12 April 2012

Hoy es Jueves

No, jueves. And I am back from a tour of one of the finest holding facilities in mid-Missouri.  To the disappointment of some, I was, as they say in Monopoly, "just visiting".


By now you have likely read on other sites the news of Cardinal Burke's recent interview where he states the truth.  Wait, what?  Oh, of course, I should be more specific, since that describes pretty much every interview he gives.  I mean about the inability of Catholic employers to provide health care coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients for their employees.  Just in case, here is a link, and here is the money excerpt:


Q:  “So a Catholic Employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be,in a sense, cooperating with the sin… the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation”because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

Let me ask you this question, and you can respond in the combox.  If you are a qualified moral theologian, or my spiritual director, I'll pretty much beg you to respond in the combox.

If a Catholic employer is fortunate enough to employ only Catholics at his enterprise, and all of them follow the Church's teachings regarding contraception and the like, does this employer need to worry about whether the plan covers contraception, etc., or not?  Does it matter simply that he knows no one will use the coverage, or can he seek agreements by employees not to use it?  Actually, Cardinal Burke, if you are reading, feel free to respond.  


While you're here, could you also respond to UCLX?

And now back to our scheduled programming...

April 15 also approaches, which is the mysterious "deadline" for the SSPX to respond to a communication listing (we think) problems (someone in) Rome has with the SSPX's previous response to the (so-called) doctrinal preamble to the rumored regularization of status (rumored to be) offered by Rome.  I think you can tell by the way I phrased this that I have no idea what is to be expected, except to pray for God's will to be done, as Bishop Fellay has asked.


Any second-time reader undoubtedly knows I am all in favor of regularization.  In fact, I think the Pope should just announce it-- he is the Pope, and not only does he not need the permission of any progressive bishop he does not need the permission of the SSPX itself.  What are they going to do, say,"We disagree?"  Sorry.  The Holy Father could simply announce a personal prelature, an ordinariate, an apostolic administration, whatever.  And a radical sanation of all marriages, absolutions, confirmations of any SSPX priest and, Voila!  But, since the process has taken us where it has, the Holy Father can, with his characteristic charitable generosity that has marked his efforts with the Society from the beginning, declare their response to be acceptable and do the deal.


As an aside, if he uses the occasion to elevate Monsignors Wach and/or Schmitz to the episcopacy, so much the better.


Rorate Caeli has a guest post by Come de Previgny, that gives one take on the matter.  One point I thought was nails considers guarding against unreasonable expectations of immediate victory over modernism the moment recognition takes place.  This is because the "conservatives", or those that oppose modernists (even a little) as a broad group of different types, are far from united:



A second illusion, it seems to me, comes from the fact that many souls believe, often in order to ease one's own family arguments, that all conservative forces will unite in order to transform the world. Reality once again brings us back to the ground, because these groups assemble, on one side, biritualists, for whom the new Mass is sacred, and, on the other, Traditionalists, who consider it dangerous. One man responsible for an Ecclesia Dei community told me once that he thought the Society of Saint Pius X included within it healthy members and dangerous elements... Harmony will take some time to be established, and the [opposing] paths of the Chartres's pilgrimages will keep crossing for some time.

In the past, I have written about the difficulties that so-called conservative novus ordo devotees and traditional Mass devotees have in relating to each other.  Every step along the way back to traditional Catholicism in the larger Church will force the conservative to look in the mirror, and the process will take time.  I am firmly convinced that, in the end, all of the "reform of the reform" proponents will come to the conclusion that this is just another way of inorganically manufacturing the liturgy, and is doomed to failure.


Finally, the wait continues on the CDF appointment.  


So much is at stake in the next few weeks, and so much could be gained or lost that it should prompt us all to fervent prayer.


Happy Easter to all of you.

1 comment:

DeborahJ said...

I wish I was qualified to speak on the the subject of what is morally required of Catholic employers. I do have a couple of questions related to your post. How has the Catholic church handled the birth control situation in countries where there is already state paid and regulated health care? Americans are frequently so focused on their own selves that they don't look to how things have already worked or not worked in other countries. I haven't the time to research it, and I am assuming you already know the answer.

My other question has to do with SSPX. I have heard such mixed information on it that I do not know what to believe. Does SSPX think that V2 is wrong and the pope is wrong and all popes since V2 are not valid? Or am I thinking of another group? If a group disagrees with the authority of the Pope, doesn't that make them protestant?