In Brief...

The Holy Father’s Intentions

Pope John Paul II has announced the following general and missionary intentions for April and May 2001:

April

That consecrated people, answering the call of their particular vocation, may radiate the spirit of the Gospel beatitudes in the present-day world.

That in Rwanda the recently celebrated centennial of the Church may reinforce Christian brotherhood and speed national reconciliation.

May

That refugee women, supported and respected, may find the strength to overcome the violence and suffering to which they are subjected.

That the challenge of present-day urban culture may kindle in believers a new missionary ardor in the cities.

CUF’s New Episcopal Advisor

CUF welcomes Auxiliary Bishop Joseph F. Martino of Philadelphia to its episcopal advisory board. His Excellency was ordained to the priesthood in 1970 and to the episcopal college in 1996. He earned his A.B. in philosophy from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in 1967 and his S.T.L. (Licentiate in sacred theology) from the Pontifical Gregorian University in 1971. He received further degrees in Church history at the Gregorian University between 1977-82.

Bishop Martino served on special assignment to the canonization cause of St. Katharine Drexel. His current special assignments, among others, have him sitting on several committees of the NCCB, including the committees on evangelization and ecumenical and interreligious affairs.

CUF is privileged to have an episcopal advisor with such a distinguished record of service and fidelity to the Church.

GIRM 2000: Early Reports Incorrect
Clearing Up the Confusion

CUF’s Information Services department received many calls stating that priests and laity are saying that the Church is now forbidding genuflection before receiving Holy Communion—all on the authority of a newspaper article. CUF Information Specialist David Utsler looked into the issue.

The Latin edition of a new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, otherwise known as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM 2000), was approved by John Paul II last year. This most recent edition of the GIRM has not yet taken effect, but it will along with the publication of the revised Roman Missal expected in the coming months.

In anticipation of the GIRM 2000, a handful of articles appeared from the Catholic News Service (CNS) that led to much confusion. Except for a couple unfortunate blunders, most of the information in these articles was accurate. One such blunder was the claim that GIRM 2000 specifically forbids genuflecting before receiving communion.

GIRM 2000 speaks to the issue of the faithful receiving Communion primarily in no. 160, which quotes almost verbatim no. 34 of the document Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery), issued by the Congregation of Rites in 1967. This can be summed up as follows: The Church permits Holy Communion to be received either kneeling or standing. The episcopal conference should determine which way it is received throughout their dioceses. If the faithful receive kneeling, no other sign of reverence is necessary, as kneeling itself is a sign of reverence. If the faithful receive standing, it is strongly recommended that some other sign of reverence be made.

No particular sign of reverence is commanded. It is only recommended. But, there is no sign of reverence that is prohibited. In accordance with Church law, a bishop, for the sake of uniformity, may determine or limit what signs are made. Even so, the language here indicates that whether a particular sign of reverence is made is the option of the individual communicant. In light of the fact that the Church “strongly recommends” that a sign be made, it hardly seems reasonable that signs of reverence are at the same time universally prohibited.

From the primary place that the GIRM 2000 addresses the reception of Holy Communion (no. 160), it is clear that genuflecting is not prohibited. It is not even mentioned. How, then, do the new reports deduce this prohibition from no. 274 of the new GIRM?

No. 274 is in a section that gives general directives for genuflecting and bowing. It instructs when and in what manner the ministers in the liturgy are to genuflect or bow. One sentence says that all are to genuflect before the Most Holy Sacrament “unless walking in a procession” (nisi processionaliter incedant). No. 160, referred to above, says that the faithful “as a rule, approach in a procession.” Thus, it is reasoned that the faithful are here specifically prohibited from genuflecting.

However, the context of no. 274 refers to the carrying out of liturgical duties by priests, deacons, and other ministers (acolytes, altar servers, etc.), and it refers particularly to the tabernacle. This provision is not a reference, even generally, to the Communion line of the faithful. To see the word “procession” in these two passages and to conclude that the meaning is identical in each, regardless of context, is simply mistaken.

This question was recently posed to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS). Question two of protocol number 2372/00/L asks: Does the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments intend by nos. 160-62, 274, or elsewhere in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, that the people may no longer genuflect or bow as a sign of reverence to the Blessed Sacrament immediately before they receive Holy Communion? Response: Negative.

What if your priest or bishop informs you that the Church forbids you to genuflect? How should you respond? Call CUF’s Information Services department at (800) MY-FAITH (693-2484). CUF’s research on questions regarding GIRM 2000 is available upon request.

Dioceses Say “No Funds” for NCEA Gathering

The dioceses of Pittsburgh and Peoria are drawing the line when it comes to giving center stage to one of the Church’s most outspoken critics, and more dioceses may follow. Sr. Joan Chittister is slated as the keynote speaker for the National Catholic Educational Association’s April convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Renowned for her advocacy of women’s ordination, homosexual relationships, and other issues at odds with Church teaching, she will deliver the keynote address entitled, “The Spirituality of Leadership.” Last year’s convention in Baltimore attracted 15,000, according to the NCEA.

Bishop John Myers of Peoria has prohibited diocesan funds from being used to sponsor participation in or to pay for any expenses associated with an educator’s attendance at the event. The diocese will also not grant continuing education credit to those who attend. Peoria’s vicar general Msgr. Steven Rohlfs said, “Unfortunately, this year we are not assured that authentic Catholic teaching will be presented throughout the programs of the convocation.” He pointed out that such decisions are not necessarily tied to Sr. Chittister. “[I]f anyone who takes positions that are at variance with the Holy Father were to be a major speaker, we would have the same difficulty.”

Our Sunday Visitor reported that Fr. Kris Stubna, Pittsburgh’s secretary of education, had concerns about the program’s formational character. “We will only support a program that is going to form our teachers in ways that support our vision and objectives for Catholic education in the diocese, and those are absolutely in total conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the teachings of the Church.”

Sr. Chittister believes she is simply “questioning” Church teaching in a “faithful” way “in the light of new experience, new information, and new circumstances.” Sr. Chittister told Our Sunday Visitor that “there is a huge spectrum of opinion on almost every separate subject in the Roman Catholic Church from military chaplaincies to the pacifism of Pax Christi, from Catholics United for the Faith to Call to Action.”

What Sister fails to mention is that Catholics United for the Faith isn’t advocating its “own opinion,” as if it’s one legitimate opinion among many. CUF does indeed offer an opinion—that of which St. Augustine spoke when he said, “Rome has spoken. The case is closed.”

Pro-Abortion to the Core

Catholic Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., calls abortion rights a “core value.” This core value prompted Kennedy and 41 of his colleagues to vote against confirming former Senator John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Ashcroft’s Christian values, most particularly his opposition to abortion, were at odds with the core values of Catholic Senators Daschle, Dodd, Leahy, Harkin, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Murray, Kennedy, and Kerry. When it comes to being trustworthy to uphold our laws, it’s still okay to call oneself a Christian, but just don’t act like a Christian—don’t be a Christian. That was the essence of the argument leveled against Ashcroft. It also signaled to President Bush that any Supreme Court nominee who opposed abortion, irrespective of his or her qualifications or positions on any other issues, will not pass the pro-abortion litmus test.

The U.S. bishops’ 1998 document, Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, had some important things to say to Catholic politicians: “In a special way, we call on U.S. Catholics, especially those in positions of leadership—whether cultural, economic, or political—to recover their identity as followers of Jesus Christ and to be leaders in the renewal of American respect for the sanctity of life . . . Direct abortion is never a morally tolerable option. It is always a grave act of violence against a woman and her unborn child . . . . Since the entry of Catholics into the U.S. political mainstream, believers have struggled to balance their faith with the perceived demands of democratic pluralism. As a result, some Catholic elected officials have adopted the argument that, while they personally oppose evils like abortion, they cannot force their religious views onto the wider society. This is seriously mistaken on several key counts. First, regarding abortion, the point when human life begins is not a religious belief but a scientific fact—a fact on which there is clear agreement even among leading abortion advocates. Second, the sanctity of human life is not merely Catholic doctrine but part of humanity’s global ethical heritage, and our nation’s founding principle. Finally, democracy is not served by silence. Most Americans would recognize the contradiction in the statement, ‘While I am personally opposed to slavery or racism or sexism I cannot force my personal view on the rest of society.’ Real pluralism depends on people of conviction struggling vigorously to advance their beliefs by every ethical and legal means at their disposal” (original emphasis).

CUF members should be concerned for the salvation of Catholic politicians, the scandal their actions cause the faithful, the ecumenical and evangelistic damage incurred, the violence their position on abortion engenders in society, and the future generations who will be unjustly deprived of the fundamental right to life if abortion is allowed to remain a “core value.”

CUF has a FAITH FACT that offers guidelines on this important topic. Call (800) MY-FAITH (693-2484) to request a copy or click here to the FAITH FACT.

Click here to view past issues.