders aren't following good practices.
As far as sinful or not, I don't know what the limits are between sin and fault, but I can't imagine it could be considered a virtue unless it's one of those exceptions.
As far as I understand it, the reason judges don't try to go to the mind of the legislator in democracies is that different factions in a legislative assembly might well have different ends in mind - and so people try to figure out stuff like "the original public meaning".
I take the phrase about the salvation of souls being the supreme law to be primarily a interpretative tool - when interpreting the law, resolve any ambiguities by remembering that it is promulgated in order to serve the good of souls.
Then you can also apply it to situations where the application of the law-exactly-as-written would lead to perverse outcomes, but I guess a really Catholic system of law would assume that the formulation of the law is different from the law itself, and such a case really involves a conflict between the formulation of the law and the law itself. (Since an unjust law is no law at all.)
So I think I have a pretty good idea what sort of work the phrase is doing in the context of arriving in a judgment in a court of law, but the really tricky point is how much my private judgment as a pastor or bishop can trump the letter of the law any time I decide that I think it really is better for people if I do things differently.
The extreme case is probably whether I have the right to say "This canon is clearly opposed to the salvation of souls" and decline to apply (or submit to) it at all - this seems clearly opposed to my duty of obedience. But what about "under the specific circumstances of this parish, this canon is clearly opposed to the salvation of souls"?
Canon law is a different critter than the civil law, especially the sort we're used to in the United States (and other countries that inherited the English legal tradition).
I only know a tiny amount compared to proper canon lawyers, but from what I've seen there's often a suppleness to it (or you could call it flexibility, or fuzziness, or any number of other things depending on the situation and mood) that is hard for the American mind to process.
Our default mode, especially in the present day, is to expect everything to be either mandatory or forbidden in the law, with bright red lines defining everything...and to consider, as per the perceptive Simpsons meme, "technically correct" to be the best kind of correct.
And so when we encounter something that follows the well-worn ecclesiastical path of "it really should be *this* way; but if, for pastoral reasons, it seems better to do it *that* way, well...", we're apt to either conclude "woo-hoo! there are no rules! we can do what we want!", or to bolt the door against such chaos by attempting to absolutize away the ambiguities and flexibilities in the rules.
I fear this is so - I lived for years in Italy and became familiar with the way that law of any kind is perceived in non Anglo-Saxon contexts - but my American mind finds it frustrating... My biggest preoccupation is always to make sure I am not doing something morally wrong - and it seems that this at least should be clearer...
I always think of a classic description of the difference between the American and Italian mindsets that, if I recall correctly, came from journalist Beppe Severgnini.
Americans encounter a red light and see a signal to stop.
Italians encounter a red light and consider it an invitation to dialogue.
Ha! I remember someone asking an Italian why there were even lines on the road - and he answered in all sincerity that they were there so that when there was an accident you could tell who was in the wrong!
You mention the traffic light example as a sort of joke, but I’ve seen it as a real example of the difference in philosophy between Common Law traditions (Anglo-Saxon in origin), and Civil Law traditions (Roman in origin, including Canon Law).
Common Law tends to be heavily based on principle and precedent, and applies almost algorithmically: “Is the offense alleged to have occurred? Does it include X, Y, and Z factors from statute or precedent? Can it be proven according to the burden of proof? If ‘yes’ to all the above, then ‘guilty’.” You ran a red light; that’s against the law; and we can prove it. You’re in the wrong.
Civil Law is much more about establishing responsibility in the case of damages or harm. It can go much more like: “Did running the red light injure someone or damage a vehicle? No? Then so what?”
That’s why Civil Law systems often have so many more specific rules and regulations—because they’re often very selectively enforced.
It’s also why Canon Law itself can rely so heavily on “dubia.” It’s essentially a way to clarify when someone believes some kind of harm or damage has been done that needs addressed. In the absence of a complaint, who will enforce it?
I wish Canon Law were better defined and better respected. But tbf it does leave a LOT to interpretation. And it is not the moral law; it don't think it claims to be.
I fear that this may not have been a wise decision. There's a possibility that the response to the dubia could be used as an opportunity to give the bishop the authority to make these changes, and the response could be issued without much oversight from the Pope, such as when they 'clarified' that Bishops couldn't dispense from some of the norms of TC without approval from Rome.
Pope Leo is well aware that this bishop has been doing some questionable things, and being from the US he will understand better than someone from outside the culture what upset it causes when a bishop acts like this. I hope and pray our Pope will be a wise shepherd here.
This is exactly my thought as well and I came here to make a similar comment. I am not so sure this is a good decision by these priests to submit these dubia. This move *could* backfire spectacularly and make things much, much worse. Once questions like these are answered definitively it is going to be near impossible to change the answers, at least any time in the near future. If they don't get the answers they are very obviously hoping for, then what? Bishop Martin will have carte blanche to run roughshod over liturgical practice in the diocese, at least in the near term if he isn't eventually dealt with in another way. This could also have the unintended consequence of emboldening like-minded bishops in other dioceses to make similar moves, and could accelerate their plans.
The main thing that gives me hope now, however, is that Pope Francis is no longer in the picture. If he was still alive I would almost certainly be expecting these priests to get smacked down, hard. But with the winds of change in the Vatican (especially with the consistory discussing liturgy this week) there is at least a chance that they are successful now. But I am still very unsure, and my gut feeling is that this was a very dangerous move by these Charlotte priests that could have serious consequences for other Catholics besides those in their own diocese. I think this is the kind of a risk you only take if you are reasonably certain of the outcome, and I don't think that is absolutely the case, at least not yet. In another time, submitting these dubia might be a good thing to do. To do it now...I am not so sure.
In defense of the priests that submitted the dubia however, they are probably desperate for some relief, and the only other avenue that I would be aware of for them to seek relief, seeking an apostolic visitation, is likely not desirable either due to the low prospects of something happening in a reasonable timeframe. If these dubia do not save their diocese, the only alternative is likely waiting another couple of years for Rome to act, and that is hardly an appealing prospect. I just hope that their desperation does not negatively affect liturgy in the whole Church.
Agreed re: Pope Francis. Under a Leonine papacy, they're more likely to get a better reception--particularly when Leo was telling Martin to slow down back when he was just Cardinal Prevost.
Submitting dubia doesn't mean that Pope Leo will necessarily choose to address them. He may choose to initiate an apostolic visitation, or find another method of addressing the situation without answering anything.
However, the priests' submitting the dubia does suggest that the problems Bp. Martin is having in Charlotte will continue to be news until Pope Leo resolves them somehow. And surely Pope Leo would like for all this hullabaloo to cease?
Given what we've seen from Leo thus far I don't think we'll see an aggressive response one way or the other. I think the worst case scenario for the Priests is that Martin is told to slow his role.
But I guess we're going to find out how much sway Roche still has.
Agreed. You do not ask Rome something unless you're certain they'll back you.
This could clap back with clarifications that affect dioceses where laissez-faire has prevailed.
If Rome says "yes, he can ban the construction of altar rails" - which they might say - it could kill construction goals nationwide.
