From the inimitable Father Zhulsdorf's blog:

--
The Handbook for Indulgences is the book issued by the Holy See containing the norms for indulgences, what some of the prayers and works are and what the conditions are.

A plenary indulgence can be obtained by making the Way of the Cross on Good Friday even through televised participation for the Holy Father’s Stations.

Otherwise, this devotion at other times must be made before Stations of the Way of the Cross legitimately erected. That means that a bishop or his delegate is to have established them in the place, usually a church or chapel or perhaps cemetery or other outside place such as a retreat house. The bishop, etc., then provides a document that this was done. Usually a document like that, often in Latin, can be found hanging on a wall of the sacristy, unless in ignorance it was taken down.

When Stations have been duly erected, they are symbolized or "located" with a Cross on the wall or perhaps outside with a standing structure. There is often a picture or statue group, etc. There are 14 Stations. Movement from one station to the next is required when you do them as an individual. If the Stations are a public event, then just the person leading them needs to move from station to station.

The Handbook indicates that this is also vocal prayer. By custom some "preces vocales" are added. I suppose that might only be "Lord Jesus Crucified, have mercy on us." Also, the Handbook says that there is flexibility about the mysteries considered.

It may be that some people are prevented from going to a church or place where there are legitimately erected Stations. In that case a person can still gain the indulgence by spending at least one half hour meditating on the Cross and death of the Lord.

Eastern Catholics, who don’t have this custom of the Way of the Cross, can also gain an indulgence according as their respective patriarchs determine.

So… to the questions.

Yes… Stations must be formally set up as I described. If you were to go to church with your family, you would all together move from station to station…. which would be a beautiful thing to see, actually. If you were legitimately impeded from going to church, say there was a blizzard or someone at home who was ill who needed care, you have an alternative.

I don’t think "Well, I don’t want to drive for 10 minutes." is legitimately impeded. But what that means is hard to say. I tent to be on the lenient side with these things, for surely Holy Church wants people to be able to gain the indulgences without an undue burden. It must cost us something, of course. But that will vary. A young person can get to church easier than an old lady with cane during winter.

Remember also that there are conditions for gaining any plenary indulgence. In addition to the work performed you must be free of attachment to sin. Meditation on the Cross and death of the Lord should help this resolve.

Archbishop Hepworth, leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion, is responding to rumors generated by a previous interview in the Catholic Record several weeks ago:
--
“It is possible for a church to come into union with the Bishop of Rome, in which case it is known usually as "a ritual church sui iuris - that is a church with its own rite and canonical regulation. There are some twenty-eight of these churches, and they appoint their own bishops by synodical processes, and seek confirmation of the election from the Bishop of Rome.

Much of the Concordat of the Traditional Anglican Communion was designed to mirror the processes of a ritual church, a point noted by some Vatican officials. We have not anticipated that our present application would lead to this sort of structure - most of these rites are descended from ancient churches that have never been part of the Roman or Western rite. Of modern origin, however, are the Personal Prelatures and Apostolic Administrations that are essentially vehicles for specific groups to coalesce around their own episcopate for a particular pastoral reason.

We have taken the advice of those with whom we have been meeting, and not sought any particular structure. We understand that no existing canonical structure might prove appropriate. Since the idea of a Personal Prelature is itself a modern creation, dating only to the late Pope, from a structural point of view the Holy See is open to new forms of community within the Church.

We have simply asked, in the words of our letter, to "seek a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment."

We have not sought to design something for ourselves. We have asked for the guidance of the Holy See, given the reality of our position and the mind of our episcopate.

We remain in quiet prayer, while growing our Communion in key parts of the world. We agreed, rightly, to allow the Holy See the opportunity to respond to the difficult problems that our letter undoubtedly caused. When there is a reply, I am committed to presenting it to a full meeting of our College of Bishops, and to formal meetings of each of the general synods of our churches that voted to support this initiative."
--
What is clear is that the Archbishop is doing his best to visibly and publicly make sure there is no ambiguity about the desire of this branch of the Anglican Communion, rent over the ongoing issues surrounding (what else?) homosexuality, female 'bishops' and priestesses, ad nauseam is trying to come Home.

