ROME, MARCH 29, 2006 (Zenit) - Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: I understand that it is in fact liturgically incorrect to have the main celebrant at the Holy Thursday Mass wash the feet of women. Correct? — J.C., Ballina, Ireland. During the Holy Thursday liturgy at our parish, there are a number of foot-washing stations set up around the Church, and the people in the pews get up and bring someone else to one of the stations and wash their feet. Most of the people in Church take part in this, washing feet and in turn having their feet washed. It takes quite a while. Is this liturgically correct? Are there any norms for foot-washing during the Holy Thursday Mass? — B.S., Naperville, Illinois. On Holy Thursday, at the washing of feet, the people, mostly youth, after having their foot washed, preceded to wash the next person’s foot. Then they placed four bowls of water and four places before the altar, and the congregation was told to come forward and have their hands washed by the same people who just had their foot washed. We didn’t. Everything felt out of order. — E.K., Freehold, New Jersey

There has been no change in the universal norm which reserves this rite to men as stated in the circular letter “Paschales Solemnitatis” (Jan. 16, 1988) and the rubrics of the 2002 Latin Roman Missal.

No. 51 of the circular letter states: “The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came ‘not to be served, but to serve.’ This tradition should be maintained, and its proper significance explained.”

About a year ago, however, the Holy See, while affirming that the men-only rule remains the norm, did permit a U.S. bishop to also wash women’s feet if he considered it pastorally necessary in specific cases. This permission was for a particular case and from a strictly legal point of view has no value outside the diocese in question.

I believe that the best option, as “Paschales Solemnitatis” states, is to maintain the tradition and explain its proper significance.

This means preparing the rite following liturgical law to the letter, explain its meaning as an evocation of Christ’s gesture of service and charity to his apostles, and avoid getting embroiled in controversies that try to attribute to the rite meanings it was never meant to have.

Regarding the place and number of those whose feet are to be washed, the rubric, which has remained unvaried in the new missal, describes the rite as follows:

“Depending on pastoral circumstances, the washing of feet may follow the homily.

“The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one’s feet and dries them.”

The number of men selected for the rite is not fixed. Twelve is the most common option but they may be fewer in order to adjust to the available space.

Likewise the place chosen is usually within or near the presbytery so that the rite is clearly visible to the assembly.

Thus, the logical sense of the rubric requires the priest, representing Christ, washing feet of a group of men taken from the assembly, symbolizing the apostles, in a clearly visible area.

The variations described above — of washing the feet of the entire congregation, of people washing each other’s feet (or hands), or doing so in situations that are not visible to all — tend to undermine the sense of this rite within the concrete context of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

Such practices, by greatly extending the time required, tend to convert a meaningful, but optional, rite into the focal point of the celebration. And that detracts attention from the commemoration of the institution of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, the principal motive of the celebration.

In other circumstances, such as retreats or so called para-liturgical services, it can be perfectly legitimate to perform foot-washing rites inspired by Christ’s example and by the liturgy. In such cases none of the limitations imposed by the concrete liturgical context of the Holy Thursday Mass need apply.

Popularity: 23% [?]

The thought occurred to me at Palm Sunday mass on Sunday, that those anti-capital punishment people who see that as taking a priority over the killing of the unborn (and surely not all do) are a lot like those in the Gospel screaming for Barrabas to be released - a man clearly guilty and deserving of punishment,while blind to the clearly innocent who is sent to die. See my earlier post on this issue.

Popularity: 27% [?]

I’m doing my taxes and had to figure out the tax basis of one of my first individual stock purchases. I thought it would be a good illustration at how painfully difficult it is to make up for a devestating loss even when you subsequently make what appears at first blush to be tremendous returns (warnings in advance - my math may be off on the following, and this is not intended to be investment advice on individual stocks!).

In 1995, before I knew anything about investing in stocks, on a hot stock tip from a broker friend, bought $1200 of a very early internet stock company that was so bad it happened to be at the peak of its stock run in1995 and it was all down hill since then (yes even through the bubble of 1998-2000).

I sold the shares in 1999 for a grand total of $260, representing a 77% loss over about 4 years. I had my goal of isolating this money and seeing if I could make up the loss.

In Feb. of 2000, I perused the Value Line Investment Survey at my local library for a good technology stock and took the approximately $300 of tax savings I obtained from the loss, added it to the $267, and bought 10 shares of Symantec (SYMC) at 52.75 a share (SYMC has split several times so post split price now would be about $6.59 a share; it’s now trading at $16.84 a share).

