Well, the time has come; I made the announcement to our regional chapter of the SFO yesterday, and plans are underway.
The “world premiere” — well, actually more like a “sneak preview” — of my documentary, A Woman for Our Time: St. Elizabeth of Hungary, will be held at St. Elizabeth of Hungary Catholic Church in Melville (Long Island) New York, on Tuesday June 1, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. The screening is free and all are welcome. The film will still be in a rough state, with temporary narration and music track. There will hopefully be time for questions and answers afterward.
Many thanks to the pastor, Fr. Frank Schneider, and Pauline and Ralph DiCicco for making this happen.
How to get there:
The address is 175 Wolf Hill Road Melville, NY 11747
From Points West
- Northern State Parkway East to exit 41 (Wolf Hill Rd.)
- Make a left turn onto Wolf Hill Rd.
- Go straight through 2 traffic lights.
- Parish grounds are immediately after St. Anthony’s High School on the right. Park in large rear lot.
- The screening will be held in the Hospitality Room.
This video actually dates from more than 10 days ago, but I only found out about it the other day from the Anchoress, who took part in the Brooklyn diocese TV show - as did Jimmy Akin, who mentioned my translation of the important memo in the Fr. Murphy case. It’s an excellent discussion all the way around.
I haven’t had time to write anything about this until now, but the Shroud of Turin is going to be on display for pilgrims until May 23. Here’s the latest, with hints about more possible scientific tests:
I’m putting this up now since the video I linked to last year is now gone. This one is actually the whole 90-minute or so direct feed — without commentary or any other frills — from the Centro Televisivo Vaticano (CTV). The real action starts in Part 6 with the announcement, and continues through 7 and 8. (when each video ends, just click on the next link that appears in the video window)
Developments are coming thick and fast; right now I literally don’t have time to do anything but put up this translation of a letter that is once again being only partially translated and taken out of context in the press. Here is what Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos wrote to the French Bishop Pierre Pican, who had been imprisoned when he refused to turn in (denoncer) a priest who had sexually abused minors. This is my translation from the French; the letter was reproduced in a Rome Reports video - (I had to stop the video several times to get it all):
September 8, 2001
Most Reverend Excellency:
I am writing to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, charged with collaborating in the responsibility of the common Father over all the priests of the world.
I congratulate you for not having denounced a priest to the civil administration. You have acted well, and I rejoice to have a brother in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all the other bishops of the world, has preferred prison rather than denouncing his priest-son.
In reality, the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional; it is a sacramental relationship, which creates very special bonds of spiritual paternity. This theme has been amply taken up again by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and the one in 1991. The bishop has other means of acting, as the Episcopal Conference of France has recently recalled; but a bishop cannot be required to make the denunciation himself. In all civilized legal systems it is recognized that close relatives have the opportunity not to testify against a direct relative.
We recall to you in your regard the words of St. Paul: “My imprisonment has become well known in Christ throughout the whole Praetorium and to all the rest, and the majority of the brothers, having taken encouragement in the Lord from my imprisonment, dare more than ever to proclaim the word fearlessly” (Phil. 1:13-14).
This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this very sensitive area, will send copies of this letter to all the conferences of bishops.
Assuring you of my fraternal closeness in the Lord, I greet you with your auxiliary and the whole of your diocese.
Dario Castrillon H
Fernando Jimines(?)
Bureau Chief
If we knew what the French episcopate said and what “other ways of acting” a bishop was supposed to have in such situations, we’d have a better idea of what he was talking about.
Also, was the bishop being asked to turn the priest in, or to testify against him in court? If it were the first, then Castrillon Hoyos’ reasoning wouldn’t apply; I’m not sure it would apply anyway. I expect we really don’t have all the necessary information to understand this yet.
One way of understanding (not necessarily excusing) this attitude would be to recall that to the more traditional wing of the French Church, the modern state is an enemy not to be trusted, much more so than anyone in the U.S. is capable of grasping. This is all the result of the French Revolution of 1789 and the fact that the modern French state from the beginning was highly anti-religious and anti-clerical.
