28 September 2013

The feast of St Michael and the Archangels

Sounds a bit like the name of a band.

As St Michael is the patron of my archdiocese, the Cardinal has ordered it to be celebrated as a special solemnity.

The archdiocese blog has an article up about a statue of St Michael that stands in the lobby of St Michael's hospital, known as the urban angel.

The artist and date of creation of the statue are unknown, but the name of 'Pietrasanta' chiselled on the back of the statue indicates the stone is from the same quarry in Italy where Michelangelo procured the marble for his famous 'Pieta'.

How the statue made its way to Canada is unclear, but what we do know is that during the latter part of the 19th century the Sisters of St. Joseph found this statue, dirty and blackened, in a second-hand store on Queen Street. Recognizing its value, they wisely bought it for the sum of $49 – money they had accumulated from the sale of old newspapers.


This statue is more to my idea of how a statue of St Michael should appear than the one over the Cathedral entrance, although I have made my peace with that one.  For some reason, I have always thought of St Michael as a kind of Super Hero out of a comic book, carrying a fearsome sword, his eyes flashing.

In the old testament the angels are frequently scary.  They are God's messengers, but the message they deliver is often: "you're dead."  There is a reason why Gabriel's first words to Mary are "Don't be afraid! I bring you good news."

St Michael, guard this diocese and its people.  With your sword drive the enemy from us.

St Michael the archangel, defend us in battle.  Be our protection from the wickedness and snares of the devil.  May God rebuke him, we humbly pray.  Do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God thrust into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander the world for the ruin of men's souls.  Amen.

27 September 2013

One of the better fruits of the Big Interview...

Is that it has brought out another post by one of my favourite bloggers, Dale Price. Dale zeroes in on one part of the interview that no one else has mentioned or brought up. Here is the quote from Francis:

It is amazing to see the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy that come to Rome. I think the cases should be investigated by the local bishops’ conferences, which can get valuable assistance from Rome. These cases, in fact, are much better dealt with locally. The Roman congregations are mediators; they are not middlemen or managers.

I can understand Francis' amazement over the denunciations that come to Rome. I imagine a great many of them are frivolous, and the amazement on the behalf of those who have to read the denunciations amounts to: "Seriously?"

I wonder if this is a case of Francis speaking to the middle way again. It has been pointed out copiously that Francis is not saying never speak of Abortion or Gay Marriage again, but that we must speak of it in a context. The problem I have got from this interview is rhetorical: Francis will state one extremity and then say we have to guide ourselves on the middle way, but without stating the other extremity. Unfortunately, if it is the middle way, it is also it is not balanced by the opposing extreme. So, contrary to what many are saying, Francis is not endorsing the left.  But because all his rebukes, all the positions he explicitly rejects, are on the right, that is what he seems to be doing.  We are not told what two points we are guiding ourselves between. So yes, I will readily agree that many, perhaps almost all the complaints that come to Rome merit amazement. Are they the only ones?

Are we now to be handed over to our conferences? We have always been told, and I believe even in Canon law, that, if all else fails, we may seek redress from Rome itself. That has always been a comfort. 

26 September 2013

Today is the feast of the Canadian Martyrs

Among my favourite saints. I have been to the shrine and St Marie among the Hurons (a kind of pioneer village reconstructed on their site) many times.

My old parish used to have a statue of the Canadian martyrs, as one of the old side altars had been dedicated to them. The previous priest used to get many requests from other priests to "borrow" the statue. His reply was always "Not unless you want another Canadian martyr."
Ht Fr.Z.  Yeah, I still drop by from time to time.  

In answer to Tom of NY's question at that site (sorry, I never asked for commenting privileges there): The photo comes from St Patrick's basilica in Montreal, one of my favourite churches. They have over two hundred such images lining the church, and visitors often walk around the walls trying to find their patron, or their favourite.

23 September 2013

21 September 2013

Addendum to the Kerfuffle over Francis' interview,

I have read on several conservative blogs that people wish Francis would just shut up and stop giving interviews, because he is so unlike Benedict, who never got into any trouble because the media took his remarks out of context in order to push their own agenda.

