Lately in Rome, the city where rumors are often reliable news,murmurshave been circulating that the Vatican may soon impose a more rigorous edict of suppression for the Traditional Latin Mass, and perhaps for other rites as well (e.g., the sacraments and divine office).
Should such an edict appear, it will once again raise two major questions of “practical theology” for universal debate, namely: (a) Does the Roman Pontiff have authority to prohibit the offering or attendance of the traditional Roman Rite? (b) If the pope were to declare such a prohibition (validly or not), would the faithful be obliged in conscience to comply, per the virtue of holy obedience?
In lieu of an extensive theological treatment, we might engage the simple wisdom of any First Communicant and “look it up in the catechism.”
Since it was announced, critics of the National Eucharistic Congress have expressed concern that the July event, which coincides with the Republican National Convention, would be co-opted by politics.
A Mass celebrated by a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter in Zagreb, Croatia. Servus Tuus via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0).
Some have speculated that Congress talks will take on a partisan tone, or that some speakers will advocate for conservative political engagement. Others have lamented the inevitable comparisons that will be raised between the two national gatherings in late July — the Catholics in Indianapolis, and the Republicans in Milwaukee
Organizers of the Congress, for their part, have made efforts to avoid political entanglement at their gathering.
And the Eucharistic pilgrimages preceding the Congress — which have drawn many more Catholics than were initially predicted — have not seemed to attract overt political demonstrators.
But while the Congress is making efforts to avoid secular politics, there is one political dynamic it can’t avoid.
Like any large contemporary Catholic gathering, the Eucharistic Congress and its organizers face the challenge of grappling with the contentious and fraught third rail of modern ecclesiastical life: the politics of liturgy.
Congress organizers aim to encourage and inspire Catholics to regard the Eucharistic liturgy as the true “source and summit” of their own lives. But every liturgical decision they make will likely have implications to the attendees of the Congress, to the bishops organizing, to Catholics across the country, and to the Holy See.
And when it comes to discerning how best to approach the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy — the Mass offered according to the 1962 rubrics that preceded the Second Vatican Council — the Congress organizers face the prospect of challenges, and criticism, from all sides.
After its opening ceremonies July 17, the Eucharistic Congress will take on a daily schedule familiar to Catholics who have attended large Catholic gatherings, including World Youth Day.
An English-language Mass will be offered each morning in Lucas Oil Stadium, and other liturgies will be offered at the same time, in other large gathering places, one in Spanish, and one following the Congress’ “Youth Track.”
Each day, there will be “breakout” and “impact” sessions, exhibitors and displays, catecheses, adoration, and confessions — lots of confession will be available at Congress sites.
And on two Congress afternoons, there will be additional Masses organized by the Congress, and held in convention center spaces, or local parishes.
According to a liturgy schedule sent by organizers to The Pillar, two of those Masses will be offered according to the 1962 Roman Missal — “Traditional Latin Masses.”
One of these will be offered by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and the other offered by an Indianapolis priest, the pastor of the parish where the Masses will be held, about a mile from Lucas Oil Stadium — and where Traditional Latin Masses are regularly held, with permission of Archbishop Charles Thompson.
To observers of all ecclesiastical stripes, the very existence of those Masses might come as a surprise.
The audio version can be found at the bottom of this essay and is for paying subscribers only.
Another way to help protect good mental and physical health
Jill, my wife of 45 years, and I don’t have many rules. But we do have one in particular, that we are pretty strict about. We do not have any electronic devices in our bedroom or even in the part of the house near our bedroom. That includes TVs, computers, phones, radios, wifi routers, microwaves or other appliances. We even keep our cell phone and watch chargers at the other end of the house!
There are two reasons for this. One is the obvious - things that blink, buzz, light up, or in some way or another affect sleep, or cause us to wake up in the middle of the night, do not belong in the same space as where we sleep.
Another reason is that, yes, they are “watching” us. Smart thermostats, even the new refrigerators, can monitor our every sound, sleep pattern, conversation, and life. We just don’t know who may be listening in. Take, for example, the recent news that the auto insurance companies have been paying car manufacturers to surreptitiously send in our driving data to insurance companies - so that they can determine who has been “naughty and nice” and charge us accordingly.