Prayers, folks.

From former PA Senator (and unabashedly PRO-LIFE) Rick Santorum.

We need more MEN like him. Less like others who remain nameless (see below for examples...).

Go to The Inquirer for the full article.
--
The Elephant in the Room: In praise of Catholic priests who dare to teach and enforce
By Rick Santorum

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-proclaimed "ardent, practicing Catholic," had an opportunity last week to meet a fellow ardent Catholic, Pope Benedict XVI.

It appears that the pope used the visit to educate a confused Pelosi about the Roman Catholic Church's long-held position on the life issue.

Appearing on Meet the Press just prior to the Democratic National Convention, Pelosi told the country that, over the centuries, the Catholic Church had been unable to define when life begins. "We just don't know," she chirped.

...

The pope heads a long list of church leaders who have used the speaker's comments to teach the faithful. It includes our own Cardinal Justin Rigali.

...

Sadly, the church hierarchy has been less assertive when public figures' policy positions openly dissent from core teachings. [NO KIDDING. We're waiting...]

That's why Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino got so much national attention last fall. Martino, formerly the auxiliary bishop of Philadelphia, made the welcome decision to publicly bar then Sen. Joe Biden and other abortion advocates from receiving Communion in the Scranton Diocese. Then, after the November election, he admonished his brother bishops for their reluctance to deal with the issue faithfully.

...

Martino was not done. Two weeks ago, the Philadelphia native and St. Joseph's Prep graduate issued a strong statement of disapproval to a local, nominally Catholic college, Misericordia University, that had scheduled a speech on campus by someone advocating same-sex marriage. "The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton should be in no doubt," Martino said, "that Misericordia University in this instance is seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity."

Then, last week, Martino took on some more of the biggest guns in the diocese: the Irish clubs that organize the largest public Catholic event of the year, the St. Patrick's Day festivities. Through a letter from his Irish auxiliary bishop, Martino warned that if any of these groups went ahead with plans that in any way honor politicians who are not pro-life, he would close the cathedral where Mass is usually held prior to the parade, as well as other diocesan churches. He said he would not countenance anything that created confusion about the teachings of the church.

The reason for the letter: Scranton's St. Patrick's Day parade last year featured Hillary Clinton.

Many of his brother bishops will look at Martino as they do at other uncompromising defenders of the faith, worrying about the world's reaction. As a Philly guy, though, his excellency knows something about being booed. He also knows his job and calling: to be the good shepherd who faithfully leads and protects his flock from those who would lead them astray.

Yes, scores of people are reportedly protesting and threatening to leave the church. In the end, however, people leaving the church because of a bishop who enforces its teachings are a blessing compared with the alternative: people leaving because bishops and their priests don't teach, much less enforce, those teachings.

As a break from seeing photos of our ordained priests dressed up in some tie-dyed vestments of questionable liturgical worth or playing patty-cake with clowns in the Sanctuary...I thought this first photo was appropos for the season of Lent.

From the wonderful parish of St. John Cantius in Chicago:

Isn't THIS is a beautiful, vertical, sprit-filled Catholic liturgy that lifts your mind and soul to God?





Isn't THIS a horizontal, man-centered self-congratulatory farce?
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or run for the hills screaming:



Which one is more common in YOUR parish?

Which one is focused on Our Lord?

Which one is focused on man?

Remember, how we act exteriorly is a revelation of our interior disposition.

Any questions?

My Comment:

It's wonderful to see a bishop, who possesses the fullness of His priesthood and is the teacher of The True Faith in a diocese, plainly spelling out the TRUTH, to remove any doubt, misconceptions and 'situational' ethics or spin, misstatements or weasel positions taken by anyone in public life who 1) professes to be Catholic and 2) tries to have it both ways to pander to popular sentiment or curry favor.