Ummmm.... really? Remember the Regensberg Address? That peculiar remark over condoms? About a hundred other comments? Only then it was the liberal wing of the Church who thought the Pope was an old fuddy duddy who should just shut up and collect his pay cheque.

Once again I am struck by the fundamental unity in attitude of those on the left and those on the right.

Update: Ove the last few days I have notived something in the wake of this cataclysmic, world altering interview: for the most part, the average Catholic is neither aware of the interview, nor cares. There are times I wish I was still one of them.

It is now impossible to distinguish reality from parody in Canadian politics

Justin Trudeau, leader of the federal Liberal party, recently commented that politicians are less trusted than used car salesmen and journalists. After being upbraided by the head of the used car association for besmirching their profession and for using the sexist term "salesman" Trudeau apologized to the post original consumer vehicular saleshumans on twitter, and later notes that if he were a used car salesentity, he wouldn't want to be compared to politicians, either.

The utterly bizarre thing is that I can see the point.

20 September 2013

Encountering reality

Time for another Pop Quiz!

Consider the two following statements:

A:  The Church is more than just what the Pope says.
B.  The Pope is speaking!  Why is no one listening to him?

When and by whom were these two statements made?

1 A was made by liberal Catholics, and B by conservative ones during the pontificate of  Benedict?

or

2. A was made by conservatives and B by Liberals in the wake of Francis' recent interview?

Give up?  Or can you guess that this was a trick question?

In the day and a bit that has passed since the interview was released we have seen the spectacle of those who thought the Pope should be absolutely obeyed when the Pope was Benedict now tying themselves into knots over how they can ignore the current Pope along with those who thought the Pope could be ignored under Benedict encouraging all Catholics to suddenly and spontaneously develop an utter fidelity to the will of Pope Francis.

Most bloggers out there are trying to tell people the obvious: that the media cherry picked a few quotes, took them out of context and ran with them to try and get this pope to say what they wanted him to say.  Others are in despair or elation, because they either a. believe the media; or b. have cherry picked their own quotes and took them out of context and ran with them to try and get this pope to say what they feared/hoped he would say.

What I am getting from this phenomena of reactions to the interview is that, first and foremost, the left and right wings of the Church are more alike than most people would think.  The other thing that is called to mind is the old story of the blind men and the elephant.

You should know the story, but for those who don't, it goes like this.  One day, a group of blind men were told there was an elephant near their village.  The blind men went out from their village to touch this animal they had heard so much about, so they might know it better.

The first blind man reached out and touched the elephant's trunk.  "I see now!" he exclaimed.  "The elephant is a snake."

The second blind man touched the elephant's tusk.  "Ah, now I understand.," he said.  "The elephant is a spear."

The third man touched the ear, and immediately understood that the elephant was a kind of leaf.  The next touched the side and knew perfectly that the elephant was a wall, while the man after him touched the leg and realised the elephant was a tree.  The last man touched the tail, and from that point onward knew the elephant to be a rope.

After they had all touched the elephant, the blind men began to argue among themselves as to what the elephant was.  None would budge or listen to the others, for they all knew they were right.  And they were right, but they were also wrong.

So it is with so many Catholics today.  The Church is like that elephant, and we are like the blind men.  We have each touched our part of the Church, and either through ignorance we know of no other part, or through will we desire that there be nothing other than the Church we have seen or even wish to see.  We are not wrong in the part of the Church we have seen: or mistake is in desiring or believe that part to be the only one.  But there is much more to the Church than any one man can see and understand in his whole lifetime. Our Pope's touch on their part as well.  John Paul II was a missionary without compare in our history- he believed that if the world could not come to Rome, then Rome should come to the world, and he did.  Benedict believed that we had lost touch with our roots and needed to be reminded of who we are and from whence we have come, and so he did. Francis is still shaping his pontificate, but he has seen his part, and is framing his direction around it.

Encountering a reality with which we are unfamiliar, or one which is often unwelcome to us is an uncomfortable experience, and we like our comfort.  Being reminded that our worldview is not definitive, or even complete, bothers us. Popes come around and shake up our comfort, and I believe that is exactly what they should do.  They present the faith to us again in new ways, that we may learn it anew.  We should listen to Francis and all our Popes and hear what they have to say even though it may seem strange to us- especially though it seems strange to us-  that we may know our Church better and not isolate ourselves in our little piece of it, ignorant utterly of the vast and greater part of it.

17 September 2013

Looking for signs

This Sunday past I took my mother for another one of our little drives.  We went to see St Mary's, Our Lady of Seven Sorrows in Kitchener.  The church was celebrating the feast day of their patroness, but it is a day of special significance because of the peculiar "phenomena" that occurs at this church every year on this day.

As the sun sets, around seven o'clock or so, the rays of the setting sun pass through a tiny piece of red glass in one of the stained glass windows, and the red light lands precisely on the sword pierced heart of the statue of Mary on the high altar.  (The high altar is, by the way, one of the Durrer altars I have mentioned previously.)  The church tells the story of the phenomena as well as the story of a miracle that may be associated with that same statue here.

Because it was a Sunday, the parish turned it into an all day event.  They had rosary followed by exposition, followed by benediction followed by a modified rosary to our Lady of the Seven Sorrows, followed by Mass at seven o'clock.  Also because it was a Sunday, they expected a larger than usual crowd.

I think they got a wee bit more than they anticipated.  The church was almost packed when Mom and I arrived around four the parking lot was nearly full.  There were school buses bringing people in.  Word about the phenomena had gotten out, and people were travelling some distance to come and see this, some kind of sign.

The sign was not to come this time, however.  Though the weatherman called for cloudy with intermittent sunny periods, the day was miserable and rainy, and the cloud cover never broke, not even once.  (I plan on inaugurating a "slug a weatherman" day, real soon.)

And yet, the people stayed.  There was a crowd when we arrived, and people still kept coming, filling the church to its absolute maximum capacity and beyond.  They stayed through the exposition and the benediction, and they stayed through the prayers and they stayed through the Mass, even though it was obvious no sign would be coming.


A few notes about some things from that day.

At one point, I went to the washroom in the basement.  As was usual, there was a very long line to get into the women's washroom, but, unusually, there was also a short line to get into the men's.  We stood there grumbling about how long this was taking as we hopped from foot to foot, (the women who were beside us in their own line were blandly unsympathetic) and someone commented that whoever was in there was acting like a woman.  And then the door opened, and out came... a woman.  She had gotten tired of waiting in her line and jumped the queue to use ours.  Is that fair?

I would be remiss not to mention the music.  I have of late tried to mostly shut out the music that is sung at church, for I often find myself rating the music and the performance, which is contrary to the spirit of worship.  One should come to Mass as a humble believer, not as an arrogant critic.  Having said that, I will say this much: I did not have high expectations for the music.  Almost all the choirs I have heard sing Mass have been composed of a small group of well meaning souls who are doing their very best to sing for the Glory of God.  Occasionally they even sing in tune.  On rare occasions I have heard a good choir.  However, this choir was excellent and their choice in music was top notch.  They sang Elgar Ave Verum, and Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, and a series of chants and settings with which I was not entirely familiar.  Even the more standard Catholic hymns seemed to have been rearranged by the director and sounded far better than I have almost ever heard before.  Full praise is due to both the director and the choir.

When Mass was over, the church had been so filled that mother and I remained seated for five minutes or more while the Organist hammered out some Bach for the postlude.   I wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway while that was playing, but the point was we couldn't because of the size of the crowd streaming out past us. 

It was a wonderful day.  Mother liked the day immensely, and we both felt uplifted by partaking in the event.  We may not have seen the phenomena, but I believe we saw something greater: a church filled with people worshipping God, staying even though it was obvious the sign they came to see was not going to happen.  

12 September 2013

Pop quiz

As of writing this, I have had one comment on the last seven posts. Quick, without looking down, guess which post merited a comment. Was it

1. The post about the church that, seemingly against the odds, is bringing people and altar boys out to Mass even on weeknights?