A traditionalist like Castrillon Hoyos would most likely share this attitude. He might have suspected that a Church trial would be more fair, etc. Once again, I don’t want to excuse his attitude if he were aware that the priest was guilty, but this might help explain it.
Sorry I don’t have more right now. It’s been an exhausting day and I have to turn in.
Update: April 18
Only now am I am to find out a little more. Just as I feared, the press is distorting this out of all proportion — again. Worse yet, the cardinal has claimed that Pope John Paul II authorized him to send the letter to all the bishops in the world. The headlines are screaming: “John Paul backed praise for hiding abuse” ((story by Reuters).
Well, the headlines are wrong to start with. The cardinal was not telling bishops to protect pedophile priests. The specific crime the priest was charged with is never mentioned in the letter. It’s more in the way of a defense of a universal principle of relations between Church and state. It’s saying: what is the limit for the State’s interference within the Church, specifically the relationship between a priest and a bishop? It’s a valid question, no matter what the specific case was about.
Does anyone remember the movie “Reversal of Fortune”? In it, lawyer Alan Dershowitz got hell from his own law students for taking Claus von Bulow’s appeal. They figured the guy was too obviously guilty, and that it was wrong to defend him. Dershowitz replied that he wasn’t defending the guy so much was he was defending the legal principle of someone getting a fair trial. Because he defended those principles, was he defending murder?
Of course, people are going to neglect common sense ideas like this in the present hysteria.
This doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that Castrillon Hoyos was defending. And it is true that he seemed to defend at least one molesting priest, Fr. Trupia of Tuscon; the Congregation for the clergy declared him exonerated; when the case was turned over to Ratzinger at the CDF - this was after 2001 — he got what he deserved.
But there is a huge amount we still don’t know about what was going on. Let’s not jump the gun here.
Update:
Well there is still more; it seems that just Friday Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos claimed at a conference in Murcia, Spain that the priest in question, a Père Bissey, had told Bishop Pican of the abuse he had committed in confession, and that is why the bishop couldn’t denounce him. (news story) The Reuters story (something I didn’t notice when I first looked at it) points out that this could not be the case, because the bishop admitted on the stand that he learned of the abuse from the priest in a “private conversation,” which is not immune from the law. And of course, if the case had really been about the seal of confession, the letter would have said so.
So what exactly is going on here? I’m afraid I won’t have much if any time to research this because of other obligations, but finding the actual text of the original Spanish news article on the conference would be helpful.
One thing is certain: this cardinal has a classic case of foot-in-mouth disease. Not only that, he can’t keep his story straight. And his dragging John Paul II into this mess was certainly unnecessary — and bound to be disastrous.
Pausing to look at all the sights on our way to Jerusalem. . . Mainly about faith, the Church, film, writing, famous Christian authors, and anything else I'm interested in at the moment.
The photo above was taken at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in March 2007.
Quote of the Month
"The history of the Catholic missions is by now a long road: at the beginning of that road is the Father of Mercy, who holds out his arms to all his children. All those who encounter the missionaries encounter the Father. And they also encounter the Son, the first missionary, who, obeying the Father, comes to earth, becomes flesh in human nature, is one of us, in solidarity with our misery (except for sin) and ends up dying for us in order to then return to heaven, carrying on his shoulders the human race his has won back.
Out of the same mold are the missionaries, who repeat, in some way, his journey. They too leave their fathers and families and depart to go among a foreign people. They too strip themselves of the refined culture they have acquired in their homelands; and of their native customs and habitat, of a hundred little comforts, in order to be in solidarity. With who? With a people who are on one hand naked and poor, and on the other rich in possibilities, which the missionaries intend to respect, value and elevate."
Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul I), to the people of his diocese of Vittorio Veneto, on his return from the diocesan missions in Africa in 1966