Furthermore, Pegasus I and II (and who knows what other) smartphone listening apps are out there, and there is almost no way for non-specialists to detect them. We prefer not to give any entity an opportunity to get into our mindscape because, speaking frankly, those who deploy these technologies don’t actually have our best interests at heart.
Then there is the fact that these devices are not healthy for us to be exposed to 24/7. Almost any artificial electromagnetic frequency (EMFs) emissions are a real health risk at some power level. The science and pharmacotoxicology are not resolved regarding low-frequency EMFs and the dangers posed to human health; knowledge, experience, and “the science” are still in flux. But most scientists agree that too much is never good. The question is, how much is “too much?”
IARC operates under the World Health Organization (WHO). It convenes working groups of scientists from around the world regularly to evaluate the cancer risks presented to humans by environmental and lifestyle factors.
The current IARC evaluation from 2011 pointed to a possible link between RF radiation and cancer in people, particularly glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer.
This conclusion means that there could be some risk. The report emphasized that the link between cellphone use and cancer risk needs to be carefully monitored by the scientific community. It said more research was needed into long-term, heavy use of mobile phones.
Some researchers feel there’s already enough evidence of harm from long-term, low-level exposure to non-ionizing radiation that the IARC should upgrade the classification to a Group 1, a known carcinogen.
Researchers began substantial research into the potential link between cellphones and cancer in 2000 in what would become the largest study to compare cancer cases in cellphone users and nonusers.
The researchers followed cancer rates and cellphone use in more than 5,000 people in 13 countries. There was an association between the highest rate of exposure and glioma.
However, this research also mentioned various potential biases and confounding variables that make the potential association difficult to interpret.
The gliomas were more often found on the same side of the head that people used to speak on the phone.
Even so, the researchers said that the connection wasn’t strong enough to conclude that cellphone use caused cancer.
In a smaller, more recent study, researchers analyzed data over almost 2 decades and found that people exposed to high levels of extremely low-level frequency magnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) over a long duration showed an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a type of leukemia in adults.
European scientists also uncovered a possible link between EMF and leukemia in children. In a literature review of previous studies, they suggested that between 1.5 to 5 percent of childhood leukemia can be attributed to ELF-EMFs.
But they noted that the result was inconclusive because monitoring of EMF was lacking. They recommended more research and better monitoring.
One review of more than two dozen studies on low-frequency EMFs suggests that these energy fields may cause various neurological and psychiatric problems in people.
In one study, researchers found that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), or a short burst of electromagnetic energy, can affect nerve activity in rats.
They suggested that long-term EMP exposure could be harmful to cognitive ability and may induce pathology similar to that of Alzheimer’s disease. They added that more research is needed.
Also, tentative research suggests that the body’s tissues and its nervous system may be affected by the heat generated by RF-EMFs. A study conducted on rats and mice suggested that the heat from cellphones affected body tissue heating and nerve activity. Again, researchers said more study is needed.
Another research review suggested that radiofrequency EMFs might contribute to neurological cognitive disorders. But since the reported research was performed either on cells or animals, its results don’t necessarily apply to people.
Given all this data, why would anyone expose themselves- and especially their children- to EMFs all day and night? So Jill and I try hard to live by the rule that electronic devices do not need to be attached to us. They are not an appendage. They are not clothing. When not in use, electronic devices should be placed elsewhere.
One way to protect yourself from the negative effects of EMFs is to allow yourself to be “grounded.”
My New Radio Show: The Quest
-
Guadalupe Radio Network The Quest – A Pilgrimage of Faith New Episodes each
weekday at 4 pm CT /5 pm ET. You can listen to the program LIVE on the
Guadal...
Card. Burke: "Prophétis meis"
-
Non relíquit hóminem nocére eis: et corrípuit pro eis reges.
Nolíte tángere christos meos: et in prophétis meis nolíte malignári.
-- Sanctae Mariae in Sabbat...