2. The post about a newish blog about Catholic men, with ruminations about a man whom I believe to be an example of what Catholic men can be?

3. The post about Mom's prayer being answered, along with a punchline by yours truly?

4. A post about how I believe Fr. Z. unfairly and unjustly blew off a reader who wanted to know how to politely approach a priest?

5. The beer sign?

6. A post about the death penalty that began with a conservative minded priest demonstrating to his readers how they too can get around difficult Church teachings?

7. A post about the start of the hockey season with a few gratuitous shots at the Leafs?

It was the Leafs that mattered enough for someone to read and comment. The beer sign didn't get any comments, although two people thought it to be funny.

It is time, it is past time for me to rethink this blog. I was always told for years and years "just write about what is important to you, and the audience will come." But that's a lie. I have rejection slips and the nightmare of trying to get my dissertation topic approved to show for it. I have this blog to show for it. I am alone. I cannot, for the life of me, come up with a topic or a theme that anyone else cares about. My thought are of interest to almost no one but myself and it is time I kept them there.

But hey, how 'bout them Leafs?

11 September 2013

Hockey season will be starting soon

Which means it is time for Leafs fans to start deluding themselves into thinking their team has a chance this year, followed by the inevitable disappointment, followed by recriminations, followed by hopes that things will be better next year.

I am reminded of two jokes:

One: Q: Why is the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto?
A: So Toronto fans can have a chance to see the Cup, too.

Two: The Leafs are like the Titanic: they both look good until they hit the ice.

Something I saw last Friday.

Last Friday evening Puff and I revisited an old church about 40 minutes to the northwest. We wanted to see if what we encountered on a Friday night a month or so earlier had been a fluke.

The church sits in the middle of nothing. There is nothing around it but trees and grass and rolling farmland. The interior looks to me as though the church is recovering from some rather bad renovations of the seventies and eighties. The walls are painted a kind of light purplish grey. There is a fair amount of stencilling but the colours are light pastels, so instead of popping out the stencilling just bleeds into the wall colour, faint and indistinct.

The sanctuary suffers from the same blandness as the rest of the church. The high altar has been removed, as have any paintings that may once have been there, and the only decoration is a large and beautiful crucifix. The tabernacle has been moved to right of the sanctuary, where I imagine was once a side altar, but I can't tell for sure. There is more of the stencilling around the tabernacle, but, as I said, it is indistinct. Oddly, there is no decoration on the left of the sanctuary save for a statue, so the sanctuary has an asymmetrical, unbalanced look. Had we come to see a beautiful preserved old church, we would have been disappointed.

But we hadn't. None of this is of any significance compared to the other things that we saw there, and the reason why we came. For on this Friday, like the other Friday night we had gone to visit this church, we saw the most amazing thing: people. On a Friday night about forty people had come to make this church to worship. The church appeared to be about a third full, or what my church is on a Sunday morning. They were of all ages, though it seemed most were fairly young and I saw quite a few families with teenagers. At church on a Friday evening. At a church that is in the middle of nothing, which means pretty much everyone there had to get themselves and their kids into their cars and drive there.

And- what was perhaps most amazing of all- I saw altar boys, four of them, serving the altar. Did I mention this was a Friday night? There were also four altar boys the previous time we visited, and that was on a Friday night in the summer. At my own church there were no altar servers for the nine o'clock Sunday morning mass for almost the entire summer, but somehow this priest and these faithful managed to pull together four boys on a weeknight. After Mass was benediction and adoration, as befits a first Friday. Almost everyone stayed for that, too.

The parish also serves two mission churches, which means that father is a very busy man. One of the missions is the home of perpetual adoration. It has been going on for some time.

Sometimes on a Sunday morning I look around my church and see it half empty or more, with most of the congregation elderly and very few families. It makes me fearful of the future. But this little church to the north gives me a glimmer of hope. There are people willing to take time out and spend it with God. And may of them are young and teaching their children to do the same. The priest and congregation of that parish are building something wonderful: a future.

And if they ever want to have a new high altar built for them, I know someone who has a little experience building small ones and would love the chance to do something bigger. For a reasonable fee, of course.

10 September 2013

Late to the party. Again.

I run into a (relatively) new blog, The Catholic Gentleman. It is a worthy read with a worthy goal- encouraging men to return to the church, and reminding them that it is not unmanly to be holy. In fact, nothing could be manlier.

In a similar vein is a website to which i have belonged for year, The Art of Manliness, dedicated to the last arts of being men. The site has a discussion forum as well as many groups including a group dedicated to Catholic Men. The site isn't perfect, but neither ware we. If you think you can help make it better, join.

All too often, the only image men get of saints, including or perhaps especially the male ones, is that of a rosy cheeked plaster statue- a high minded eunuch. That the saints represented by these statues was nothing of the sort does not matter if the statue is all that men see. We need to remember what it is to be men, and that the heart of manliness is in virtue (which is really just the Latin word for manliness). A male without virtue is no man but a mere beast.

Having said that, I saw the other day that the new season of Ice Road Truckers is on the air, and one of my favourite TV guys, Alex Debogorski, is still on the show. He is a man's man. He is big, gruff, rough around the edges, has a belly laugh so infectious it has become a ring tone, as politically incorrect as they come, visits sick people in hospital in his spare time, has about eleven kids, and is a devout Catholic. In the premier this season he is introduced in church on his knees praying. While driving he frequently crosses himself and prays "Jesus, I trust in thee" when he is about to go into danger, which, in his job, is all the time. Is he perfect? Under no circumstances. But he, like the blog and the forums at the Art of Manliness, reminds me that it is possible to be a Catholic and to be a man at the same time.

8 September 2013

Mom's friends in the highest places

Last night was the annual party among family and friends of Mother, the Corn Roast.

(Note: no corn is actually roasted on this night. It is a hamburger and hot dog barbecue with lots of boiled corn and a dessert table that sags under the weight of the goodies. I suppose "corn roast" has a better ring to it than "corn boil".)

The invitations went out weeks in advance. Preparations were made. And then, on the day of the party, rain. Solid, unyielding rain. The weatherman said it would not let up until long after dark.

My sister and I went to mother to discuss the weather.

Us: Mother, the weather is terrible. We should start calling people up and cancelling tonight.

Mother: No. I and my friends at church have been praying for good weather and I have faith the rain will stop before five.

She would not be swayed. So we continued getting ready for a party we were sure would be ruined by rain, when, at about four to four thirty, the rain slowed to a trickle, then stopped. A light breeze picked up and began drying off the yard. The weatherman was still telling us to expect rain into the night.

Mother, to me: See?

Me: Indeed I do. (pause.) Do you think you and your friends could pray over my lottery numbers?

3 September 2013

No one picks on my guys but me

When I was a kid my elder brother used to beat the snot out of me regularly, but woe betide anyone other than him who laid a hand on me. Then I was his kid brother.

In later years, I witnessed various groups of people who would rip each other to shreds and stab each other in the back when absent, but who would still come together when someone other than a member of their group attacked one of their own to defend that person, often employing tactics that would make the scorched earth policy seem tame.

I thought of that when, against my better judgement I decided to drop by Fr. Z's site today. Z. has shown no compunction in the past about levelling heavy criticism against priests, bishops and cardinals. Today, a parishioner wrote in to explain three problems they have with their priest, and wanted to know how they should address these problems. Here's the guts of the letter:

I have 3 problems with him. 1) he is always late for mass 2) he is a mediocre preacher and seems to be making it up as he goes along 3) he drives a brand new Mercedes. How can he look us in the eye and ask us for money to support the parish when he drives a car that costs more than I make in a year??

My question is: How does one tactfully tell him that we expect more, that we deserve his full and timely attention?

Is this person nitpicking? Perhaps. Perhaps not so much. I'll get to that at the end. However, first, here's Father's response:

Must… Breathe … Deeply… In… Out… In… Out…

How do you tactfully tell him what “WE” want or what “YOU” want?

You DON’T!

I’ll tell you what to tell him. How about “Thank you, Father, for Mass!” How about “Thank you, Father, for saying ‘Yes’ to your vocation!” How about, “Father, I said my Rosary for you today!” How about, “Is there anything that is needed in the sacristy? My friends and I will help set up before Mass.”

He then concludes by reprinting the old story about the perfect priest, which, I admit, is funny. However, in this context the message is clear. You don't know what a priest goes through and the unreasonable demands put upon priests by their parishioners, so just shut up. The only one who gets to beat up on priests around here is me.

In short, he blows the person off. Which, I suppose, is to be expected. My wife and I have written letters to the diocese about priests who invent new ceremonies and preach heresies and have been blown off. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, the bishop or his flunky tell us, now PFO. The clergy, it seems, protects its own and will tolerate no criticism from outside the circle. The person who wrote to Fr. Z. wanted to know how to tactfully address some issues, but they went to the wrong person. Of all the things for which Z. is known, tact is not among them. Plus, he is clergy, and does not take criticism of clergy from the lay lightly.

I have some sympathy for some of the points raised by both people. Though I have criticised him (and will do so again real soon), I do agree with Fr. Z. for much of what he says. My mother used to tell me when I was bored at Mass, or that I didn't like for such and such for whatever reason, she would tell me to be grateful we have a priest, that we could go to Mass and to offer it up for the poor suffering souls in Purgatory. And I did. I still do. Frequently.

When I was younger, I considered joining the clergy, but ultimately decided against it. One of the things that made me decide against it was the fact that I was aware in a small way, of the amount of criticism priests faced from their congregation. Every move, every word, every gesture was weighed and evaluated and seen in the worst possible light. (Incidentally, similar reasoning made me decide not to try and go into teaching. The idea of facing parents on Parent/Teacher nights was just something I was unwilling to face.)

But let's look at the points raised by the parishioner. First, father is always late for Mass. What they don't say is why he is late for Mass. They also don't say how late. If he is late because he is administering to two or more parishes, and he is just racing in from a previous Mass, then I would say this complaint is mostly frivolous, and worthy of Fr. Z.'s dismissal. The solution would be to schedule Mass fifteen minutes or so later to give father a little more time to arrive. Bring it up at the next parish council meeting. If, however, this is his only parish and he lives in the rectory and he is more than a minute or two tardy in starting the Mass, then I would say this is more serious. It would appear that Father cannot be bothered to come to church on time and start Mass and the writer would be justified in approaching father and asking why.

Father's tardiness would be especially trying for families. Speaking from experience, getting the family up, out of bed and through the door to make it to Mass on time is difficult at best. It is hard enough to convince one's children that this is important when you are the one setting an example. But when Father himself can't seem to be bothered to rise and shine on time, when he himself doesn't act like it is important enough to be on time, then convincing the family gets that much harder.

The second point, that his homilies are not prepared and badly done, seems to be endemic. Most of the priests I have known are not very good preachers, and some of them were awful. Around here, almost all of them insist on starting with a joke, even, and I kid you not, on Good Friday. I often hear priests whose first language is not English give homilies that are frankly incomprehensible. I have unfortunately come to regard the homily as an almost irrelevant part of the Mass. This is a suck it up moment, give thanks that at least we have a priest, etc.

Lastly, the guy drives a luxury car. This is a little bit thornier. On the one hand, the writer pointed out that father did have a life before he became a priest, and this car may be a relic of that previous life. He may also have been successful and have a healthy bank account. It would not be sensible to tell father to give up the car he already has to get a worse one. On the other hand, it does look bad to have a priest ask for more money from parishioners when he has a car none of them could afford. It is unfortunate, but appearances do matter. A priest who indulges in their taste for the finer, more expensive things in life will not find the congregation made up of people who are constantly tightening their belts to make ends meet sympathetic to his appeals for more money.

At this point I was originally going to write a response to Fr. Z.'s comment that we should give thanks for priests. We should, I was going to say, but I was going to continue on to say that priests should also give thanks for us. We have faced terrible priests and bishops, inept and incompetent, occasionally criminal, and arrogant and dismissive of us. Frequently we find ourselves going to church not because of the priests but despite them. It was a long rant, and I was smugly impressed with my spleen. It was the kind of thing that draws in readers and gets comments- you know, the sort of thing I don't get. But then I changed my mind and removed it. It is unworthy of a Catholic to try and raise barriers between members, or to set one member against another, or to hold a grudge.

Instead, I will say that we should be grateful for each other. Grateful that there are still a few, too few, men who heed the call and enter the priesthood, and still a few, too few, who still show up and worship God in our churches. We should be respectful of one another, but that also means we should be able ask questions respectfully of each other, and get meaningful answers. It would not be wrong to enquire of father why he is tardy, and if there is anything that could be done to help. I am at a loss as to suggest how the other issues may be approached, (although I might be inclined to one day admire father's car and say "Nice car, father! How did you get it?") but certainly the parishioner's concern merited more than a blowoff with contempt. We should all remember that we are in this together, and that we need each other. We should act like we all matter.

1 September 2013

The Prudence of Slaughter.

Yesterday, Puff got into a debate on Facebook with a priest on the subject of capital punishment. The priest thought some guy down in the States should be fried at the earliest possible convenience, apparently with maximal cruelty. When Puff pointed out that the Catechism of the Church states that the death penalty is to be avoided if at all possible, he responded that this was prudential judgement.

I see several issues here: First, the Catechism. Second, prudential judgement. Third, the Death Penalty, and my own opinions pertaining thereto, because, hey, this is my blog.

So first, the Catechism:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent
.

Fairly straightforward. The only acceptable reason for the death penalty is if there is no other way to protect people. "Guy has it coming" is not an acceptable reason.

Second: Prudential Judgement. I admit I am not entirely certain what this phrase means, although I have seen it used many, many times. Thus, even though I am not entirely certain what a prudential judgement means, I can tell how it is used. It is used almost exclusively by those who consider themselves to be politically right wing, and they use it in almost the exact same way that left wingers use the phrase "primacy of conscience": as a way to blow off a teaching of the Church with which they disagree, or perhaps find inconvenient.

Both those who identify themselves as left and those who identify as right wingers should understand that the Church is neither left nor right. Further, they should stop trying to force the Catechism to say what they want it to say and instead see what it does say, and, above all, stop teaching others how to get around the teachings they do not like. The Church's teaching here is difficult, and it calls upon the faithful to be wise and to weigh matters as best they might before deciding. Difficult teachings are the ones we are most inclined to blow off or at least sidestep. They are also the ones we should heed the most.

Finally, me. I have heard of the stories of many heinous murders, and know that monsters walk among us. I know the names of many of these monsters and their victims, and there are times when I wish upon them the most gruesome forms of vengeance my mangled soul can devise that the darkness they visited upon the innocent of this world may be doubly redoubled upon them.

But I also know other stories and other names. I know Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, David Milgard, and yes, Steven Truscott. All innocent men who were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by their peers, and sentence to long terms in prison, and all innocent of the charges levied against them. When I think of their stories, I am profoundly grateful that Canada has abolished the death penalty.

Crimes are committed by people, then investigated by people, and judged by people. Mistakes are sometimes made. Occasionally, we send the wrong person to jail. If we had the death penalty, it is inevitably that we would from time to time kill an innocent. I find that unacceptable. It is a terrible thing to lock up an innocent man, but at least there is time to review the case, realise the mistake, and restore the man to society as best we can. There is no restoration for the dead, and an apology to a corpse is nothing but a most bitter irony.

At its heart, the Church's teaching on the death penalty is minimalist. It may be used only in extreme situations, and only if there is no other way. Those who, like the good father, endorse the death penalty, tend to be maximalist: kill early, kill fast, kill often. This they call prudential judgement. I can not believe it is so. There is no prudential judgement for slaughter.

I also believe priests should not be teaching others ways to ignore the Church's teaching.