The only thing they're safe on is probably intinction. Maybe the vestments
+Martin may overestimate his authority, but I suspect theses priests underestimate it. Rome has consistently increased episcopal authority and this might *cause* power creep nationwide rather than check the power abuse of 1 bishop.
"There have been rumors that the bishop also plans to introduce additional piecemeal regulations on the liturgy, based on a leaked draft text that would prohibit.......the use of the Latin language"
Does this count as rejecting Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium, specifically) where it says: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."?
Funny, the people that like to call other people VII rejecter schismatics are strangely silent about this one...
Is communion by intinction common? In my diocese it’s understood that this is not the practice. I know it’s extremely common, maybe even the norm, in Eastern rites. But I have never heard of it in regular practice in the Roman Rite.
I just came from an ordinary weekday daily Ordinary Form Mass in a US diocese several states away from Charlotte, and we received communion by intinction there. It was a Spanish language Mass and most of the attendees habitually receive on the tongue whether intinction is happening or not, because that's the custom in the countries they or their parents or grands came from.
The main issue with intinction nowadays is people who don't realize they cannot receive an intincted Eucharist in their hands, but there are a good number of individual parishes where people understand this and intinction is not uncommon there.
my parish's last pastor would do intinction at Holy Thursday Mass. He would wait to see if someone knelt before intincting though. If someone stayed standing and received in the hand, they would receive the Eucharist just in the appearance of bread.
I’m not sure about common but for example in my parish we have a little boy who has various developmental issues and delays and the only way to GET him communion ended up being intinction - I think the sensory issues involved with chewing of the host slash texture or something was preventing him and anyways long story long, this is the only way he can receive Our Lord. If we were in Charlotte would this be banned?? How many other little (or big lol) boys long to receive Jesus and for whatever reason, this is how it can happen. Does this forbidding make room for “non liturgical preference” situations? It sure didn’t read that way 😞
100% of the intinctions I have seen in my parish have been "priest with a terrible cold has a concelebrant or deacon, and does not want to put his mouth on the chalice before them" i.e. none have been to laypeople.
In Fort Wayne-South Bend the communicamt is not allowed to do intinction but the priest may distribute the Eucharist that way and I have been to Masses where that was how it was done.
As Eucharistic ministers we were taught how to prevent someone from doing so. I have seen someone do it but that was long ago. I think most members of the laity know it's not allowed.
Self-intinction by the congregation is not permitted anywhere. EMHCs I know have told me that they are trained to watch out for this and prevent it when they are distributing the Precious Blood. As Sue said it seems like most people at the parishes I frequent know, presumably from being taught in their prep, that they cannot self-intinct, but I've been told of other parishes where it's a recurring issue, probably because it wasn't well communicated or policed in the past so you get a little group in the habit of doing it.
It seems to have fallen out of practice in the last ~10 years (or maybe I've just been lucky in dioceses recently), but, say, within the last 20, I've been at US parishes where I was explicitly instructed/pseudo-required to self-intinct. I wish sacramental prep had covered the opposite!
But unless you mean Anglican ordinariate that’s not a good example bc it’s not catholic. No Catholic Church or rite or usage permits self communication that I’m aware of?
There was a bit of a fad Down Under with lay people dipping the host received on the hand afterwards. I think it came out of some migrant communities where intincture on the tongue was routine. (Most of the masses I went to in the Philippines were intincture and reception on the tounge. Neither intincture or reception on the tongue was not routine in Australia in the 1990s and early naughties. It wasn't really a thing until after WYD in 2008 made it visible via the pilgrims and broadcast masses.
It has had to be clarified multiple times that intincutre is for the Priest to do so only, because lots of other people liked 'the dip'. You got a taste of the wine without risking having alcohol on your breath if you got pulled over by the cops.
Not only is it wildly inappropriate for lay people to do, its also GROSS. You don't want anyone's fingers in the communal cup, especially as habits of Covid-hygiene awareness die hard.
Yes, but as our liturgy constitutes a particular Use and not the normative Roman Rite, it might not be the best example.
Regardless, in this case, Divine Worship: The Missal's rubrics on this are taken from the GIRM, which presents intinction as a valid option (and Redemptoris Sacramentum goes further by saying it may not be banned by a diocesan bishop), and the prevalence of it is due to this being our custom (it being a somewhat popular practice of some Anglo-Catholics, and no doubt easy grounds to prevent communion in the hand for most communicants).
When the norm is intinction, receiving in the hand becomes near impossible. Two birds with one stone. And of course receiving both species at the rail becomes much easier too. Call it three birds with one stone.
Exactly, but no doubt you'll find some people who'll (unfortunately) try to receive an intincted host on the hand. Good thing intinction properly done is not that popular (or even known) among those likely to do this, besides the self-communicant-intinction folks.
Ha - ya I've seen it a few times when we have visitors. 99% of the time it's just people not understanding which is no big deal and totally understandable. Did have one guy demand to receive in the hand
In my diocese, several parishes use intinction for First Holy Communion. I’ve also been to a parish in a tourist heavy area of the Deep South that is pastored by a Franciscan. Communion is by intinction at a rail. The sanctuary is loaded with candles, Latin is used frequently, and the choir is often a guy with a guitar and a 1970s hymnal. It is a beautiful, wonderful, harmonious mishmash of “here comes everybody.”
Intincture is the only way it's distributed when I attend Divine Liturgy, the Priest explains how to recieve it from a spoon for newcomers and that's how it's done - end of debate. That remained constant during Covid and no one to my knowledge no one acquired Covid from it, no spikes of hospital stays . Now there are "Conservative" Catholics from my regular parish who claim Eastern Rite are not REAL Catholics and recieving communion from a married priest is not valid. Interstingly these same "Conservative" Catholics modified their stance on abortion to match Donald Trump's leading me to sometimes wonder what a "Conservative" Catholic is. I personally have no issue with intincture and I think an examination of consciense is the key to valid communion.
My small parish in AL the priest does this if you kneel. He will had you communion if your hand is out, he will place the host on the tongue if you stand but if you kneel, he will provide it by intinction. It's a very small parish so there is not a lot of room.
The fact that the presbyterate included among the dubia questions concerning the proposed-but-withdrawn diktats—e.g., intinction, vesting prayers, etc.—leads me to think that they sincerely believe the rumors are true: +Martin is going to try to slowly roll out these impositions on his flock.
I have no reason to doubt their perception that these are deeply held convictions and intentions of the bishop.
But if that is the case, such a man—who rails against Latin in the Latin Church, who obsesses over banning silent prayers, who desires to tear up the inheritance of his flock—can hardly be qualified to remain [the] bishop [of a diocese].
By no longer remaining a bishop, I meant no longer holding an office over a diocese, not somehow being “unbishoped.”
The itinerant +Strickland comes to mind. And I’m sure there’s an auxiliary bishop role waiting to be filled somewhere in the world if that is more politick—Ketchikan, perhaps.
If I were a bishop, I would not mind controversy and division if it resulted from me as bishop standing with immigrants, the unborn, or feeding the poor. But creating space for resentment and anger in the community as the result of prohibiting intinction, etc, seems counterproductive to the purpose of being a bishop in the first place.
I had a similar thought (and made a similar comment) on a story about Charlotte last month:
“I would have to think my cause was pretty righteous before I went out, guns blazing, Athanasius contra mundum, against a hunger strike(!!!) of my own laity, to impose my will like this. (At least I hope).
But for what amounts to a mere preference? A whim? Yikes.”
A comment on the linked article below from a self-professed local noted that:
“Also, there was a three-day fast/protest outside the diocesan office during the First Week of Advent. The good bishop didn't even bother to reply to the letters sent to him about it.”
> “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states ...
Indeed. Why does this bishop hate Vatican II so much? Why is he clinging to the past and rejecting the present moment? I will ask Pope St. Paul VI to pray for him.
This is, sadly, a fool's errand. If a group of influential cardinals cannot get a responsa ad dubium, the clergy in Charlotte are taking a total moonshot gamble. Regardless of whether or not they get a response, it won't matter at all: +Martin is in charge in Charlotte, and it's clear he's not going anywhere regardless of his conduct or choices.
What will happen if the responses come back and totally dismantle +Martin's position? I'll tell you what will happen: diddly squat! To paraphrase Jackson: "Rome has made its decision; now let it enforce it."
+Martin will ignore the responsa, continue to press his mandates, and viciously retaliate against any clergy bold enough to point to a piece of paper and say "b-but the responsa!" Does you think +Martin cares about what the responsa might say when he openly disregards the GIRM? Gimme a break!
The faithful in Charlotte will groan under the now-amplified weight of "it doesn't matter who's right, and what we do won't make a difference in alleviating this bishop's barbaric buffoonery." It's clear that this will remain unchanged unless (and only unless) +Martin is personally removed from his see by Pope Leo, and it's clear that's just not going to happen.
I wish more people would realize that words on a paper are not going to save us. Power and action matter. The only other viable option here is open disobedience on the whole of the presbyterate. And Catholics may not like to hear this, but disobedience works, it's rewarded! If the Eparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, the German Synod, and the People's Republic of China are any indications... if you are disobedient you will be given every leniency and be sent a thousand emissaries to cater to your demands.
Why don't you ask they Syro-Malarbar Church how 'mass presbyterate disobedience' is going for them? The Pillar has (the only) English Language coverage of that ongoing saga if you haven't already come across it.
Ah yes, the burnings in effigy? The riots? The burning of letters? You know what they got for that? Not a swift hand setting them aright, no. They were given several different special emissaries and envoys over the course of several months. They got extensions. And they largely get what they want. The fact that the Eparchy isn't under interdict right now (and all those clergy laicized) is itself a sign that, regardless whether you think it's upright or not, an exercise of mass disobedience is de facto acceptable and rewarded with leniency.
In any sane sensible governance, the Eparchy would've been swiftly cracked down on long ago. Same with the German Synodal Way. They're both getting a white-glove treatment for disobedience greater (by orders of magnitude) than whatever the Charlotte diocesan presbyterate would do.
This is a new Pope, and we have good reason to believe that he cares about ALL the faithful, desires authentic unity among us and is tactful. Hope is a virtue!
To understand things as they are, and not as we would wish them to be, is an exercise of the great gift of God that is our Reason. Blissful delusion is a rejection of the gift of Reason.
You insult me for my very reasonable assessment of the current status quo by comparing me to the faithless hordes that mocked Christ. Is this the "always be charitable" comments policy maxim I am so regularly chided over? Yet you didn't say I my observation was incorrect or unfounded...
I was taking a more charitable interpretation, thinking surely you would not compare me to Satan for a mere genuine, if frank, assessment. And because I felt confident you'd be more perceptive than to make a clever attempt at poorly appealing to a scripture reference about a clever attempt at poorly appealing to a scripture reference.
There's one more place which will make a neat set of three (a hat trick): you've identified "throw yourself down" in the desert temptations, and "come down from the cross" at the crucifixion; I will complete the set by pointing out Peter taking Jesus aside and rebuking Jesus for having said that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die and be raised on the third day. You have the same failing as Peter (cheer up; he became Pope, after all, and was crucified himself as our proof that now he understood). You are not looking at things as God does (God looks CRAZY to us; the cross is a stumbling block to the wise) but as man does.
The problem is that these all appear to be disputable questions. The dubia system is only really going to work well when you know the answer to the questions beyond a doubt, the point of the dubia being to force compliance.
If there is a decent chance the dubia is going to be used against you, it's foolish to use it.
I think it's much too early to say with any confidence that "it's clear he's not going anywhere regardless of his conduct or choices." Pope Leo does not strike me as a guns-blazing kind of pope, and I think, particularly as a canon lawyer, he has more regard for the law and due process than Pope Francis had. I think it's good that these dubia have been presented, as part of the official documentation with the appropriate dicastery about the issues Bishop Martin is causing the faithful in Charlotte.
I think that's also a totally fair assessment, and I largely agree with you. I just think that, all these things considered, I have less confidence than most others that this course of action will produce any significant improvement, and that if Pope Leo hasn't asked +Martin to take a temporary leave of absence at this point (let alone step aside completely), it's unlikely that he'll do it in the future barring serious whistleblowing-level misconduct. The lack of a "guns blazing" papal disposition is actually to Charlotte's detriment in this case.
On what grounds could Pope Leo have asked Bishop Martin to take a leave of absence? To me, that would look like extrajudicial micromanagement by the pope. I think a possibly slower but more by-the-book,, carefully documented handling of this case could set a good legal precedent for Pope Leo’s pontificate. It will take longer, but it would have a much firmer foundation, less likely to be overturned later on. I get the desire for a quick removal to send a clear message, but I don’t think that is a healthy environment for the church, and I think Pope Leo wants to lower the temperature, not raise it.
I’m glad that these Priests are asking this questions. I hope it generates a fruitful outcome.
It’s weird to me that the bishop wants to micromanage the priest’s prayers as he vests and other minutiae.
He's an ideologue who's fully convinced that he's right. Get rid of the vesting prayers and he'll get rid of the pre-VII schismatics
Shiiiiiii, give me the Pope’s address, I’ll write him a letter.
He can put the special convocation for the Cardinals on hold to write a papal bull on the merits/demerits of fiddleback chasubles.
His Holiness Pope Leo XIV. 00120 Vatican City
Prayers for the Diocese of Charlotte, especially for these brave priests, and for the enlightenment of the Bishop.
I was definitely grateful for these 30 priests that were brave enough to put their name to this letter!
I'm not even pro-TLM (I have no issue with it, but prefer NO), but the micromanagement is so weird to me. Not allowing parisioners to receive communion while kneeling if they choose seems antithetical to being a true shepherd to your flock.
I get Monday-morning QBing a bishop is easy from my couch, but there just seems to be so many self-inflicted wounds from Martin here. I know you can't please everyone, but activiely antagonizing people is a weird choice.
Yeah, at some point you'd think there'd be some kind of "look, I think we got off on the wrong foot" moment from the bishop, but he just keeps plowing ahead heedlessly.
He was annoyed by the leak, sees "spies" everywhere, and seems to want to go back to the felt banners of the late 1970s and 1980s. He seems to have taken the understandable and human reaction of wanting to double down. I do hope he has prayed about these changes and the response. I pray +Martin gets on his knees before the Blessed Sacrament and says, "Speak, Lord, your servant is listening." Then open your ears to God's voice and do what He tells you.
I could understand if he thought there were just a few turbulent priests leaking to sympathetic press outlets and making Very Online Trads angry. But I know for a fact he's been drowning in letters from parishioners in Charlotte, and now there's a letter with a quarter of his priests' names on it. At some point, you can't hide behind "oh it's just a few malcontents."
And regarding that letter--most of the signers were pastors. Pastors have more canonical rights than parochial vicars, which means there are probably more PVs who agree but maybe didn't want to put their names to it. (In fact, I would imagine there were some PVs who were discouraged from adding their names by the pastors, so as to help them avoid some episcopal blowback.)
"felt banners of the late 1970s and 1980s" - That caused a terrible flashback that I had forgotten.
Felt and feelings.
For some of us the felt banners are still on FULL DISPLAY.
I kind of liked the felt banners.
When 1/4 of your priests, all of whom took an oath of obedience to the bishop who ordained them and the bishop's successors, sign their names to a letter to the Vatican saying the duly appointed bishop is banning licit practices expressly authorized by the GIRM and other documents from the Pope or the Dicastery, then it should be clear that something is seriously wrong. +Luther has shown what appears to be a cold indifference to everything that was done before his elevation to his current position. He's not going to exile 1/4 of his priests.
He could exile them, no problem. After all, after alienating enough parishioners he will not need to staff as many church buildings. That MIGHT be the plan.
Setting aside rumors, the only issued directive is to discontinue moving out portable furniture during Mass. That one action hardly seems to rise to a pattern of micromanagement.
I don't think you understand how the power of a bishop gets exercised
This is incorrect. The directive includes not using permanent architecture and forbids intincture. It’s not JUST portable kneelers.
I think this is missing the forest for the trees.
Regardless of how one feels about the proposed changes, it makes more theological snd ecclesiological sense for a bishop to micromanage his priests instead of a pope micromanaging bishops.
Sorry, but No. it is a big mistake to put the various states of life and ranks of the Church into discrete boxes as though they have nothing to do with each other. The Bishop is the Father of a family. The harm done by an obsessive compulsive, micromanaging paterfamilias who insists that his whims (Thou shalt not have a missal stand on the Altar!!) have the rule of law is devastating— in a diocese, an abbey, a parish, a rectory, a convent, a family. It is not how the Lord led the apostles, is it?
The problem with the micromanager is that, instead of intelligently delegating, being there as a resource but allowing those in his care to grow, discover and develop their gifts, the micromanager’s entire little empire rises and falls on his own strengths and weaknesses. And you can bet that the intelligent and creative of his “subjects” are dancing around behind his back accomplishing things when he is not looking.
Under the pontificate of Pope Francis, the atmosphere of the Roman Curia was said to be “like North Korea.” Someone else apparently noticed this — did you notice that line in Pope Leo’s address to the Curia at Christmastime, when he shot out that line asking whether it is possible to be friends within the Curia? I think we will be finding that Pope Leo aspires to a collegial style. Truly, I mean; not just talking about it while issuing diktats. —Fr Wilson
I am not arguing in favor of micromanaging on any level as it causes a lot of problems, but I am asking if a bishop has the authority to do so with expectation of obedience from his priests?
Also, it used be more common that priests would tweek the texts and rubrics of the Missal, often in a liberal direction. I knew a priest who would avoid using masculine pronouns like “his” for God (which annoyed me). If a bishop stops this is this micromanaging?
There's a pretty substantial difference between a bishop stopping priests from doing something that is forbidden (e.g. changing the words in the Missal on the fly) and stopping them from doing things that are expressly permitted (intinction, use of altar rails and kneelers).
The reason that changing the words of the mass are forbidden is because the Pope said so which is a form of micromanaging. Can a Bishop forbid things that a Pope has not expressly forbidden?
Changing the words of the mass is forbidden because it affects the validity of the sacrament. Micromanaging isn't just any discipline, it's obsessive control over those below you.
I didn't think the priests were actually not asking if the bishop is allowed to micromanage them, but rather whether the bishop is allowed to forbid legitimate options in the GIRM, most of which are legitimate options because they are traditional - and tradition actually has some real authority in the Catholic Church, far more than novelty has. Priests have a real responsibility to pass on that tradition, they are not mere functionaries of the bishop, and bishops don't have arbitrary authority over the liturgy of the Church.
In a sense, I agree. Any bishop that merits being micromanaged should probably just be deposed.
If a pastor is pushing the Traddening too fast then a bishop has to put out some "why the rest of you can no longer have nice things without asking me first (and sometimes the answer will be no)" messaging - but the Diocese of Where-I-Live managed to do that without generating multiple (or even one [edit: okay, one]) Pillar articles, leading me to believe that it is not hard to steer the right line between scylla and charybdis.
The Traddening 💀💀💀
Bridget I missed you, merry Christmas 😘
I think I picked up the phrase from Clerically Speaking (great Catholic conversation every six months)
Incidentally, their interview with Ed and JD was what prompted me to subscribe to The Pillar.
Yes how glorious, I needed this phrase
My former pastor once said, following a particularly dumb spat involving parishioners disagreeing angrily about some minor something-or-other, that the most important lessons in life are learned in kindergarten.
The way to steer between Scylla and Charybdis is to listen, be nice, and use your words. As you say, it's not hard. Or at least, it shouldn't be.
Ah, there was at least one Pillar article about the Diocese of Where-We-Both-Live, Bridget. If you search The Pillar along with our former Bishop’s name, you will find it.
Ok, one article :) https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/pittsburgh-diocese-to-regulate-ad-orientem-masses
Definitely not to the level Charlotte has been covered but we didn’t go unnoticed. :-) If I recall correctly, we were pretty early in all this, but you’re correct, that the line was managed better.
What about a pastor who slowly detraddens?
Boil that frog or freeze that frog, as long as it's slow. Sudden temperature shifts cause frogs to complain to their bishop (although most frogs will just jump out of the container).
Real-life frogs, of course, don't stay and boil...they hop out eventually, before it's too late.
(Somebody somewhere apparently wrangled a grant once to check that out...)
The Detraddening. I haven't seen that much given I'm in the Diocese of Where-I-Live, which is a big subscriber to the Traddening, but it will be very curious to encounter it eventually, as is inevitable.
It makes me laugh every time you call it the Traddening. 😂
In principle I agree, but I think the issue here is the speed and scope of +Martin's directives and the clear lack of pastoral sensitivity. Bishops aren't politicians, and newly elevated bishops should not be like a governor who "course-corrects" after unseating someone of the opposite party and just vetoes every prior policy because it had red/blue ink. By many metrics, the Diocese of Charlotte is among the fastest growing and healthiest in the entire country, so a bishop coming in and turning the whole diocese around because he's from a different "party" despite the clear success and growth of the flock is not pastoral AT ALL and is the type of thing the Vatican should take a look at. To the outside observer it looks like +Martin just wants to mold the diocese to his particular theological opinions regardless of who lives there and what their needs are. As another commentor posted when the altar rail letter came out: "Pope Francis reminded us that pastors need to smell of their sheep, It appears that Bishop Martin took one whiff of his flock and gagged".
I would not want + Martin to be my bishop.
I don’t want him to be my bishop, either. And yet, here we are….
We also have to remember that the Holy Spirit works on both sides of the altar. The faithful have the responsibility not to fund the bishops who engage in petty human folly. That will cause them to reconsider the source of their actions. There are plenty of other parts of the Church that need help.
I know from talking to parishioners in Charlotte that some people will continue to go to the rail. Priests will leave the sanctuary and stand in front of the rail, but they don't think they can deny people communion if they kneel at the rail.
So even after the rail is banned, there's still going to be some Communion at the rails. There's potential for things to get really spicy depending on how much of that happens, and how long it goes on.
If parishioners continue to go to the rail, and the bishop has expressly forbid it—and let's say for the sake of argument that the dubias come back with an answer that he can do this—would the parishioners be committing some sort of sin by willfully disobeying the bishop's directives?
He can’t forbid them to receive kneeling, according to higher-level USCCB directives.
Out of pedantic accuracy (my favorite kind!), is there a USCCB directive that clarifies that a bishop cannot *forbid* people from kneeling for Communion; or just that they cannot be *refused Communion* for kneeling? Those seem like somewhat different things
For parishioners who can easily kneel on the floor, maybe? For those who cannot, or for whom it would be a burden, I expect charity trumps the bishop.
I'm feeling for the people of Charlotte, it's worrying to think about how this whole situation is affecting people's hearts as they receive the Lord. How can you be focused on Him if in the back of your mind you're half expecting to be denied communion, or have an awareness that you're doing something forbidden by kneeling and mustn't chicken out at the last second.. so many places to be tempted to distraction and being focused on yourself here.
Is it Canon Law, or Canon Suggestion? That is a real question I have had and have been asking other priests, because I am confused. The consensus among the gen x and older priests whom I spoke to is certainly that liturgical and canon law are just suggestions and basically you do whatever you want at the end of the day. Among millennial priests and younger they say that even if we have to abide by it, the bishop can do whatever he wants - he can dispense from anything and can make any new regulation he wants - so I have the same question as these priests - what is canon law? Ultramontanism on any ideological side is a problem, but what, if any, are the constraints on a bishop? I really don't know and it makes my life as a priest difficult and confusing...
That's a really important question that gets at the heart of Vatican II. The council was (among other things) about decentralizing out of Rome and empowering the bishops to not merely be vicars of the Pope, but to be genuine successors of the apostles. But what happens if you replace one arbitrary ultramontanism in Rome with 1000 arbitrary little ultramontanisms (so to speak) in every chancery? How do balance the tension between empowering bishops while still constraining them from running wild?
That is indeed the question!
I'm sad for those who think canon law or even the moral law are mere suggestions. We pay for it in this life, and their souls will pay for it in the next.
Here is my question though - I thought violating canon or liturgical law was sinful - but other (especially older) priests clearly do not - they are shocked when younger priests don't just - for example - celebrate way more masses in a day than are allowed - they think the good of the people demands it and we are being selfish and using the law (which it seems in their minds is a sort of manual of good practice) to justify it - it is a real difference of understanding - and I am unsure whether I am right...
There is a fine line between pride and true conviction. I recommend you find the place of true conviction with humility. I would read the work of the canonized as the sure path.
For example, a priest lied to the judicial vicar. No saint condones telling a falsehood, even to protect the life of someone, only deception is allowed in particular cases presuming the 3 rules are followed: nobody is injured, the individual did not have a right to the knowledge (which every proper authority has), and no malice in the intent- (through which deception is morally tolerated and not commanded). Can the action of the priest who lied to the judicial vicar be denounced? Yes. Always denounce it. Even if every single priest in the diocese condones it, including the judicial vicar himself, we can know with certainty from those who are with God that the action is not allowed because no saint allows such an action, and it was even clarified by Pope Innocent XI. So we can have certainty in this knowledge. Similarly, you can too.
I urge you to stop listening to others and read the saints. Perhaps you lack any saintly around you. Please fortify yourself in Truth so you may lead others to Christ. I will offer my prayers at my next Mass for you and others who struggle with your uncertainty.
I think I understand the problem.
Every young generation reacts against some previous generation, because that previous generation has been taking things too far in one direction or another, and can't see it, but it's obvious to fresh eyes.
The people who are very old *now* were once very young, and they grew up seeing one thing or another thing done wrong, and they have firmly resolved not to be THAT guy. They will not have THAT particular beam in their eye, they will not worship *that* particular idol, and they will not do that specific wrong thing. The people are laboring under too heavy a burden which has been laid on their backs, or else the people don't even know that some things are a sin. They will teach the next generation the right way to do things and they will *explain* to them what is a sin and what is not a sin and everything will be great as soon as they are in charge and can do this. They will explain what God is really like.
Now some of them, or the people they taught, are the next next generation's fresh new kind of "THAT guy - I'm not going to be him."
Well put. And we Millennials are going to be so *shrekked* when when people start reforming our reforms of the reforms.
Its true - there are always actions and reactions and generational swings - and I don't want to blindly react either - but it does live me with real doubts sometimes...
There is a clause, I think toward the end of canon law, that talks about the good of souls being the primary rule and interpreter of the rest.
I should think though, that for law to be law at all, those exceptions should either be requested of the appropriate authority (which is at least sometimes explicitly stated, for extra Masses it's the bishop) or be an unusual event, without the possibility of contacting the appropriate authority, and presumably have something more than popular preference at stake. I've heard there's a general principle in Italian law that you are trying to match the "mind of the Legislator" rather than the letter of the law, so more a sense of familial authority (which should nevertheless be actually respected...) than the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I think I have now successfully stood on both sides of the question?
But really, how should something be considered even a "manual of good practice" if it is perpetually disregarded? Either it doesn't lay out very good practices, or the disregarders aren't following good practices.
As far as sinful or not, I don't know what the limits are between sin and fault, but I can't imagine it could be considered a virtue unless it's one of those exceptions.
As far as I understand it, the reason judges don't try to go to the mind of the legislator in democracies is that different factions in a legislative assembly might well have different ends in mind - and so people try to figure out stuff like "the original public meaning".
I take the phrase about the salvation of souls being the supreme law to be primarily a interpretative tool - when interpreting the law, resolve any ambiguities by remembering that it is promulgated in order to serve the good of souls.
Then you can also apply it to situations where the application of the law-exactly-as-written would lead to perverse outcomes, but I guess a really Catholic system of law would assume that the formulation of the law is different from the law itself, and such a case really involves a conflict between the formulation of the law and the law itself. (Since an unjust law is no law at all.)
So I think I have a pretty good idea what sort of work the phrase is doing in the context of arriving in a judgment in a court of law, but the really tricky point is how much my private judgment as a pastor or bishop can trump the letter of the law any time I decide that I think it really is better for people if I do things differently.
The extreme case is probably whether I have the right to say "This canon is clearly opposed to the salvation of souls" and decline to apply (or submit to) it at all - this seems clearly opposed to my duty of obedience. But what about "under the specific circumstances of this parish, this canon is clearly opposed to the salvation of souls"?
Canon law is a different critter than the civil law, especially the sort we're used to in the United States (and other countries that inherited the English legal tradition).
I only know a tiny amount compared to proper canon lawyers, but from what I've seen there's often a suppleness to it (or you could call it flexibility, or fuzziness, or any number of other things depending on the situation and mood) that is hard for the American mind to process.
Our default mode, especially in the present day, is to expect everything to be either mandatory or forbidden in the law, with bright red lines defining everything...and to consider, as per the perceptive Simpsons meme, "technically correct" to be the best kind of correct.
And so when we encounter something that follows the well-worn ecclesiastical path of "it really should be *this* way; but if, for pastoral reasons, it seems better to do it *that* way, well...", we're apt to either conclude "woo-hoo! there are no rules! we can do what we want!", or to bolt the door against such chaos by attempting to absolutize away the ambiguities and flexibilities in the rules.
I fear this is so - I lived for years in Italy and became familiar with the way that law of any kind is perceived in non Anglo-Saxon contexts - but my American mind finds it frustrating... My biggest preoccupation is always to make sure I am not doing something morally wrong - and it seems that this at least should be clearer...
I always think of a classic description of the difference between the American and Italian mindsets that, if I recall correctly, came from journalist Beppe Severgnini.
Americans encounter a red light and see a signal to stop.
Italians encounter a red light and consider it an invitation to dialogue.
Ha! I remember someone asking an Italian why there were even lines on the road - and he answered in all sincerity that they were there so that when there was an accident you could tell who was in the wrong!
You mention the traffic light example as a sort of joke, but I’ve seen it as a real example of the difference in philosophy between Common Law traditions (Anglo-Saxon in origin), and Civil Law traditions (Roman in origin, including Canon Law).
Common Law tends to be heavily based on principle and precedent, and applies almost algorithmically: “Is the offense alleged to have occurred? Does it include X, Y, and Z factors from statute or precedent? Can it be proven according to the burden of proof? If ‘yes’ to all the above, then ‘guilty’.” You ran a red light; that’s against the law; and we can prove it. You’re in the wrong.
Civil Law is much more about establishing responsibility in the case of damages or harm. It can go much more like: “Did running the red light injure someone or damage a vehicle? No? Then so what?”
That’s why Civil Law systems often have so many more specific rules and regulations—because they’re often very selectively enforced.
It’s also why Canon Law itself can rely so heavily on “dubia.” It’s essentially a way to clarify when someone believes some kind of harm or damage has been done that needs addressed. In the absence of a complaint, who will enforce it?
I wish Canon Law were better defined and better respected. But tbf it does leave a LOT to interpretation. And it is not the moral law; it don't think it claims to be.
I fear that this may not have been a wise decision. There's a possibility that the response to the dubia could be used as an opportunity to give the bishop the authority to make these changes, and the response could be issued without much oversight from the Pope, such as when they 'clarified' that Bishops couldn't dispense from some of the norms of TC without approval from Rome.
Pope Leo is well aware that this bishop has been doing some questionable things, and being from the US he will understand better than someone from outside the culture what upset it causes when a bishop acts like this. I hope and pray our Pope will be a wise shepherd here.
This is exactly my thought as well and I came here to make a similar comment. I am not so sure this is a good decision by these priests to submit these dubia. This move *could* backfire spectacularly and make things much, much worse. Once questions like these are answered definitively it is going to be near impossible to change the answers, at least any time in the near future. If they don't get the answers they are very obviously hoping for, then what? Bishop Martin will have carte blanche to run roughshod over liturgical practice in the diocese, at least in the near term if he isn't eventually dealt with in another way. This could also have the unintended consequence of emboldening like-minded bishops in other dioceses to make similar moves, and could accelerate their plans.
The main thing that gives me hope now, however, is that Pope Francis is no longer in the picture. If he was still alive I would almost certainly be expecting these priests to get smacked down, hard. But with the winds of change in the Vatican (especially with the consistory discussing liturgy this week) there is at least a chance that they are successful now. But I am still very unsure, and my gut feeling is that this was a very dangerous move by these Charlotte priests that could have serious consequences for other Catholics besides those in their own diocese. I think this is the kind of a risk you only take if you are reasonably certain of the outcome, and I don't think that is absolutely the case, at least not yet. In another time, submitting these dubia might be a good thing to do. To do it now...I am not so sure.
In defense of the priests that submitted the dubia however, they are probably desperate for some relief, and the only other avenue that I would be aware of for them to seek relief, seeking an apostolic visitation, is likely not desirable either due to the low prospects of something happening in a reasonable timeframe. If these dubia do not save their diocese, the only alternative is likely waiting another couple of years for Rome to act, and that is hardly an appealing prospect. I just hope that their desperation does not negatively affect liturgy in the whole Church.
Agreed re: Pope Francis. Under a Leonine papacy, they're more likely to get a better reception--particularly when Leo was telling Martin to slow down back when he was just Cardinal Prevost.
Submitting dubia doesn't mean that Pope Leo will necessarily choose to address them. He may choose to initiate an apostolic visitation, or find another method of addressing the situation without answering anything.
However, the priests' submitting the dubia does suggest that the problems Bp. Martin is having in Charlotte will continue to be news until Pope Leo resolves them somehow. And surely Pope Leo would like for all this hullabaloo to cease?
Given what we've seen from Leo thus far I don't think we'll see an aggressive response one way or the other. I think the worst case scenario for the Priests is that Martin is told to slow his role.
But I guess we're going to find out how much sway Roche still has.
Agreed. You do not ask Rome something unless you're certain they'll back you.
This could clap back with clarifications that affect dioceses where laissez-faire has prevailed.
If Rome says "yes, he can ban the construction of altar rails" - which they might say - it could kill construction goals nationwide.
The only thing they're safe on is probably intinction. Maybe the vestments
+Martin may overestimate his authority, but I suspect theses priests underestimate it. Rome has consistently increased episcopal authority and this might *cause* power creep nationwide rather than check the power abuse of 1 bishop.
Good job, priests. Let's hope Pope Leo does something about this. Forbidding intinction is really an absolute bridge too far.
"There have been rumors that the bishop also plans to introduce additional piecemeal regulations on the liturgy, based on a leaked draft text that would prohibit.......the use of the Latin language"
Does this count as rejecting Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium, specifically) where it says: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."?
Funny, the people that like to call other people VII rejecter schismatics are strangely silent about this one...
Exactly. THIS is what rejection of Vatican II looks like!
Is communion by intinction common? In my diocese it’s understood that this is not the practice. I know it’s extremely common, maybe even the norm, in Eastern rites. But I have never heard of it in regular practice in the Roman Rite.
I just came from an ordinary weekday daily Ordinary Form Mass in a US diocese several states away from Charlotte, and we received communion by intinction there. It was a Spanish language Mass and most of the attendees habitually receive on the tongue whether intinction is happening or not, because that's the custom in the countries they or their parents or grands came from.
The main issue with intinction nowadays is people who don't realize they cannot receive an intincted Eucharist in their hands, but there are a good number of individual parishes where people understand this and intinction is not uncommon there.
my parish's last pastor would do intinction at Holy Thursday Mass. He would wait to see if someone knelt before intincting though. If someone stayed standing and received in the hand, they would receive the Eucharist just in the appearance of bread.
I’m not sure about common but for example in my parish we have a little boy who has various developmental issues and delays and the only way to GET him communion ended up being intinction - I think the sensory issues involved with chewing of the host slash texture or something was preventing him and anyways long story long, this is the only way he can receive Our Lord. If we were in Charlotte would this be banned?? How many other little (or big lol) boys long to receive Jesus and for whatever reason, this is how it can happen. Does this forbidding make room for “non liturgical preference” situations? It sure didn’t read that way 😞
100% of the intinctions I have seen in my parish have been "priest with a terrible cold has a concelebrant or deacon, and does not want to put his mouth on the chalice before them" i.e. none have been to laypeople.
There's a retired priest iny diocese who was formerly Anglican. I've noticed he usually intincts when he is the main celebrant.
In Fort Wayne-South Bend the communicamt is not allowed to do intinction but the priest may distribute the Eucharist that way and I have been to Masses where that was how it was done.
Oh golly people were out there self intincting?! Yikes is that actually permitted ANYwhere?
As Eucharistic ministers we were taught how to prevent someone from doing so. I have seen someone do it but that was long ago. I think most members of the laity know it's not allowed.
Self-intinction by the congregation is not permitted anywhere. EMHCs I know have told me that they are trained to watch out for this and prevent it when they are distributing the Precious Blood. As Sue said it seems like most people at the parishes I frequent know, presumably from being taught in their prep, that they cannot self-intinct, but I've been told of other parishes where it's a recurring issue, probably because it wasn't well communicated or policed in the past so you get a little group in the habit of doing it.
It seems to have fallen out of practice in the last ~10 years (or maybe I've just been lucky in dioceses recently), but, say, within the last 20, I've been at US parishes where I was explicitly instructed/pseudo-required to self-intinct. I wish sacramental prep had covered the opposite!
In the Anglican church of my childhood, intinction by the communicant was actually the norm
But unless you mean Anglican ordinariate that’s not a good example bc it’s not catholic. No Catholic Church or rite or usage permits self communication that I’m aware of?
No yeah definitely not! You asked if that was permitted ANYwhere and I got to remembering is all
There was a bit of a fad Down Under with lay people dipping the host received on the hand afterwards. I think it came out of some migrant communities where intincture on the tongue was routine. (Most of the masses I went to in the Philippines were intincture and reception on the tounge. Neither intincture or reception on the tongue was not routine in Australia in the 1990s and early naughties. It wasn't really a thing until after WYD in 2008 made it visible via the pilgrims and broadcast masses.
It has had to be clarified multiple times that intincutre is for the Priest to do so only, because lots of other people liked 'the dip'. You got a taste of the wine without risking having alcohol on your breath if you got pulled over by the cops.
Not only is it wildly inappropriate for lay people to do, its also GROSS. You don't want anyone's fingers in the communal cup, especially as habits of Covid-hygiene awareness die hard.
The Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is Roman Rite and they distribute via intinction in many parishes.
Yes, but as our liturgy constitutes a particular Use and not the normative Roman Rite, it might not be the best example.
Regardless, in this case, Divine Worship: The Missal's rubrics on this are taken from the GIRM, which presents intinction as a valid option (and Redemptoris Sacramentum goes further by saying it may not be banned by a diocesan bishop), and the prevalence of it is due to this being our custom (it being a somewhat popular practice of some Anglo-Catholics, and no doubt easy grounds to prevent communion in the hand for most communicants).
When the norm is intinction, receiving in the hand becomes near impossible. Two birds with one stone. And of course receiving both species at the rail becomes much easier too. Call it three birds with one stone.
Exactly, but no doubt you'll find some people who'll (unfortunately) try to receive an intincted host on the hand. Good thing intinction properly done is not that popular (or even known) among those likely to do this, besides the self-communicant-intinction folks.
Ha - ya I've seen it a few times when we have visitors. 99% of the time it's just people not understanding which is no big deal and totally understandable. Did have one guy demand to receive in the hand
In my diocese, several parishes use intinction for First Holy Communion. I’ve also been to a parish in a tourist heavy area of the Deep South that is pastored by a Franciscan. Communion is by intinction at a rail. The sanctuary is loaded with candles, Latin is used frequently, and the choir is often a guy with a guitar and a 1970s hymnal. It is a beautiful, wonderful, harmonious mishmash of “here comes everybody.”
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were stridently opposed to intinction.
The Ordinariate near me does it; their Divine Worship being an approved variant of the Roman Rite.
They kneel at the rail and receive on the tongue, obviously.
I don't think it is altogether common. But I regularly distribute via intinction when I say Mass for the Missionaries of Charity.
Intincture is the only way it's distributed when I attend Divine Liturgy, the Priest explains how to recieve it from a spoon for newcomers and that's how it's done - end of debate. That remained constant during Covid and no one to my knowledge no one acquired Covid from it, no spikes of hospital stays . Now there are "Conservative" Catholics from my regular parish who claim Eastern Rite are not REAL Catholics and recieving communion from a married priest is not valid. Interstingly these same "Conservative" Catholics modified their stance on abortion to match Donald Trump's leading me to sometimes wonder what a "Conservative" Catholic is. I personally have no issue with intincture and I think an examination of consciense is the key to valid communion.
My small parish in AL the priest does this if you kneel. He will had you communion if your hand is out, he will place the host on the tongue if you stand but if you kneel, he will provide it by intinction. It's a very small parish so there is not a lot of room.
The fact that the presbyterate included among the dubia questions concerning the proposed-but-withdrawn diktats—e.g., intinction, vesting prayers, etc.—leads me to think that they sincerely believe the rumors are true: +Martin is going to try to slowly roll out these impositions on his flock.
I have no reason to doubt their perception that these are deeply held convictions and intentions of the bishop.
But if that is the case, such a man—who rails against Latin in the Latin Church, who obsesses over banning silent prayers, who desires to tear up the inheritance of his flock—can hardly be qualified to remain [the] bishop [of a diocese].
> can hardly be qualified to remain a bishop
But you can't untoast the toast (🎶 https://youtu.be/mAAnGjjCI5M?feature=shared around 1:10) since the operation of making someone a bishop is not a reversible reaction.
By no longer remaining a bishop, I meant no longer holding an office over a diocese, not somehow being “unbishoped.”
The itinerant +Strickland comes to mind. And I’m sure there’s an auxiliary bishop role waiting to be filled somewhere in the world if that is more politick—Ketchikan, perhaps.
If I were a bishop, I would not mind controversy and division if it resulted from me as bishop standing with immigrants, the unborn, or feeding the poor. But creating space for resentment and anger in the community as the result of prohibiting intinction, etc, seems counterproductive to the purpose of being a bishop in the first place.
I had a similar thought (and made a similar comment) on a story about Charlotte last month:
“I would have to think my cause was pretty righteous before I went out, guns blazing, Athanasius contra mundum, against a hunger strike(!!!) of my own laity, to impose my will like this. (At least I hope).
But for what amounts to a mere preference? A whim? Yikes.”
My God, are they on a hunger strike?
A comment on the linked article below from a self-professed local noted that:
“Also, there was a three-day fast/protest outside the diocesan office during the First Week of Advent. The good bishop didn't even bother to reply to the letters sent to him about it.”
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/charlotte-bishop-bans-altar-rails
> “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states ...
Indeed. Why does this bishop hate Vatican II so much? Why is he clinging to the past and rejecting the present moment? I will ask Pope St. Paul VI to pray for him.
Can't shake the sense that Bishop Martin is on his way to becoming an auxiliary of Atlanta.
Edit to add: There is, of course, always the Bishop Holley option of simply being removed and disappeared.
From your lips to God's ears, with apologies to the good people of Atlanta.
This is, sadly, a fool's errand. If a group of influential cardinals cannot get a responsa ad dubium, the clergy in Charlotte are taking a total moonshot gamble. Regardless of whether or not they get a response, it won't matter at all: +Martin is in charge in Charlotte, and it's clear he's not going anywhere regardless of his conduct or choices.
What will happen if the responses come back and totally dismantle +Martin's position? I'll tell you what will happen: diddly squat! To paraphrase Jackson: "Rome has made its decision; now let it enforce it."
+Martin will ignore the responsa, continue to press his mandates, and viciously retaliate against any clergy bold enough to point to a piece of paper and say "b-but the responsa!" Does you think +Martin cares about what the responsa might say when he openly disregards the GIRM? Gimme a break!
The faithful in Charlotte will groan under the now-amplified weight of "it doesn't matter who's right, and what we do won't make a difference in alleviating this bishop's barbaric buffoonery." It's clear that this will remain unchanged unless (and only unless) +Martin is personally removed from his see by Pope Leo, and it's clear that's just not going to happen.
I wish more people would realize that words on a paper are not going to save us. Power and action matter. The only other viable option here is open disobedience on the whole of the presbyterate. And Catholics may not like to hear this, but disobedience works, it's rewarded! If the Eparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, the German Synod, and the People's Republic of China are any indications... if you are disobedient you will be given every leniency and be sent a thousand emissaries to cater to your demands.
Why don't you ask they Syro-Malarbar Church how 'mass presbyterate disobedience' is going for them? The Pillar has (the only) English Language coverage of that ongoing saga if you haven't already come across it.
Ah yes, the burnings in effigy? The riots? The burning of letters? You know what they got for that? Not a swift hand setting them aright, no. They were given several different special emissaries and envoys over the course of several months. They got extensions. And they largely get what they want. The fact that the Eparchy isn't under interdict right now (and all those clergy laicized) is itself a sign that, regardless whether you think it's upright or not, an exercise of mass disobedience is de facto acceptable and rewarded with leniency.
In any sane sensible governance, the Eparchy would've been swiftly cracked down on long ago. Same with the German Synodal Way. They're both getting a white-glove treatment for disobedience greater (by orders of magnitude) than whatever the Charlotte diocesan presbyterate would do.
Nihil desperandum.
This is a new Pope, and we have good reason to believe that he cares about ALL the faithful, desires authentic unity among us and is tactful. Hope is a virtue!
> Power and action matter.
If you are really the son of God, throw yourself down etc.
> disobedience works, it's rewarded
surely you will *not* die
To understand things as they are, and not as we would wish them to be, is an exercise of the great gift of God that is our Reason. Blissful delusion is a rejection of the gift of Reason.
You insult me for my very reasonable assessment of the current status quo by comparing me to the faithless hordes that mocked Christ. Is this the "always be charitable" comments policy maxim I am so regularly chided over? Yet you didn't say I my observation was incorrect or unfounded...
> by comparing me to the faithless hordes that mocked Christ
Not to the faithless hordes. No. They asked him to *come* down. You will be much more upset at me when you find the right verse.
I was taking a more charitable interpretation, thinking surely you would not compare me to Satan for a mere genuine, if frank, assessment. And because I felt confident you'd be more perceptive than to make a clever attempt at poorly appealing to a scripture reference about a clever attempt at poorly appealing to a scripture reference.
> surely you would not compare me to Satan
There's one more place which will make a neat set of three (a hat trick): you've identified "throw yourself down" in the desert temptations, and "come down from the cross" at the crucifixion; I will complete the set by pointing out Peter taking Jesus aside and rebuking Jesus for having said that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die and be raised on the third day. You have the same failing as Peter (cheer up; he became Pope, after all, and was crucified himself as our proof that now he understood). You are not looking at things as God does (God looks CRAZY to us; the cross is a stumbling block to the wise) but as man does.
The problem is that these all appear to be disputable questions. The dubia system is only really going to work well when you know the answer to the questions beyond a doubt, the point of the dubia being to force compliance.
If there is a decent chance the dubia is going to be used against you, it's foolish to use it.
"If there is a decent chance the dubia is going to be used against you, it's foolish to use it."
-I have my doubts about that position.
I think it's much too early to say with any confidence that "it's clear he's not going anywhere regardless of his conduct or choices." Pope Leo does not strike me as a guns-blazing kind of pope, and I think, particularly as a canon lawyer, he has more regard for the law and due process than Pope Francis had. I think it's good that these dubia have been presented, as part of the official documentation with the appropriate dicastery about the issues Bishop Martin is causing the faithful in Charlotte.
I think that's also a totally fair assessment, and I largely agree with you. I just think that, all these things considered, I have less confidence than most others that this course of action will produce any significant improvement, and that if Pope Leo hasn't asked +Martin to take a temporary leave of absence at this point (let alone step aside completely), it's unlikely that he'll do it in the future barring serious whistleblowing-level misconduct. The lack of a "guns blazing" papal disposition is actually to Charlotte's detriment in this case.
On what grounds could Pope Leo have asked Bishop Martin to take a leave of absence? To me, that would look like extrajudicial micromanagement by the pope. I think a possibly slower but more by-the-book,, carefully documented handling of this case could set a good legal precedent for Pope Leo’s pontificate. It will take longer, but it would have a much firmer foundation, less likely to be overturned later on. I get the desire for a quick removal to send a clear message, but I don’t think that is a healthy environment for the church, and I think Pope Leo wants to lower the temperature, not raise it.