Senator Casey is an embarrassment. Not to Catholicism. We've been here since the Church was founded by Our Lord, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. However, the senator does not speak with authority grounded in truth, but, like the coward he is, has denied the gift he's was given at his baptism and speaks with the words of someone whose focus is on this world, not the next.

Pride goes before the fall. The root of personal sin is pride: the consuming thought that WE are the penultimate creation and OUR will is supreme. While no one can judge the state of another's soul, we can protest and correct aonther's actions which indicate a lack of conformance to Christ's will.

Bravo to Bishop Martino. May he serve Our Church for many years to come!

The letter below was sent to Senator Casey as well as publicly distributed. Is there any doubt NOW about the clarity of the Church's teaching? Can the senator now say that there is any ambiguity or room for discussion? I think not.

From the diocesean website:

--
Bishop Again Voices Concern Regarding Sen. Casey’s
Mexico City Policy Vote

The following letter has been sent to Sen. Bob Casey:

Dear Senator Casey,

It is a matter of deep concern that your recent vote against the Mexico City Policy is continually misrepresented by your staff as a pro-life vote intended to promote “contraception and other family planning that avoid unintended pregnancies” (Times-Tribune, February 6, 2009).

The Mexico City Policy is, first and foremost, about abortion, not about family planning. First put in place in 1984, the policy required all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services abroad. The policy required such organizations to agree as a condition for receiving U.S. foreign aid dollars that they would “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” The policy included exceptions for abortions done in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening conditions.

Furthermore, the Mexico City Policy did not take funds away from family planning; its effect is quite the opposite. Tom McCluskey of the Family Research Council reported the following: “. . .The Mexico City policy halts U.S. family planning funds from going to foreign . . . [NGOs] that perform abortions or ‘actively promote’ abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. . . The effect of President Obama rescinding the Mexico City Policy is that now millions ($461 million in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008) of dollars are taken away from family planning groups that do not promote abortions, and delivered into the hands of organizations that are the most militant in promoting abortion as a population-control method—especially in countries that find abortion objectionable on moral grounds” (my emphasis). Contrary to the claims of your staff, the absence of “Mexico City” regulations insures (1) that money is taken away from family planning, (2) that abortion is promoted as a method of family planning, and (3) that countries that have moral and cultural objections to abortion are encouraged to abandon their policies against it.

Finally, it is never permissible to use immoral means such as artificial contraception to achieve a good end, namely, the reduction of unplanned pregnancies. In fact, the mistaken view that artificial contraception may be used to regulate population growth and the size of families has led to countless evils in America and abroad, including the attitude that having and raising children is a burden to be avoided. This attitude has contributed mightily to the acceptability of abortion as a means of contraception both at home and abroad.

My letter of January 30 urging you to rescind your vote on the Mexico City Policy was in no way mistaken regarding the nature and the effect of President Obama’s order to rescind America’s long-standing policy to avoid using U.S. tax dollars to support organizations that promote abortion abroad. It is imperative that this fact be made known to the public.

It is also imperative that there be utter clarity when it comes to the teaching of the Church on matters that pertain to the taking of innocent life and the special responsibilities that fall to you, Senator, as a lawmaker to oppose abortion and other clear evils.

In closing, I refer you to the words of Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to President Obama urging him to retain the Mexico City Policy.

The Mexico City Policy . . . has wrongly been attacked as a restriction on foreign aid for family planning. In fact, it has not reduced such aid at all, but has ensured that family planning funds are not diverted to organizations dedicated to performing and promoting abortions instead of reducing them. Once the clear line between family planning and abortion is erased, the idea of using family planning to reduce abortions becomes meaningless, and abortion tends to replace contraception as the means for reducing family size. A shift toward promoting abortion in developing nations would also increase distrust of the United States in these nations, whose values and culture often reject abortion, at a time when we need their trust and respect (January 23, 2009).

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton