Joe Bidens Forehead Makes An Appearance

Did Obama think Biden’s smudge/cross was a fly and try to swat it?

Yes, but what lies behind that forehead? That is what mystifies me.

I have a friend from Lutheran-dominated northern Germany, who had never seen ashes before he moved to the US. He thought aliens had landed.

I work for a multi-national company, with many Indian and Chinese employees. Ash Wednesday always gives me an opportunity to explain Christianity to them. Nothing like dirt on your forehead to ignite conversation.

Sir, if you wish to be a faithful priest, you will not encourage the faithful to think ill of their bishop. That is not the way of Christ.

M.Z.,

I believe Father Fitzpatrick was making a general statement in regards to Holy Communion.

But to the point of recieving ashes on the forehead, I’m in agreement with you, I don’t believe there are no restrictions to receiving the ashes.

Question:

Can non-Catholics receive the ashes?

Can non-Catholics receive the ashes?

Yes. I think our Ash Wednesday mass even made a point of saying anyone is welcome to receive ashes.

When I was in Florida a friend of mine who was a Methodist minister would go to get ashed.

Ryan Haber:

What you say is true in the case of a bishop who is not scandalizing and dividing the faithfrul. As it is, I don’t agree.

When a bishop’s public actions are scandalous, the scandal must be resisted and repaired as much as possible. Archbishop Burke has published a full exposition, explaining precisely WHY and HOW Archbishop Wuerl (who is named by Burke) and other bishops are scandalizing the faithful by their refusal to obey Canon 915. Note that I said “obey,” not “enforce.” While Canon 915 has to do with the Eucharist, Joe Biden, as a person who is notoriously ineligible to receive the Eucharist, is also perpetrating a public scandal by flaunting ashes and in general posing as a practicing Catholic. All bishops and priests who are in a position to stop him, or at least to correct him, and thus lessen the deception and scandal, but choose not to do so, are accomplices in scandalizing the Church and society.
Read:
http://tinyurl.com/canon915
http://tinyurl.com/pont915

I would like to point out that this so-called “Fr Vincent Fitzpatrick” is unlikely a priest and unlikely someone with that name. The famous priest with that name is dead, and I think he is putting that name to shame. I would like to ask where he is a priest of and who his Bishop is.

“Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick” are you a priest or not? Who is your bishop? Do you know there are canons against pretending to be a priest, if you are not one?

I honestly can’t see how seeing the Biden sporting ashes scandalizes anyone. Although it would be of benefit to the faithful if the bishops would use their shepherding powers more forcefully at times when addressing Catholic leaders who actively support abortion, euthenasia, torture, etc., ashes are a sign of repentence and thus an acknowledgement that we are sinners. Further, any practicing Catholic knows that lots of people show up to get ashes on Ash Wednesday who won’t show up again until Easter, if then. How they’d be scandalized by the fact that a politician who does not follow Church teaching is seen with ashes escapes me.

but there are more Martin Luthers and Girolamo Savonarolas

Oy!

A man gets burned at the stake for heresy once — once!! — and for that you see fit to yoke him with Martin Luther?

No, there’s just a difference between what I call respect, and what you do.

In my view, a criticism that doesn’t contain vulgar language, that doesn’t question personal motives or judges a person’s soul, that addresses a legitimate concern, is a respectful criticism.

I might also add, doesn’t raise the irrelevant issue of a person’s past instead of simply addressing the merits of a point or argument.

And if we don’t have the right to make a respectful criticism, then what are we? Are we men?

I don’t know what you would consider such. I hope “respect” means more than “keep your mouth shut and do what you are told.”

“Just be quiet and humbly submit to all authority, no matter how outrageous, sacrilegious, or obscene. Don’t raise questions and don’t encourage fellow Catholics to do likewise. Just be quiet.”

Seems you presume much there, and misrepresenting Catholic understanding of authority and respect. And misrepresenting what others are saying in respect to how to deal with issues of concern.

As for addressing a person’s past, it is important if the habit of the past remains and the person has yet to deal with that habit.

Respectful criticism is good; your rant wasn’t respectful, nor was this “Fr Vincent’s”.

Actually, Tom, I rather appreciate Savonarola, at least as an historical figure, if not as a role model. Lol.

—

And Joe Hargrave, none of that is what I said. Your parody of me makes me think that you have not got an honest, rational response.

The importation of American political agenda into this particular conversation is entirely your own doing. I couldn’t care less about the Democrats or Republicans. We do the Church a great disservice by importing particular political paradigms and agendas into her way of thinking and living. We are supposed to be exporting our values into the world. Of course there is a legitimate time and place to express concerns about the life of the Church; the American way of vocal, organized dissent is very appropriate to the American democracy, but very inappropriate to the Catholic Church.

Vitriol and mockery is never constructive, and is positively unchristian.

For the record, my challenge to “Fr. Vincent” was to identify himself. I was echoing Henry Karlson, who like me, you, Tito Edwards, and numerous others, posts only under our true identities. Doing so is a sign of integrity. Taking a pseudonym for public debate, particularly in a place where speaking your mind isn’t a shooting crime, is not a mark of integrity.

As for me, I will obey Christ. He, as God-in-flesh, took great liberties with the Pharisees and had authority to do so. He never pretended that we should do likewise. Rather he commanded us:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)

And Joe, if you read the accounts of Brigid of Sweden or Catherine of Siena, I think you will find their words both more compelling and more respectful in addressing directly, not snarking on a blog, the men God had placed in authority over them. We have given up faith that God can work conversion through us if we turn from our prayers to ridiculing and backbiting on a blog that the intended victims don’t even read in the first place.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Henry K.,

I understand and we’ll monitor him for now.

To be on the safe side I’ll refer to him as a priest.

Do Eastern Catholics have Ash Wednesday on their liturgical calendars?

That is cool!

Joe,

There is something between silence and vitriol. The fact that silence isn’t acceptable doesn’t mean that vitriol is acceptable. And I am not sure you are right that silence is an unacceptable option.

We certainly need to know when to be mild and when to be strong. The two aren’t contrary, coincidentally. Jesus, never weak, called himself “gentle and lowly in heart,” (Mt 11:29-30). Furthermore, St. James writes, “Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God,” (Ja 1:19-20).

We are supposed to follow Christ as an example, but not without qualification. After all, we are called to be his disciples, and not Him. Anyone here trying following Christ on foot over the Sea of Galilee lately? Lolol.

Commenting on the life of the Church isn’t about education or not being peasants; I commended the examples of medieval saints who commented very vocally on the life of the Church precisely because you mentioned that medieval saints did so. I only added specific names and mentioned that they made their criticisms respectfully and in a manner otherwise appropriate.

You’re right, Joe, kinda – my original concern with “Fr. Vincent” was how he did what he did. Voicing concern about the state of the Church or about our bishops or even a particular bishop – that’s all legitimate. The way he did it was disrespectful. His psuedonymity is a perfectly legitimate additional concern on the same matter of how he undertakes legitimate actions. If he wishes to object publicly to something another man, whose name is publicly known to the world, let him at least do so with his own proper name likewise publicly known.

You wrote that you are only interested in the arguments; if by that you mean “Fr Vincent’s” original post, I believe you are stretching the definition of “argument.”

As Henry Karlson wrote, given the shared name of an earlier, deceased priest, the radically different tone from pretty much anything any priest I’ve ever known has written, and his sudden silence when asked for credentials, I think “Fr Vincent” is itself a stretch.

I’m sorry, Joe, but I do not think that you will convince me that the kind of comment “Fr Vincent” made constitute the productive or virtuous response of a Christian man to seeing a bishop derelict in his duty.

At Mass last night, I had quite a few who came forward for ashes that, at communion, came up for a blessing instead the bread. Every oak began as a tiny seed.

I understand that among at least some Hispanics, there is a belief that you will die within a year if you don’t receive ashes on Ash Wednesday. Has anyone else heard that?

Hey Joe,

I’m glad we’re both maintaining or regaining civility. I found myself irritated, and have been praying, and think that two men who love the Church as she is can come to some sort of understanding about how to address her features that need, well, let’s just say, more love.

Meekness, courage, mildness, and strength aren’t contrary to each other. They can’t be, because they are both virtues, and as you note, reconcile in an absolute sense. That being true, they are always reconcilable in the particulars, since the particulars depend upon the absolute. It takes a great deal of sanctity to reconcile apparent opposites – which Christ did in everything he did: always strong, always gentle; always direct, always discreet; always active, always recollected. These things only seem to us to be at odds with each other because we do not understand them deeply enough, we do not know what is at their heart.

We set aside one virtue for another at great peril to losing them all.

“Anyone here trying following Christ on foot over the Sea of Galilee lately?”
Well, forgive me if I’m not as amused by your joke as you are 🙂

Sure. But I think my point still stands. We follow Christ in one sense, in another sense, we are each called to blaze our own trail, to follow his light in our own circumstances. Recourse to WWJD isn’t terribly helpful if the question “What would Jesus do?” is precisely what needs answering. Lolol.

I agree that people uninformed in a matter shouldn’t discuss it, and those informed should freely admit the point at which their information ends. I wasn’t saying that “Fr Vincent” didn’t know anything, but that he make his contribution to the discussion badly.

But since we’re on the topic, “Fr Vincent” clearly has not been following news in the DC area. If he had, he would know more. Archbishop Wuerl, whom “Fr Vincent” thinks something of a weakling or liberal intent on punishing anyone with testosterone, has been publicly sparing with the city council because of its increasingly militant and intrusive laws about gay “marriage”. Most recently, they have passed a law prohibiting discrimination in adoption services based on the sexes of a “married” couple. Yesterday the Archbishop and Catholic Charities shut down the Church’s adoption agency here because we cannot comply with the terms of the wicked law in question. This action followed months of wrangling and being vilified over the Church’s refusal to comply with another law requiring spousal benefits for gay “married” couples – I believe that case is now pending in federal court. These aren’t the acts of spineless cowards.

As for Fr. V,
“he way he did it was disrespectful.”
In what way, beyond his crack about “testosterone”?

“Other than that, how was the theatre, Mrs. Lincoln?” Lol. Sorry, another bad joke, but meant in good fun. His general approach of smearing the archbishop is hardly respectful, and fits in better with the secularist MSM’s approach than with a Christian’s. He also wrote, “According to Abp. Wuerl, promoting mass murder is NOT a sin,” based upon evidence from which it hardly follows.

“Actually, I mean more his second post, in which he built upon his initial point and included references. That looked like an argument to me.”

Fair enough. His first one has been a show-stopper for me, which is the principle rhetorical problem with such posts. It is a show-stopper for me because of the more issues underlying it, and so on. Thank you for your compliment, too. I continue to find you an honorable gentleman.

I think that one of the archbishop’s more admirable and useful qualities in a place as political as DC, though one least likely to endear him to his allies, are his tact, deliberation, and moderation. Fools rush in, and Archbishop Wuerl is no fool; but nor is he a coward, or opposed to the truth, or seeking to undermine the Church.

One good reason to reserve judgment of the actions of our superiors is that, just like our parents, they often know things – either experience or concrete facts – that we do not, cannot know. Though I certainly do not understand the actions of many of our bishops, I can trust that they know more than I do, and I can – God help me if I cannot – trust that God has put them in authority over me, and not the reverse, for my sanctification and theirs.

There is some consolation in that, I hope.

When in conscience I must challenge a clergyman, just as with a brother, it is always best to do so in private, even if the cause of my concern is public. That is, after all, how our Lord instructed us to handle such things. It’s all the more important because any semblence of rebelliousness causes only further scandal.

It has become a useful spiritual habit of mine to write a letter of support to bishops when they get bad press for doing good things. I’ve written a number of such letters, and am deeply impressed always to have received a personal response.

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

…getting back to the original post.

I haven’t watched the video yet but I often get the same response from self proclaiming Catholics at work.

“You have something on your forehead, oh, Ash Wednesday?. Oh-ya I knew that…”

Joe,

I think the central point of our disagreement is ecclesiological after all.

“This may be true, but as opposed to earlier times, there is nothing they know that we cannot also know.”

Joe, nothing could be further from the truth. There is TONS of stuff that we should NOT know as Christians. Canon law requires bishops to keep a safety box with such documents, literally called a secret archives, for his eyes and the eyes of his general vicars only – and their eyes only on a need to know basis. It has nothing to do with our education level, our rights, or the times we live in. It has to do with discretion – perhaps the virtue most sorely lacking in contemporary American culture, and therefore probably in most of us as individuals as well.

“If those responsible for promulgating and enforcing laws do not themselves respect them, then by example and inference they argue that there is really only ONE law; that the strong dominate the weak.”

I fully agree. It is not manifest to me that this description applies to the present situation. Moreover, “Fr Vincent” said nothing of anything remotely like it.

My bishop is not answerable to me. That is a fundamental difference between life in the Church and life in a representative democracy. They just aren’t at all. They are accountable to Jesus Christ, and he will do justice upon them.

“We ought to be informed and involved as Catholics, as we ought to be as citizens.”

Again, no. We ought to be informed and involved, but in a very different way than citizens do. We are not citizens of the Church, but sheep in Christ’s flock. I am not advocating a “pray, pay, and obey,” mentality, and tire of the cliche. That has never gone over well with laypeople. I think an angry nun in the sixties invented that one, Joe.

But we must be very markedly different from the world in how we do so many things.

“If those responsible for developing, implementing and enforcing rules do not abide by them, then all you have is a naked, raw, exercise of power.
This is not order, this is not respect, this is not stability and proper hierarchy. This is an affront to our dignity as creatures endowed with reason and moral sense.”

I fully agree with you. I do not think that this is what is happening.

All the best.

Ryan,

“There is TONS of stuff that we should NOT know as Christians.”

Maybe on specific matters, sure – “need to know” is usually about the details of specific cases.

What should be obvious here, though, is that we are talking about what is required from bishops, and what is required from lay people. All Fr. V and others bring up is their duty with relation to canon law, and more broadly, their general obligation to avoid scandals.

In that sense, and yes, in stark contrast to the situation many years ago, there we absolutely can know.

“Moreover, “Fr Vincent” said nothing of anything remotely like it.”

I wasn’t responding to him, though – I was responding to you. And what you seem to be saying at times is that authority is its own justification.

I said “seem to be”; its how it might be interpreted. And that is why I brought it up, not by way of accusation, but simply to reinforce the main idea.

” I think an angry nun in the sixties invented that one, Joe.”

Invented what? That we ought to be informed and involved? We ought to be. It may be the only defense mechanism we have left.

“I do not think that this is what is happening.”

It happens every time someone is told to be quiet and take orders without question. Reason exists to be used, even in the Church. I agree that it is often used in combination with rudeness and disrespect, because people who feel or know they are right also feel entitled to be haughty. This is a failing and it should be admonished.