Symantec then went on a tear reaching a peak of $33.48 a share on December 3, 2004. Splits occurred as follows:

2/1/2002 2:1 -> 20 shares
11/20/2003 2:1 -> 40 shares
12/1/2004 2:1-> 80 shares

This was the peak. I should have sold. In 5 years, I had turned the $567 into $2400 and had doubled the original 1995 investment of $1200, not bad for a 10 year investment despite the huge loss in 2000. Instead, I did what everyone does, I bought more near the top! In July of 2005 without doing much research (if any) I put in $1000 more and bought 40 mores shares of SYMC @23.85 a share.

I held unto it until March of 2009 at the depths of the stock market plunge (wasn’t DOW around 6000?) I decided SYMC was never coming back but Oracle was going to be a winner (I always have thought ORCL is underappreciated) . I sold 120 shares of SYMC @ 13.361 (40 of these shares represented a 50% loss as I had purchased at twice that price, but the remaining 80 shares had been bought at the equivalent of about $6 a share, so I had made 100% on that money over a period of about 10 years). I then bought 108 shares of Oracle @ 14.859 a share.

Oracle is now at 25.69 a share, so the shares are valued at $2774. So, I look at that and think, hmm, pretty good, I took the original $567, nearly had a 5 bagger over 10 years. 500%!

But take another look. What was the actual year to year return over such a fairly long period of time? Using this calculator , despite the tremendous returns of both SYMC and Oracle, it looks like I did about 8% a year since 2000 when I decided to make the money back. Not bad.

BUT if you look at the original $1200 investment made in 1995, a calculation which is done over 15 instead of 10 years, and which figures in the loss of $1000, my additional contributions of $1400 (my tax savings from the loss, plus the additional cash contributions for the additional 40 shares of SYMC stock, the return comes out to… 0.69 percent a year!! Yes, that’s not 69%, that’s ZERO point six nine percent a year - and that’s after a roller coaster of risk. You could have done much better in the bank without the risk and if I was able to do a risk-adjusted return, my return would surely be in deep negative territory.

And the long story/short of this is that 1) It takes a LONG time to make up a loss even with risky investments, and 2) be wary of people who criticize companies that have what seem to be outsize returns for a few years (e.g., wall street, big oil, big pharma, etc.). Outsize gains in some years are necessary to make up for outsize losses in other years. The overall year to year return is a lot less then it appears.

Popularity: 26% [?]

I want to invite you to join me in celebrating a great pro-life victory in the State of Illinois, where the Pro-Life Action League is headquartered.

For the third year in a row, pro-lifers across the state worked together to defeat the so-called “Reproductive Health and Access Act,” dubbed “Illinois FOCA” for its likeness to pernicious the Freedom of Choice Act in the federal Congress. The Illinois FOCA bill would have:

* FORCED taxpayers to pay for thousands of abortions,
* IMPOSED “condom training” sex ed on our school kids and
* ESTABLISHED Illinois permanently as the abortion capital
of the Midwest.

Weeks of phone calls, e-mails, prayer vigils, protests and personal meetings with legislators paid off. Yesterday’s deadline for the passage of new legislation came and went without the Illinois FOCA
bill ever coming up for a vote. That means the bill is effectively dead for this year.

What’s more, our enemies at Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU poured everything they had into getting this bill passed. And they failed utterly. Join me in celebrating this great pro-life victory — a victory not just for Illinois but for the entire nation.

Congress turned a deaf ear to the people in passing the pro-abortion Obamacare package. But in Illinois legislators listened and decided against this radical abortion expansion bill.

So take heart!

And please join your pro-life brothers and sisters in Illinois in offering a prayer of thanks to God for this victory which, in His Mercy, He has given to us as we enter in to the solemnity of Holy Week.

Glory to Him!

— Eric

P.S. I really hope this victory in Illinois will be an encouragement to you. The pro-life side IS gaining, despite the Obamacare debacle. Take heart!

Eric Scheidler
Executive Director
Pro-Life Action League
Facebook: http://facebook.com/prolifeaction
Twitter: http://twitter.com/prolifeaction

Popularity: 21% [?]

Besides the abortion issue, the Health Care law is an economic DISASTER which will cause havoc. For a great article on why, read about the disaster that awaits us in Health Care forshadowed by what has happened in New York-
Health Care Reform - Welcome to NY America:

Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York’s individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals.

The scary thing for me is that were it not forthe pro-life issue, the Bishops would have been all on board with the so called “refom”. In their efforts to appear compassionate, they have encouraged government solutions that show a destructive disregard of the economic realities of the marketplace; destroying the free market engine that is most able to help the most people at the least cost. Maybe the acceptance of federal money by Catholic Hospitals and organizations such as Catholic Charities have made these institutions just a couple more government dependents who naturually sees government as the only solution when things turn sour. But the simplest and least destructive solution to helping the poor is not controlling prices and regulating to death the insurance industry, but providing low cost care through voluntary charitable organizations - a role that the Church used to fulfill quite willingly before the decimation of the convents and the Catholic Hospitals’ acceptance of federal money.

Popularity: 22% [?]

William McGurn at the Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on Stupak

[Regarding the Exectutive Order] Planned Parenthood calls it a “symbolic gesture,” and says “it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.” Rep. DeGette, who screamed so loudly when the Stupak amendment passed, said she had no problem with the executive order because “it doesn’t change anything.” She’s right, because an executive order cannot change the law.

Take the $7 billion in new federal funding for the community health centers. As my former White House colleague Yuval Levin points out, all that has to happen for these federal dollars to start flowing for abortion is for NARAL Pro-Choice America to sponsor a woman demanding an abortion. The center will initially deny funding, citing the executive order. The woman will then sue, arguing that abortion is a part of health care. Given the legal precedents, and the lack of a specific ban in the actual legislation, the courts will likely agree.

That is part of what makes the consequences of Mr. Stupak’s surrender so far reaching. Not only has he opened the door to this kind of mischief, he has encouraged those who want to get rid of the Hyde amendment itself, which for decades has prevented federal funds from paying for abortions. Because his leadership and collapse were both so high-profile, moreover, he left fellow pro-lifer Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski (who stood firm) out in the cold, and made nearly invisible the pro-life House Democrats such as Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor who voted for the Stupak amendment and against the bill both times.

In signing on to this sham order, the Stupak people signed their death warrant as a force within their party. In an America where a majority now describe themselves as pro-life, they have put legislative accommodations on abortion further out of reach. At least in the near future, they have ensured the Democrats will become even more uniformly pro-choice, and our national debate more polarized.

Popularity: 22% [?]

This video is unbelievable - it’s Stupak arguing against the Republican’s motion to recommit the Senate bill to the committee. He denigrates the Republicans claiming they are pro-life and claims the Democrats are more pro-life:

Here’s the transcript:

Health Care Showdown

Aired March 21, 2010 - 23:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: The motion — the motion — the motion is really — the motion is really a last-ditch effort of 98 years of denying Americans health care. The motion to recommit does not promote life. It is the Democrats who have stood up — it is the Democrats who have stood up –

REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: Suspend. Those who are shouting out are out of order.

STUPAK: Mr. Speaker –

(CROSSTALK)

STUPAK: Mr. Speaker, this motion does not promote life. It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortions. It is Democrats, through the president’s executive order that ensures the sanctity of life is protected, because all life is precious and all life should be honored.

Democrats guarantee all life from the unborn to the last breath of a senior citizen is honored and respected.

For the unborn child, his or her mother will finally have free and post-natal care under our bill. If the child –

(APPLAUSE)

STUPAK: If the child is born with medical problems, we provide medical care without bankrupting the family.

For the Republicans now claim that we send the bill back to committee under this guise of protecting life is disingenuous.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’m claiming my time.

STUPAK: This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life. We stand for the American people. We stand up for life. Vote no on this motion to recommit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the gentleman for –

STUPAK: And I yield back to the gentleman.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

There’s nothing you can say other than the statement “Democrats guarantee all life from the unborn to the last breath of a senior citizen is honored and respected.” is a plain and bold faced lie. The paragraph before it is full of mischaracterization of the bill and the useless Executive Order - His party hated him for doing what he did. The only way to explain this is that this is Stupak’s speech to get him back in the good graces of his party. It also exposes the Executive Order for what it was - a way for Stupak to save face.

Popularity: 25% [?]

From the NRLC

For immediate release:
Sunday, March 21, 2010

For more information:

Derrick Jones, (202) 626-8825 or
(202) 642-1675 (mobile)

mediarelations@nrlc.org

Statement by the National Right to Life
Committee
on abortion "deal" on
health care legislation

 

WASHINGTON — (Sunday, March 21, 2010, 6 PM EDT) –  In response to today’s announcement regarding an agreement between Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and President Obama on the pending health care bill (H.R. 3590), the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in the 50 states:

 

The
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590).  A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require
federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well.  Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill.  Pro-life citizens know, and they
will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation. 

 

The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect.  It changes nothing.  It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill.  The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.  

 

To elaborate:  The order does not truly correct any of the seven objectionable pro-abortion
provisions described in NRLC’s March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, which is posted here: 

www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf.

 

Regarding Community Health Centers (CHCs),
NRLC has documented the problem created by H.R. 3590
here: 

www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html.

Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, has sent lawmakers a letter explaining why the bill opens the door to direct federal funding of abortion in Community Health Centers: 


www.nrlc.org/ahc/DestroLetterToStupakOnCommHealthCenters.pdf.

 

Prof.
Destro clearly explains why it is the statutory language that will govern.

 

Regarding the new program to provide tax credits to purchase private insurance, the executive order merely tinkers with the formalities of a bookkeeping scheme under which federal subsidies will pay for plans that cover elective abortion — a break from the longstanding principles of the Hyde Amendment.

 

The order does nothing at all to mitigate the other
abortion-related problems described in the NRLC letter, dealing with bill provisions that create dangerous regulatory mandate authorities, revise Indian health programs, and create pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by existing restrictions on funding of abortion.  Nor can the order correct the omission from the pending legislation of the necessary conscience-protection language that had been included in House-passed health care legislation last November (the "Weldon language").

 

For additional information regarding the abortion-related components of the legislation, and NRLC’s assessment of the gravity of these issues, please refer to the March 19 letter linked above, and other materials posted on the NRLC website at

www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html.

 

For
interviews on this issue, please call the NRLC Communications Department at (202) 626-8825.

To go to the Abortion in Health Care index, click here.

To go to the NRLC Home page, click
here.
To go to the NRLC Legislative Action Center, click
here.

Popularity: 25% [?]

Here’s why the Executive Order is a sham - does anyone really believe that Obama would give on the abortion issue when Pelosi would not? (from National Review Online - the Corner)

The Order [Yuval Levin]

Upon first hearing there was talk of an executive order yesterday, I wondered how the administration’s lawyers thought such an order could go beyond the letter of the law in restricting abortion funding. This was a question the Bush administration examined quite extensively on several occasions, and the lawyers involved always agreed that the legal precedents from the time between the Roe decision and passage of the Hyde amendment, as well as some after the Hyde amendment, are extremely clear in stating that federal funds cannot be denied to the provision of abortion except by explicit legislative prohibition. That’s why the Hyde amendment was necessary. But the Hyde amendment wouldn’t apply to this bill, since it applies only to the annual HHS appropriations bill. Hence Stupak’s concern. So what could the White House possibly give Stupak that would not be thrown out by any federal judge in a second?

Looking at the executive order (which you can read here), the answer is clearly nothing. The executive order quite literally does nothing that the Senate bill does not already do, and it is careful to say as much. It offers a kind of narrative of what champions of the bill claim it does with regard to abortion (claims that Rep. Stupak among others has disputed for months), and then says the executive branch will make various people aware of this understanding of what the law says. It orders no action (only the usual promulgation of regulations the law requires anyway) and offers no interpretation beyond that.

If Rep. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats were not satisfied with the protections against taxpayer funding of abortion in the Senate bill (as they rightly were not), there is simply nothing in the text of the order that should change their minds.

Even if the Executive Order did provide any protection, Obama is the abortion president - this is like the fox volunteering to guard the hen house. If this has ANY effect at all, you can guarantee that within a year (or at least by the time it becomes justiciable) (i) a court will explicitly disregard it, or (ii) Obama will state that it needs to be “modified” or terminated entirely as its effects are too harsh on women, etc. It will only take one small congressional hearing with a few women who claim they couldn’t kill their unborn babies without federal money and what a tragedy it is, before Obama will trash the rule.

Popularity: 24% [?]

The Catholic Medical Association’s Response:

As the Democrat party accelerates efforts to enact comprehensive health-care legislation before the Easter recess, the Catholic Health Association, leaders of women’s religious orders, and academics at Catholic institutions have endorsed Senate bill H.R. 3590 and called for the House of Representatives to pass this bill as-is. In so doing, they have intentionally and publicly contradicted the policy position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) agrees with the conclusion of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M., that these groups “have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation’s Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill.” Should this political ploy prove successful in persuading some legislators to vote for this flawed bill, these individuals and groups will have done a grave disservice to human dignity and to the common good of this nation.

Senate bill H.R. 3590 is a substantially flawed and unacceptable piece of legislation. Its policy positions on abortion and conscience rights alone warrant rejecting the entire bill. The evidence is clear that:

* The Stupak amendment is absolutely essential if massive new funding of abortion is to be prevented;
* Governmental subsidies for abortion increase the abortion rate;
* Senate bill H.R. 3590 provides multiple new streams of funding for abortion;
* Key proponents of abortion, including President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry Waxman and Kathleen Sebelius, specifically reject the Stupak amendment and understand that Senate bill H.R. 3590 effectively circumvents its provisions;
* Senate bill H.R. 3590 does not include the most fundamental conscience rights protection under current law – the Hyde-Weldon amendment’s protection against being coerced to participate in abortion by a governmental entity;
* Senate bill H.R. 3590 requires all enrollees in health insurance plans covering abortion to pay, separately and exclusively, for abortions obtained by other plan participants.

Given this evidence above, it is difficult to understand how some Catholics could lobby in favor of such legislation. Given the significance of the issues at stake, and the consistent, compelling policy guidance provided by the U.S. bishops on these matters, publicly opposing and/or undermining the U.S. bishops at this time is imprudent and uncharitable.

The CMA holds that there are multiple other serious failings in the health-care legislation and legislative process of the last year. To name only three:

* Senate and House legislation relies heavily on the federal government to dictate solutions for the real problems in U.S. health-care financing and delivery, an approach that is flawed in principle and ineffective, if not dangerous, in practice. Such an approach would violate the principle of subsidiarity further undermine the physician-patient relationship, and represent a failure to learn from the ongoing systemic problems affecting Medicare and Medicaid.
* Senate bill H.R. 3590 refuses to make any advance in effecting a more just and constructive solution to the health care access challenges faced by immigrants.
* The current legislative approach is unsustainable from an economic standpoint. Enacting it would represent not only poor stewardship, but an injustice to future generations.

Given the considerations presented above, the Catholic Medical Association calls upon all Catholics, particularly those who have recently lobbied publicly in favor of H.R. 3590, to demonstrate unity and charity in opposing the central flaws in current legislation and in working together to achieve authentic health-care reform in a timely manner.

Founded in 1932, the Catholic Medical Association is the largest association of Catholic physicians in North America. CMA represents more that 1,400 national-level medical professionals and many more Catholic physicians and health care providers at the local level. For more information, go to www.cathmed.org.

Popularity: 25% [?]

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL ON ABORTION?
A response to Professor Jost

Popularity: 25% [?]

(update. Here’s a link to the Bishop’s reply to this type of “Catholic” support of the bill: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/USCCBrebuttalToJostOnHR3590.pdf It destroys Sr. Keehan’s logic)

From LifeNews.com:

The Catholic Health Association, the national group of Catholic hospitals and other facilities and headed by Sr. Keehan, came out in support of pro-abortion ObamaCare:

Catholic Health Association Endorses Pro-Abortion Senate Health Care Bill

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 12, 2010

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Catholic Health Association is coming under fire today for releasing a statement not only endorsing the pro-abortion Senate health care bill but issuing a misleading statement making it appear the bill does not fund abortions. The head of a national pro-life organization disabused the CHA in response.

Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, a network of Catholic hospitals, issued the new statement.

“The time is now for health reform,” the statement backing the bill said.

Keehan recalled how, earlier this month, she watched pro-abortion President Barack Obama make the case for the bill and she agreed with him that it deserves support.

Although she admitted the bill is far from perfect, Keehan said the measure, which funds abortions and promotes abortions, “is an historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans.”

What Sister doesn’t tell you, because she is either politically naive or woefully ignorant, is that Obamacare may very well force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or shut down entirely:

“The Senate bill lacks language to protect health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions (known as the “Weldon language”), even though such language was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was included in Speaker Pelosi’s original bill even before adoption of the Stupak Amendment. (See Section 259 of the House-passed H.R. 3962.) Yet, because such language is offensive to the pro-abortion lobby, it was excluded from the Senate bill. A vote for the Senate bill is a vote to abandon the strong position that the House took in favor of protecting the conscience rights of pro-life health care providers.”

(From Douglas Johnson’s detailed analysis of the pro-abortion bill.)

Think this is crazy? A similar shut down has already occurred with Catholic adoption agencies who have been forced to shut down by the State because Catholic teaching forbids them from placing children in a homosexual lifestyle mandated by the state.

Sr. is showing her political naivete and complete ignorance not only the consequences of this provision, but the other voluminous abortion provisions of ObamaCare. The problems go well beyond funding of abortions: