Bishop Morlino defends Paul Ryan

Image.
National Catholic Register:

Earlier this year, when Georgetown University announced that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the chairman of the House Budget Committee, would defend his budget in a public address, almost 90 faculty members at the Jesuit institution publicly denounced his interpretation of Church doctrine.

While the media generally presented the harsh judgment as a sign that Ryan’s budget proposals violated core beliefs of his Church, most news stories failed to examine why the subsequent appearance of Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at a Georgetown graduation event did not provoke a comparable furor. Sebelius is widely viewed as the architect of a federal contraception mandate denounced by the U.S. bishops as an “unprecedented” threat to the free exercise of Catholic institutions, but the same group of Georgetown faculty apparently saw no need to register their disapproval.

During the final bruising months of a presidential election that could hinge on the shifting views of Catholic “swing” voters, Americans can expect to witness further disputes that showcase legitimate questions about the practical impact of Ryan's policies and partisan hit jobs that fail to provide a holistic treatment of Catholic teaching.

Now, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Ryan’s bishop, has waded into this election-year minefield, clearly concerned that a valued member of his flock is being unfairly attacked by partisan forces.

In a column posted on his diocesan website Aug. 16, Bishop Morlino vouches for Ryan’s Catholic bona fides, but stresses that his remarks should not be viewed as an endorsement of Ryan or any candidate.

“I know him very well. He is in regular communication with his bishop.

“I am defending his reputation because I am the one who, as his diocesan bishop, should have something to say about this, if anyone does,” Bishop Morlino told the Register during an Aug. 15 telephone interview.

“Since others have, I believe, unfairly attacked his reputation, I have to look out for his good name. That is Church law. If someone disagrees with Paul, he is free to do that. But not on the basis of reputation destruction, really calumny,” he added.

“They say things about him that aren’t true. I am not a defender of Paul Ryan; I am a defender of reputations of Catholics in the public sphere whose reputations are unjustly attacked.”

Boom.

Hundreds of people across Wisconsin turn out for David Bereit events, prayer vigils

David Bereit, the founder of 40 Days for Life, spoke at two Pro-Life Wisconsin events last week, along with leading prayer at two vigils. Image: David with the PLW staff.

On Thursday, April 26, David spoke to 250 people in Madison. Bishop Morlino said the opening prayer, and Dr. Nancy Fredericks was presented with an award for her courage in exposing the Madison Surgery Center's plans to perform late-term abortions.

On Friday, April 27, a prayer vigil was held at Affiliated Medical Services in Milwaukee, one of several 40 Days for Life sites across the state. Please pray for a young couple, 18 weeks pregnant, whom pro-lifers sidewalk counseled there.

Saturday, April 28 was draft day for the Packers in Green Bay.... But dozens of pro-lifers turned out to pray with David Bereit in Green Bay, another 40 Days for Life site (image, left). Sidewalk counselors were able to assist a pregnant woman in need of help as well!

That evening, at our Annual Spring Awards Dinner, Rep. Andre Jacque was presented with our "Legislator of the Year" award and Jim Ball, leader of 40 Days for Life in Green Bay, was presented with our "Activist of the Year" award.

Matt and his wife attended Saturday's dinner in Green Bay (rumor has it Matt was causing trouble in the Diocese on Sunday, so watch for photos in the days to come!). Many thanks to Matt and his wife for making the trip!

Thank you to all our supporters, steadfast prayer warriors, attendees, volunteers and all those who join us in advocating for the right to life for all.

P.S. Rumor has it there will be a Badger Catholic meet-up at a Brewer game this summer... watch for it!

More photos, below.

Bishop Morlino, David Bereit and PLW's Steve Karlen. 

PLW's Matt Sande and Rep. Evan Wynn, one of the co-sponsors of the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment.

PLW's Matt Sande and Rep. Andre Jacque (one of my UW-Madison cohorts!). Rep. Jacque is the author of the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment and received PLW's Legislator of the Year award.

PLW's Steve Karlen, Peggy Hamill and Jim Ball, recipient of the Activist of the Year award.

Photos of Madison's Rally for Religious Freedom

In Madison, 500 people attended the Rally for Religious Freedom. Bishop Morlino delivered the keynote speech, which you can listen to online here. The Cap Times, a liberal pro-abort Madison newspaper, covered the rally in an article here (the reporter misspelled development director Steve Karlen's name and misquoted him; he also misspelled Tom Glavin's name; and one has to wonder if he knew who Patrick Henry was before Friday). 

 PLW's Steve Karlen talking about Patrick Henry and introducing the Bishop.

Father Rick Heilman led the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. 

 Bishop Morlino addressing the crowd.

Thanks to Tom Reitz for sharing his photos!

St. Paul's scales back proposal for UW-Madison campus student center

After an eight-month break, officials with St. Paul's University Catholic Center are back with a scaled-down proposal for a new campus student center.

The latest plan calls for a six-story building, down from 14. All student rental housing has been dropped, said Jeff Karls, the center's associate director.

The cost has declined from $45 million to $25 million.

The initial plan had been criticized by some students, neighbors and city officials as too big for its surroundings on State Street Mall.

The new proposal, which is starting to make its way through city committees, calls for replacing the existing structure at 723 State St. with a building with a multi-level chapel, offices, music rooms, gathering spaces and a multi-purpose hall suitable for dining. The chapel would have seating for more than 500, Karls said.

continue at WisSJ

Bishop Morlino leads 100 people in prayer at Madison Planned Parenthood

From Pro-Life Wisconsin:
Last night, Bishop Morlino led 100 people in prayer and pro-life reflection (photo, top) in observance of the mid-way point of 40 Days for Life. As the sun set behind him on Planned Parenthood (literally and figuratively, we pray!), Bishop Morlino discussed how the pro-life cause is ultimately in God’s hands; God is asking us to pray and act, and trust in Him.

Bishop Morlino was joined by two priests — Father Jim Murphy of St. Mary of the Immaculate Conception parish in Portage, and Father John Putzer (second photo, with one of the Knights of Columbus) of Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary parish in Sun Prairie. Thank you to all the clergy who join us in praying for an end to abortion!

Bp. Morlino offers clarification letter to Madison Diocese priests

Dear Brother Priests,

As I stated at the Presbyteral Assembly, and as I clarified in a letter to all of you, my chief intention in considering specific points in the liturgy, is simply to encourage throughout the diocese, a greater sense of reverence and a real truthfulness in what we say and do at the Mass. I still plan to send you some bullet points with regard to specific matters we discussed, but one individual point seems already to have drawn attention, and so I feel I must send and make public this letter to assist all of us in our teaching office.

There can be no doubt that the need for catechesis exists. There is also little doubt that some of these matters can be difficult to catechize. Without my issuing any public instruction other than a letter confirming my personal request to you to teach your people according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the “blogosphere,”[It wasn't me! It wasn't me!  When I read that, I started to sweat wondering what slipped out of my fingers and onto the blogosphere.  It turns out nothing!  Yea!]  has begun speculation and, perhaps, innuendo that I have decreed communion under both species should be completely done away with. You and I both know, no such decree has been, or will be made. As you know, and as I hope you are telling those who wonder, all I’ve done is to ask you patiently, prudently, and practically, to begin instructing your people according to the Roman Missal and implementing the General Instruction.

Since there seems to be some confusion with regard to what the GIRM says, I’ll remind you that you can order the document on-line from the USCCB Office of Liturgy (making certain that it’s the third edition). Here, however I’ll mention a few germane points from the document and, specifically, from the “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America (Norms),” which the USCCB document includes.

We’ll first go back as far as the Document of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which states:

“The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism (SC, 55).”

Without here going into the “dogmatic principles laid down by the Council of Trent,” it is worth noting the examples that Vatican II considers when allowing communion under both kinds – newly ordained priests at their ordination, religious sisters and brothers at their profession, and those coming into the Church at their baptism and first communion. With these examples given by the Council for the distribution of Communion under both species, it would be hard to argue that Vatican II envisioned communion under both forms every week.

Now, with the issuance of the Roman Missal, the Church gets more specific in matters such as these (thus the General Instruction which we are presently using as our guide). The Missal goes further than the Vatican II document, instructing that the Chrism Mass and Corpus Christi would be good occasions for distributing Communion under both species, as might be the distribution to wedding couples at their marriage, to children receiving their First Communion, to Confirmation candidates at their Confirmation, to consecrated religious at their conventual Mass, to women and men on retreat, and to deacons and seminarians at any Mass. The document also allows the pastor to choose certain other days, such as the patronal feast of the parish, to distribute under both forms, so long as the reasons are good and so long as all other conditions are met. But it does warn pastors:

“In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species…(Norms, 24)”

The Third Edition of the Roman Missal reinforces the right of bishops to make additional allowances for reception of Communion under both species, beyond that which the documents already mention:

“The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause (Roman Missal, 283).”

This permission has been assumed, if not expressed directly in the past. I recognize this, and I understand fully that communion under both forms at every Mass has become common practice at some parishes.

However, I have been told of, and have personally experienced, the reality that the provision both that the faithful be well instructed and that there be no danger of profanation of the Sacrament, is not being met. As such, while recognizing the need for patient, prudent and practical steps according to your individual parishes, I’ve asked you to move in this direction.

As I’ve said, over and over again, and as you know well, this requires catechesis. So many do not understand the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s Sacrifice, his death and resurrection; nor the real presence of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under both species of bread and wine; nor the role of the ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Most of all (and this has been my point from the start) so many of our people do not understand the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the Eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration.

This gets back to the need for the new translation, and every point I’ve attempted to make. What we say and do at the Mass, and what we do before the Lord present in the tabernacle matters.

Thus, I cannot in good conscience, allow us to go forward without addressing these matters. That’s specifically what I’ve asked you to do. Please help your people to know and understand the beautiful gift we have in the Eucharist, to know our obligations of preparing for reception of the Sacrament, both in terms of our preparation through the Sacrament of Confession, our observance of the pre-communion fast, our attending to our attire as best we can, and the like. Please help them to know of Christ’s presence, fully and entirely in the Sacred Host. Our people know well, the aspect of the Mass which is the Sacred banquet, but help them to know the Eucharist at the Memorial of Christ’s loving Sacrifice for them. Help them to understand your role in laying down your own life as the minister of Christ’s Body and Blood, present in the Host.

Christ offers Himself, whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity at every Mass to every woman and man who is prepared to receive Him. At the end of the day, our goal should be to help every, man, woman and child really to understand this, in a profound and life-changing way. If we recognized the gift that we already have, what an impact that would make upon us and upon the world! So, let us tell out this Good News!

Faithfully yours in Christ,
Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino
Bishop of Madison

Madison Diocese

I saw Fr. Z has some good commentary over at his place.

I would follow this man to the ends of the earth.

HT Ben Yanke

WisSJ: Bishop Morlino to priests: Hold the "communion wine"

Credit: Diane Korzeniewski, OCDS

Madison Catholic Bishop Robert Morlino has asked priests in the diocese to move toward using only bread during regular communion services, reserving the use of both bread and wine for more solemn or special occasions. [I think host and cup or chalice would be a better way to address the species]

The change would be a significant departure from current U.S. Catholic custom, although bread-only is the norm in many other parts of the world. Madison would become only the second diocese in the country known to limit wine as a general policy.

However, diocesan officials stressed Monday that Morlino has not issued a directive to priests.

“He has not issued a formal mandate or set a fixed timeline but has asked pastors to exercise their own leadership to move in this direction,” said Monsignor James Bartylla, the diocese’s second-in-command.

Morlino first discussed the topic with priests at a retreat late last month, Bartylla said.

In a letter to priests Monday, Morlino said the change was needed to deepen laypeople’s reverence for the Eucharist, the Catholic term for communion. Catholics believe bread and wine, when consecrated by a priest, become the actual body and blood of Christ. [Well, some of us do anyway.]

Morlino wrote that he has personally experienced occasions when reverence for the consecrated wine “is not being met.” 

The use of consecrated wine at regular Masses often requires non-ordained parishioners to assist priests in helping with distribution. Some believe this increases the likelihood of unintentional mishandling of Christ’s blood through careless treatment, spillage or swilling[swilling??].

“Wine, as a liquid, is much more subject to accidents and misuse than bread,” Bartylla said. “There are practical and logistical difficulties.”

Catholic teaching holds that only one form — consecrated bread or wine — is needed to receive Christ’s full person, while both together constitute “a fuller sign” of the Last Supper.  [I think that was JPII's take on the issue... although I never understood what that actually meant.]

Travis Ganser, a member of the Cathedral Parish, said he supports the move.

“If you really believe what the church teaches and that the bishop is the church’s shepherd, then decisions like this are easy to accept,” he said.

Jim Andrews, a member of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Beloit, called it “sort of a ridiculous idea.” [and added "fer sure, like totally"..]

“This changes the meaning and traditions that I know,”[those two word do go together, don't they?] he said. “The other practical ramification is there will be fewer laypeople involved in services.” [what a concept!]

That rationale for dropping wine was hotly debated Monday by Catholic scholars.

Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine monk and associate professor of theology at St. John’s University in Collegeville[gee, I wonder what his take on the matter will be], Minn., said the failure to get an explicit extension just means the universal rules of the church kick in.

“Nothing in the universal rules of the church requires the bishop to restrict both forms,” he said. “This decision is absolutely unnecessary. The bishop has full authority to allow communion under both forms at all Masses if he wishes.”

Ruff called the move “demoralizing to dedicated priests and lay ministers in the diocese.”  [oh, what?  Ah, yes, thanks for waking me up after his comments were over.]

But Dennis Martin, a theology professor at Loyola University in Chicago[Interesting!], said any U.S. diocese routinely distributing both forms “is in violation of church rules.”

“A renewal was requested and not given,” Martin said. “I’m sorry, that sounds to me like a pretty deliberate and intentional statement of bread-only.”

He praised Morlino’s move as “quite reasonable and quite practical.”

Officials with the Madison diocese said examples of when both wine and bread might be used include marriage ceremonies, ordinations and occasions that are solemn in nature for the diocese or individual parishes.

The whole thing at WisSJ: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_12b3e3d0-a352-58c0-aeca-148b7b8bf0bf.html#ixzz1aV1GZV5i

They go into the history, early church loved having that chalice passed around, etc.  Really not a terrible article though, balanced out, I mean they are trying to report on these things well which is nice to see.  Ha, and if you want to take a look at the picture that goes along with the article it made me laugh. 

FatherZ: Diocese of Madison, WI, to stop regular Holy Communion under both kinds. The indult ran out in 2005.

These are Fr. Z's comments. He has more details over at his place.

Dear Friends in Christ:
Maybe you noticed a story in last week's Catholic Herald about new norms for Communion under both species in the Diocese of Phoenix. You may have wondered why this story from Arizona received such prominent coverage here (on page 3 of the Catholic Herald, where letters from Bishop Morlino appear). In fact, the story was featured because it will be significant for us as well. Bishop Morlino spoke to us priests about this while we together at Wisconsin Dells at the end of last month.

In the last couple of decades, Communion under both species (with the congregation able to receive the Pre-cious Blood as well as the Sacred Host) has become routine in our experience. I knew (as many of you do) that Communion under both species was first introduced, on a limited basis, after the Second Vatican Council, and that it has become much more common since. What I did not know was that the widespread American practice of offering both species at most Sunday Masses began here under an indult (special permission) given by the Vatican in 1975, which expired in 2005.

 [Get that everyone?  The key points: it was a special permission to depart from the norm and that permission expired.]

Almost no one realized that until very recently. Maybe we can be forgiven for forgetting that we were operating under a temporary indult. After thirty years, something can seem pretty permanent. But it wasn’t. The bishops of our country did apply for an extension of the 1975 in-dult, but that was denied.

So, all over the United States, we now find ourselves needing to bring our practice into conformity with current regulations (and with the rest of the world). In his comments at Chula Vista, Bishop Morlino mentioned a few instances in which Communion under both kinds is still permitted: the Chrism Mass, the Feast of Corpus Christi, for the bride and groom at a Nuptial Mass, and for those so allergic to wheat that they cannot tolerate even low-gluten hosts. Beyond those occasions and circumstances, Communion can be offered under both species at celebrations of special importance. But it is clear that we will not be seeing Communion under both species as a weekly practice.

Bishop Morlino understands that this comes as news to all of us. He is giving pastors considerable latitude as to the timetable for implementing this change. He suggested that the beginning of Advent (when the new translation of the Missal is fully implemented) would be one plausible date to make the change. That will be our timetable here at the Cathedral Parish (and also at St. Paul’s University Catholic Center, the other parish clustered with us).

Msgr. Kevin D. Holmes

Madison Cathedral

You may have heard me say this before. From time to time Catholic folks will ask me about moving to Wisconsin, and will try and get a feel for the state. If you have a choice of location, the best place to be is as close to Bishop Morlino as possible. I would be at his Cathedral parish in Madison if I was put in that situation.

Bishop Morlino: Can government change the definition of marriage?

Very timely observation from a holy Bishop.

Madison Catholic Herald:

For this week’s column, allow me to pose the question, “Does any civil government have the authority to change the definition of marriage, either directly or indirectly?”

To change the definition of marriage directly would mean to call “marriage” any union apart from: one-man, one-woman, one-lifetime, with openness to children. It would mean to call “marriage” any other sort of union than the historical, traditional definition, articulated above.

Indirectly to change the definition of marriage would mean to establish by law certain institutions, civil-unions or otherwise, attempting to give them the same value as marriage, while never addressing the true meaning of marriage.

More and more, this indirect change is being proposed by clever politicians who say, “Well, I believe in marriage between a man and a woman myself, but society, at large, is leaning toward the acceptability of civil unions, so maybe this is a compromise?”

This indirect approach to redefining marriage seems very comfortable for the Catholic who deceives him or herself into thinking that he or she has one conscience for personal matters and another conscience for matters pertaining to the state. But, the Lord has given each human being, Catholic and otherwise, one conscience only.

The origins of marriage

What are the origins of marriage? Marriage was created by God at the very beginning, with the gift of Eve to Adam, and their natural marital bond, from which issued forth Cain and Abel.

Thus, the first societal grouping present in the world, long prior to the establishment of any civil government whatsoever, was marriage. Marriage as the basic unit of society was to be the place of mutual love, as well as the procreation and education of children, so that the other developments of societal structure would have marriage to build on, and as a necessary condition of their existence.

The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that problems of civil importance should be resolved at the lowest possible societal level. Thus, national governments should yield to the state where possible, the state should yield to local municipalities where possible, and local municipalities should yield to the natural family where possible. For example, it is clear that natural parents are the first and primary educators of their own children, a role never to be usurped unjustly by the state.

Read the rest here.